Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should Release Long-Form Birth Certificate

By
Monday, September 28, 2009 at 2:06 pm

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) accidentally walked into the world of “birther” conspiracy theories last month, when a local newspaper seemed to report that Franks was considering a lawsuit against the president. Franks cleared the matter up immediately: He had merely considered suing for proof of the president’s citizenship before and after the 2008 election, but balked after becoming convinced that the president was born in America.

At the How to Take Back America Conference in St. Louis, I talked to Franks and asked if he wanted to clear the air on the whole controversy. He jumped at the chance, explaining that he had always known that “it would hurt me politically, people would say ‘he’s a right-wing wacko’” if he filed a lawsuit. The president, said Franks, is American, “even if he acts un-American.” But he should release his long-form birth certificate.

Probably, Barack Obama could solve this problem and make the birthers, you know, back off, by simply showing us his long-form birth certificate. That’d solve the problem. There’s some other issue, I don’t know what it is, that he doesn’t want people to see the birth certificate on.

Video after the jump:

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Comments

1,598 Comments

Tweets that mention The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should Release Long-Form Birth Certificate -- Topsy.com
Pingback posted September 28, 2009 @ 2:12 pm

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMC Member Feed and Mary Arbogast. Mary Arbogast said: Questions still swirl…Rep.Trent Franks: Obama Should Release Long-Form Birth Certificate http://bit.ly/RaRf7 Not-so-crazy 2 C college recs [...]


Rep. Franks still wants Obama’s ‘long form’ birth certificate | Obama Biden White House
Pingback posted September 28, 2009 @ 3:36 pm

[...] a video interview with The Washington Independent’s Dave Weigel, Franks, who has flirted a bit with the birther [...]


Fear of Fascism, ‘Gay Agenda’ Dominates Conservative Kickoff for Midterm Elections | GSA Schedule Services
Pingback posted September 28, 2009 @ 6:12 pm

[...] Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who had pondered a lawsuit over the president’s citizenship, told TWI he had no doubts about Obama’s citizenship, but suspected that something was being hidden by concealing the original 1961 document on file in [...]


JenSizedNet » Blog Archive » Acting American.
Pingback posted September 28, 2009 @ 6:28 pm

[...] Weigel of the Washingon Independent talked to Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, who made headlines not long ago when he was rumored to be legally [...]


RedGraham
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 6:29 pm

Obviously that original longform BC (if it really does exist) would show that Obama's father was a Brit & hence that Obama was a Brit or at best a dual-citizen. It would show that BHO-SR was biracial & that Obama2 is less than half-black. It would also shed some light on just which hospital The Great Usurper was born in or at least which country. Then the Indonesian adoption/citizenship question will need to be addressed.


Jim
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

Ho hum…at it again Red? It is no secret that Obama's father was Kenyan with a British Citizenship, Obama himself says so. BTW, if you blowers are so interested in keeping race out of this, I wouldn't mention it and then complain when we point out how it shows your bigotry. Obama was born in Hawaii, according to the great state of Hawaii. He was born an american citizen and only HE could renounce it after his 18th birthday…so whether or not he was adopted has no affect on his citizenship. And, finally, the only thing that needs to be addressed is why they don't limit people like you at the nut home to crayons and paper and quit letting you fill your delusions on a computer.


BigGuy
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 6:41 pm

LOL, Red, there's no doubt that Obama's father was a Brit. Obama's race and the name of the hospital in which he was born are both irrelevant to his eligibility for the presidency. So there's really no reason to keep squawking about the “Long-Form Birth Certificate.”

And, as you have aptly shown, it wouldn't do any good anyway, because then you silly birthers would move on to another fantasy, the so-called “Indonesian adoption/citizenship question.”

Why is it that a year later you've still got nothing but pure speculation? Don't you think that, if there was anything to what you're saying, *some* credible evidence would have turned up by now?


Anteni
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

Trent Franks can pretend that he is not a birther because of the negative political ramification. However, his statement clearly shows that he is. If you accept something as being true, why would you want more information to support that it is true. It makes absolutely no sense. Within the context of people not accepting the presidents birth certificate, someone saying that the president is acting non-America could be considered that the president isn't America. Will these politicians really think before they speak.


Steve_X
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 7:18 pm

Franks, like most birfers, is lying through his teeth. There is no amount of evidence that'll make the birfers back off because they're just too stupid to accept reality.

At least he was honest about one thing: he is a right-wing wacko. Of course, since the Republican party is quickly becoming the party of right-wing wackos that news isn't as groundbreaking as it once would have been.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

Let me explain how this whole issue can be resolved.

The way we can do that is by using leverage: we force the MSM to cover this issue in an honest way; i.e., we get someone else to do the heavy lifting. The MSM has the resources to send people to HI or other countries, and they have the ability to reach millions of people with their reports. Obama's opponents don't have those resources, and few people are going to believe pure speculation that's posted on blogs.

With me so far?

OK, now here's how to force the MSM to do their job: show individual MSM reporters how their coverage of this issue is going to have an impact on their credibility and thus their careers. I discussed that here in the general case.

Now, see my coverage of this issue, which has focused on MSM and sub-MSM reporters lying and misleading about the cert issue. If I could get any help with my efforts, we could force one of those reporters listed to actually do their job and look into all the claims surrounding this issue in an honest fashion rather than the completely dishonest fashion they've so far engaged in.

For instance, if we could force CNN to correct their “debunking”, they'd look bad and so would all those who relied on their report.

As an extra bonus, that will help clean up the MSM and force them to offer more honest coverage of a wide range of issues.


Billy
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:27 am

borderraven, why do you hate America?


Trent Franks: Obama Should Release His Long-Form Birth Certificate (VIDEO) | Obama Biden White House
Pingback posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:27 pm

[...] Weigel of The Washington Independent caught up with Congressman Trent Franks (R-Az.) at the “How to Take Back America” conference and offered him a chance to put himself [...]


Jim
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 7:27 pm

Why would they even care to look at a debunked theory? Really, they can find many more things that are interesting than a few nuts who can't see the truth. The only bonus I could see is exposing you blowers for what you really are. They've already had a “Predator” series, I guess a “Blowers” series might be interesting…for about 5 minutes.


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:29 am

The decision of the President of the United States of America is not to bow down to traitors like you.


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:41 am

thesheriffsani, by far I am not a traitor, but you are not a patriot. Your faith in the political system, and you lack of skepticism, in this President are evidence.


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:44 am

Billy, I truly love America and I faithfully defend the US Constitution that forms our government, but also the Bill of Rights, which preserve our Liberty. I only wish you did too.


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:48 am

Citizenship is in many categories, but which will he be proven to be?


richardsh
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

There used to be day when if President of the United States was appearing to hide something that might materially effect his eligibility, the press would be all over like flies on sh*t. For those of you that enjoy bashing 'birthers' (btw, a denigrating term designed to create similarities to '911 truthers'), what is your agenda? You defend a document you have never seen as though you have seen it. To me, that is rather bizarre. Apparently, you have no intellectual curiousity.


Billy
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:50 am

No, you are lying. You hate it. You are not willing to respect our Constitution, our laws, or the workings of our courts.

Obama is our president, and all true Americans respect their president whether or not they agree with his policies.

You hate our country and we would be better off without you.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:55 am

Your imagination trying to make sense and losing it in a fog of blankness. Now you sound high. You from the 60′s or something. Never came down from the LSD?


mantis
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:00 pm

Let me explain how this whole issue can be resolved.

The afterbirthers will wake up from their delusions? Fat chance of that.


mantis
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:04 pm

There used to be day when if President of the United States was appearing to hide something that might materially effect his eligibility, the press would be all over like flies on sh*t.

Since he doesn't appear to be hiding anything to non-deranged people, I'd say that's a moot point.

For those of you that enjoy bashing 'birthers' (btw, a denigrating term designed to create similarities to '911 truthers'),

Well, I doubt that's what it's “designed” for, but the similarities are there. Truthers and birthers both believe ridiculous things with no evidence.

what is your agenda?

Amusing myself at the expense of silly lunatics on the intertrons. What's your agenda?

You defend a document you have never seen as though you have seen it.

I have never had a reason to defend a document. Is there some threat to the document? Is it going to be set on fire? I'll get a bucket of water.

To me, that is rather bizarre. Apparently, you have no intellectual curiousity.

Au contraire. I'm quite curious as to how you afterbirthers got the way you are. Did mom do a lot of acid while pregnant?


captainsteve
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

There are more logical questions than answers.

First, how did a dual citizen, who is not by definition “natural-born” or eligible to be president get on the ballot?

What hospital was he born in? Who were the witnesses? Who was the doctor? Those answers are only on the long-form (the one that is sealed, even though some say nothing is sealed). Some say it doesn’t exist. But if it doesn’t exist then what did the people see that makes them sure of his birthplace?

Three different COLBs (Certification of Live Birth (short-form)) have been posted online by Factcheck etc. The first 2 had issues and were replaced. The current one has issues too (too detailed for here).

Some sites have said they “examined” the document. Which one, since they are all different? Why are they all modified? Why not release it/them to some independent skeptics? Why not release the long-form?

Three different hospitals have some claim to his birth-place, two in Hawaii, One in Kenya.

Why spend millions of dollars in attorney fees to prevent all documents from being seen?

On top of that, exists the issue of his Kenyan/British father. The constitutional concept of natural-born citizenship was to prevent dual allegiances. Why was that never addressed? They did for McCain (whom I did not support either).

To me there are more serious questions than serious answers. . .so I continue the search. You can too by going to these links.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_…

http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewto…

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

OBAMA, STOP HIDING. SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND YOUR OTHER RECORDS!!!!!


Jim
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

Well, Orly is now officially not Capt Rhodes' lawyer anymore.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_ne…

Next, Orly gets to be $10,000 lighter. I can't wait to read what she files for that!


mantis
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

You could at least invent some new lies instead of cutting and pasting the old ones over and over. These are getting stale.


Jim
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

Steve, you've asked these same questions again and again and they've been answered again and again and all your BS has been proven false. So here is the big question, why are blowers like you so unwilling to believe the truth and have to make up so many lies and forgeries to try and muddle it, since you've never proven that Obama is not legal to hold office? We know the truth, and we'll continue laughing at your delusions. At least it's entertaining.


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:11 am

Billy, I respect the office of POTUS, but I suspect BHO of criminal wrong doing –regardless of how glowingly he talks or smiles. There is more to this issue to be discovered and played out, so I’m patiently observing the big picture. Please be open for this issue to fall either way. I’ll accept what is decided in court.

But, you claim Obama is our president and you accept on face value the the evidence presented, so far. LOL@U

You so badly want this person to hold the cherished office of POTUS, that you are willing to conveniently overlook the blatant fact his father was not a US citizen, thereby disqualifying BHO for POTUS.

Billy, You accept the DNC did not actually certify their President or Vice Presidential nominees, met the qualifications for the office of POTUS, as required by the COTUSA, for the 2008 election, in 49 states.

Billy, you are lying to yourself, and I find that very disturbing.


Billy
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:16 am

No. You use fancy words but I know what you are saying. You don’t care who the people elected because you know better.

You talk like a communist. You hate America.


mciendras
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:24 pm

Amazingly angry person: Perhaps you should get a hobby of some sort. I hear lithium is pretty decent.


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:27 am

Actually, Billy, your trying to redefine the word “Communist” to fit your desires, make you look more like a Communist.


Jim
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

Richardsh…let me see if you even have a clue what you're talking about. Can you tell me what exactly a birth certificate is?


Doubtful
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:33 pm

Yes. Sam and his various sock puppets are angry, and they keep getting angrier as their hoped-for “OMG moments” fail to materialize.

Check back on some of his predictions! Whatever he says is going to happen, you've got a good shot at making some money by betting on the opposite.

Come on, AtH, tell us what's going to happen next!


captainsteve
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:39 pm

When the British/Kenyan/Indonesia/Hawaiian-African-American/possibly Canadian Community Organizer messiah fraud usurper stops HIDING and shows his LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND OTHER RECORDS, I'll change my post!!!!! As long as the fraud is the same, the post will be the same.


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:46 pm

The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.


Jim
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

Great Steve. Be glad to do it as soon as you prove you're an american, you're not in an asylum or crazy ward, that you owe no allegiance to any foreign country, and you have the legal right to all you request. As soon as you give me all that I'll get to work for you. But first I need something to get started:

Your full legal name
Your Social Security Number
2 Major credit cards
1 Bank account number
and, of course, your mother's maiden name.

Go ahead and type it here and I'll await the rest of the info.


chrisjay
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:51 pm

“the steady drip” blogspot—I get it ! drip, drip, drip– as in Chinese water torture! It's all starting to make sense: If you will think back to those classic Three Stooges episodes, Moe Larry & Curly invariably prevailed when they had driven their antagonist bat-shit crazy with their inane antics, then leave him foaming at the mouth in a heap…the Birther strategy!


mantis
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:55 pm

Boring. Look, captainstupid, for entertainment to remain viable it must be continually refreshed. Get some new material. It's all lies anyway, so who cares about changing it?


chrisjay
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 8:55 pm

Kinda like Rep Schmitd whispering to the birfer (on camera that she totally agrees with her, not knowing that the mic was picking up her declaration of Birfer solidarity. Add craven and sleazy to bat-shit crazy.


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 2:00 am

Whatever, Traitorraven. By the by, Barack Hussein Obama is still President of our United States of America.


captainsteve
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 9:03 pm

I would, but I see who commits the crime in this country. All of you obummer supporters are crooks and thieves and can't be trusted, just like your pathetic liar-in-chief and messiah, Dingle Barry.


bill0
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 9:11 pm

This can be cleared up easily by acknowledging and accepting one important fact:

There is no evidence that President Obama was born outside the US. Each and every claim that he was has been debunked.

There is also no proof that he has spent millions of dollars trying to keep his birth certificate hidden.

You birthers need to take off your tinfoil hats, come out of mom's basement, and get a job. I hear Taco Bell is hiring.


smrstrauss
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

Re: “Probably, Barack Obama could solve this problem and make the birthers, you know, back off, by simply showing us his long-form birth certificate. That’d solve the problem. There’s some other issue, I don’t know what it is, that he doesn’t want people to see the birth certificate on.

The reason Obama does not send out the original birth certificate is that Hawaii did not send it to him. Hawaii sends out ONLY the short-form Certification of Live Birth, which is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualin…).

Obama cannot send out what he does not have.

However, the facts on the official birth certificate have been confirmed twice by the authorities in Hawaii.


mantis
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

The voices in their heads are all they proof they need.


mantis
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 9:15 pm

Tell us, who commits the crime (only one?) in this country?


Doubtful
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 9:17 pm

Oooh! Sam's getting mad! Now if he only had some facts to back up the frothing venom!

LOLOLOL!


Jim
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

Well, I have no choice but to tell the truth on you Captainsteve. I ran a traceback on your IP address and it came back to an address in Iran. We now know that you are working at the Iranian Secret Service, or whatever their organization is called, and are working to overthrow our duly elected president. Makes sense now, why your english and spelling is so bad and why you have no understanding of our constitution and laws. Go back to your holocaust deniers!


Congressman wants Obama’s Birth Certificate | Satelec 2003
Pingback posted September 28, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

[...] a video interview with The Washington Independent’s Dave Weigel, Franks, who has flirted a bit with the birther [...]


Lisa
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

Any idiot who says you can get a vault or long-form certificate for $30 is certifiably nuts.You can request all you want but it’s time for birthers to face certain facts. First, let’s dispose of the Kenya myth.

There is no proof that Obama was ever adopted. NONE. Just because his stepfather registered him in school under his name, it doesn’t prove a thing. There are NO RECORDS of any adoption.

There is no proof that Obama’s mama was ever in Kenya. NONE.

His father was not in Kenya in 1961, so there is no way mama, a pregnant white girl from Kansas, left the comfort of her parents’ home in Hawaii to travel half way around the world to war-torn Kenya and to deliver a baby in a backwards third world hospital WITHOUT HER HUSBAND, then rushed back to Hawaii to get a birth certificate so he could someday run for president. Never happened.

Birth announcements in Hawaii ONLY came from certified information received from hospitals and provided to Health Dept., NOT from private citizens. The announcements posted in the Hawaiian newspapers in 1961 were genuine.

The State of Hawaii has certified that the President was born in the State of Hawaii, in the city of Honolulu. What is then required is to determine if the certified record of birth that the State of Hawaii has provided is sufficiently proven under the law to be held as valid.

The question becomes; ‘Is the short form Birth Certificate that was issued by the state of Hawaii sufficient to prove birth in the United States?’ The ‘Full Faith and Credit’ section of the Constitution provides that Congress may prescribe the manner in which the records of a state may be proved.

In order to determine what threshold of proof is for ‘Birth Certificates’ we must look at what the laws passed by the Congress have to say in this regard. There is no specific law that has been passed by Congress that is directly aimed at proving the authenticity of a state issued Birth Certificate, but there is clear guidance in this matter. Congress has specifically authorized a means for a citizen to prove citizenship, and this authority has been provided under a General Law. In 2000, Hawaii went to a paperless system and had to receive approval from Congress to use a “short-form” and to eliminate the “vault” or “long form” entirely.

The Congress has granted the Secretary of State, and by implication the Department of State, the authority to issue Passports under US Code, Title 22, Chapter 4. The granting of authority to the Department of State to issue a Passport implies that the authority to prescribe the manner in which citizenship must be proved has also been granted.

When this authority has been granted to a federal Department or Agency, the rules that the Department or Agency will use are then promulgated as regulations. These regulations are maintained as part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Department of State has issued regulations under CFR22.51.42 that state the following requirements for a citizen to prove birth in the United States:

(a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States. A person born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant’s place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of birth.

The State of Hawaii has issued a Birth Certificate that meets all of the requirements of CFR 22.51.42. That Birth Certificate is certified by the State of Hawaii, and is considered proven by the Laws of the United States. It will be up to anyone who challenges its authenticity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Birth Certificate is actually invalid. The Certification of Live Birth provided by Obama is LEGAL under Federal law for passports, drivers licenses, running for office, etc.

There is a very high standard of proof that must be met in order to override the Constitutional ‘Full Faith and Credit’ standard granted to the State of Hawaii in this matter. That standard of proof would require that the complainant show proof that there was an actual fraud committed by the State of Hawaii in the certification of that Birth Certificate, or that the certificate itself was fraudulent. Either way, the burden of proof rests with the complainant. Merely making accusations that this may have happened is not sufficient.

This would be true even if a foreign power were to present a Birth Certificate that was claimed to show birth in another country. Under the standard of ‘Full Faith and Credit’ that is specifically provided for in the Constitution, the public records of the State of Hawaii would take precedence over the public records of any foreign power. In order to meet the required burden of proof, the foreign record would not only have to be proven as true, but also the State of Hawaii’s record would have to be proven separately as false.

Demanding President Obama’s birth certificate is the 21st century of 19th century demands of newly freed slaves: Show me your papers. And when they did they were still lynched. Because hatred makes you blind.

I urge you to seek to unite our country. Not divide. Seek to pursue issues that truly matter, that you truly disagree with within the normal civil discourse. Seek to be an American among Americans, as our President does. Truly embrace the beauty of our democracy to offer the highest office in the land the the most humble of it’s servants. Disagree with our newly democratically elected President, but show him the same respect I showed George Bush- who was appointed by the Supreme Court. God Bless You


spawn44
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 10:28 pm

Gate's answer to a recent question at a news conference “THE NOBLE TRUTH is he was born in Hawaii” struck me as an odd way to answer the question. When socials use the word NOBLE it is code word for a lie. Would'nt obama's attorney be commiting malpractice if he billed a reported 1 million plus to prevent the release of obama's long form birth certificate which he knew to be a true and legitimate answer to the skeptics charges, when the matter could be settled for $15.00 and postage to Hawaii.


spawn44
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 10:57 pm

BillO are you the day or night manager. Unfortunately for your argument he has not proven he was born in the U.S either. Copie's of his attorney billings have been available for some time if you care to take your head out of the sand and look.


The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should … | Long term care insurance live today
Pingback posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:00 am

[...] whatever another issue, I don’t undergo what it is, … Here is the example post:  The pedagogue Independent » Rep. river Franks: Obama Should … Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: -form-birth, and-, back-off, barack-obama, birthers, hand, [...]


Antibirther
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 11:06 pm

I bet she tries to appeal it.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 11:10 pm

Is that like Orly Taitz filing the same lawsuit over and over again?


Antibirther
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 11:12 pm

So a legal document issued by the state of Hawaii that is valid in ANY court of law is not proof?


Antibirther
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 11:16 pm

YAAAAWWWWWNNNNNNNNN


Remainders: Atonement | NUZE.ME
Pingback posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:21 am

[...] Trent Franks keeps talking about birth certificates. [...]


spawn44
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 11:28 pm

Antibirther, obama would not even be issued a passport with the “birth certification form he is trying to pass off as a real long form birth certificate. If he hand colored one with crayons you sheepal would believe it.


borderraven
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 11:44 pm

There are two legal terms at play: “certificate” and “certification”. Which do do trust most?
The COLB shown on FactCheck, contains data transcribed in abstract from a source record(s) and only proves citizenship. To determine NBC requires more proof, obtained through an indepth investigation–and DNC Nancy Pelosi, failed to properly vet the DNC candidates prior to the campaign.


republicanstupidity
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 11:51 pm

does your mama sister know that you broke out of the chains??


republicanstupidity
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 11:53 pm

Damn shit for brains you over here from AOL to spew the same nonsense?? Damn no wonder no female will deal with your crazy ass, guess you whack off to every lie you tell huh??


Steve_X
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 11:53 pm

More stupid birfer questions, more stupid birfer lies. I give up trying to argue with birfer idiots about their complete lack of evidence for any of the stupid shit they believe in, so from now on I'm only going to insult you. Facts and knowledge are wasted on birfers because they're too stupid understand what a bunch of racist, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing fools they are. Your rants are a prime example of mental retardation in action.


Jim
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 11:54 pm

Another appeal? Doesn't California start on October 5th? I guess she could file by fax again, if she remembers to sign it.


republicanstupidity
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 11:56 pm

LOL Retard astroturf asshole. Don't believe your lying eyes believe my lying ass. Now back to the drvie thru dimwad


republicanstupidity
Comment posted September 28, 2009 @ 11:59 pm

hahah you clowns are more entertainment than tv! Come on make up some more!!!


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:00 am

President Barack H. Obama, sir, with all due respect, I request you allow examination of your vital statistic records, and other records which will finally put the question of you meeting the constitutional qualification as a “natural born citizen” born on US soil, to two USA citizen parents to rest.

Please, sir.

Mr. President, you may comply or stand down, sir.

Mr. President, what is your decision, sir?


Steve_X
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:01 am

Once again, you're wrong. Nothing you say is anywhere in the Constitution, any Supreme Court case, or any federal law. You birfers keep trotting out the same lies and discredited arguments to make your ridiculous conspiracy theories seem plausible, and you fail at every turn. Go back and read the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship to ANYONE born on American soil. There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution about deVattel or any of his writings. DeVattel has never been the law in this county, and it will never be the law in this country.

I would tell you guys to give it up already, but that would require a level of logic and sanity that birfers don't have.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:02 am

His reply will be, citizen, I have produced a valid Hawaii BC and was born american and I have always been american. You sir, are a stupid SOB. Now go home!


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:06 am

borderraven: “There are two legal terms at play: “certificate” and “certification”. Which do do trust most?”

The state of Hawaii every time over a nutjob anonymous poster. Why, you think some idiot would believe you instead?


Doubtful
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:08 am

OK, let's add it all up. Evidence that he was born in Hawaii: A Certification of Live Birth, two contemporaneous newspaper announcements, and a declaration from the current Hawaiian administration.

Evidence that he was not: Gate (whoever the hell that is!) used the word “NOBLE.”

Gee, spawn44, can't argue with that!


Antibirther
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:13 am

So no one from Hawaii has been able to get a passport since 2001?

I bet they are pissed.


ArthurB.
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:22 am

The hell with passports — how are they joining Little League?!

It's a conspiracy, I'm telling you!


Lisa
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:29 am

This is where you are wrong. It does more than prove citizenship. You need to read this post: http://washingtonindependent.com/61111/rep-tren…


lamontcranston
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:28 am

Rep. Trent Franks should release his IQ number as well as his medication record.


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:31 am

Who in here voted for Obama?

Are you brave and willing to stand up and claim the title “I voted for Obama”.

Don't be shy, now.


smrstrauss
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Re: “Antibirther, obama would not even be issued a passport with the “birth certification form he is trying to pass off as a real long form birth certificate.”

He has posted the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii. Yes, the certification of live birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualin… it is the only birth document that Hawaii currently issues. The facts on it have been confirmed twice by the two officials of Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog…), and the Certification of Live Birth is accepted as proof of birth in Hawaii by the US State Department for issuing passports.


smrstrauss
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:36 am

Re: “Nancy Pelosi, failed to properly vet the DNC candidates prior to the campaign.”

And did the Republicans vet the candidacy of McCain? Did they vet the candidacy of Bush, Bush's father, Reagan, Eisenhower, Hoover, Nixon?

No, they did not vet a single one of them.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:37 am

Who here votes for borderraven to be committed? come on now, stand up and be counted as anti-blowers!


smrstrauss
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:38 am

Re: “Obama would not even be issued a passport with the “birth certification form he is trying to pass off as a real long form birth certificate.”

Obama has posted the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualin…), and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:40 am

NOTE TO ALL: It's fine to argue with the blowers, I can promise you it's funny. Just do NOT click on any of their sites. They are trying to pawn off old worn-out forgeries and fake unprovable theories. The only thing is they are being paid by the visit, so the best way to shut them up is to not give them that money they need so desperately to keep their delusions going. That is why they keep bringing up the same tired arguments and hope they can get the next reader to click on their so-called “proof”. If they had any real proof, it wouldn't be on this board, it would be front and center on Fox News. I guess WND has a warehouse full of Anti-Obama junk to get rid of and hired these folks to get more traffic. If you like that sort of thing, I recommend going to WND and buying direct…it is still a free country, despite what these blowers say.


william steven geiger
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:42 am

this guy is a real loser, i dont even think he's an american because his upper lip looks funny, in my mind he might have been born two year's after they stopped giving out brains, give me a break this is right wing @ it's worse, why dont you do some real good for your state & help someone defeat this guy in the next election.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:52 am

I voted for Obama.


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 2:24 am

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 2:26 am

Kneel before Gate. He is all powerful.


skay
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 3:04 am

I have a very short small birth certificate — do I have to leave the country because I don't have a long form? This guy is beyond belief — how did he even get elected?!! The dumbing down of the Republican party has been sad to watch. Not only are the leaders lacking in brain cells but the number of people who blindly believe their propaganda without ever checking the facts is downright scary.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 3:41 am

Why can't BHO fans discuss this issue in a grown-up fashion designed to get the truth? Why is it that not even one person has found even one single thing false, misleading, or illogical in any of my coverage? (No, really: please fire up google and enter “false, misleading, or illogical” to see my previous challenges). No one's been able to point out even one thing I've gotten wrong and instead they simply engage in ad homs and blather on. There's a reason for that: they don't have anything else.

Check it out for yourself. Despite dozens of requests, not one person has been able to find anything I've gotten wrong. Instead – as with all the past challenges – all BHO fans will offer will be the same old lies, misleading statements, and smears. Decide for yourself.


michelle
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 3:47 am

To be President you have to be a Natural Born Citizen.

Please tell me this, per Obama himself, he said when he was born that he was “governed” by England because his father was from Kenya which was controlled by England. So tell me, how can a man who was “governed” at birth be a Natural Born Citizen?

Answer: He can't, Obama is NOT AT ALL eligible to be POTUS. End of Story!


Fear of Fascism, ‘Gay Agenda’ Dominates Conservative Kickoff for Midterm Elections | The Lie Politic
Pingback posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:08 am

[...] Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), who had pondered a lawsuit over the president’s citizenship, told TWI he had no doubts about Obama’s citizenship, but suspected that something was being hidden by concealing the original 1961 document on file in [...]


Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should Release Long-Form Birth Certificate | The Lie Politic
Pingback posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:09 am

[...] Visit Source [...]


BrickSykes
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:34 am

OH! MY GOD!! “…THE POST WILL BE THE SAME!!!”

“Please, please Massah Steve, please don't let the POST BE THE SAME!! ANYTHING BUT THAT, Massah Steve!! I don't know what we'll all do if you let the POST BE THE SAME!!”

(Thought about threatening thousands of Americans with your inane drivel lately, Massah Steve, you FI!?)


Simpleton
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:26 am

I did not, I voted for Bob Barr.

But, if you are born on American soil, you are a natural born American.

If you deny this, you need an education, but more importantly, you are an uneducated racist


Simpleton
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:26 am

If you are born on American soil, you are a natural born American.

If you deny this, you need an education, but more importantly, you are an uneducated racist


Simpleton
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:26 am

If you are born on American soil, you are a natural born American.

If you deny this, you need an education, but more importantly, you are an uneducated racist


captainsteve
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:35 am

I'll post anything I want a$$wipe. If you don't like it you kiss my Dingle Barry.

Obama's dad and his mentor were communists. In in college he said he didn't like regular people. He preferred the Marxists.

Look at his friends. You can see he hates America.

The British/Kenyan/Indonesia/Hawaiian-African-American/possibly Canadian Community Organizer messiah fraud usurper should STOP HIDING and SHOW US THE LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND OTHER RECORDS!!!!!


Name
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:08 am

I voted for Obama. I also vote that borderraven be be committed.


Name
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:08 am

Your claim that nothing you've written has been shown to be false, misleading, or illogical is itself false, misleading and illogical. On your own blog you get to be the judge, but in the rest of the sane world you are a liar.


mystylplx
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:15 am

Ya kinda gotta feel for Republicans like Franks. On the one hand a significant portion of his constituents are nutjobs and he needs those nutjob votes. On the other hand he needs to walk a fine line and get those votes without appearing to be a nutjob himself.

Thank the Lord I'm not a politician. Thank him double I'm not a Republican politician in the age of the birthers.


mystylplx
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:21 am

Lol! The truth is Obama has proven the circumstances of his birth far beyond what any prior President in history has before. Most Presidents never showed a birth certificate at all. Certainly none have proven their birth to the extent Obama has, with birth announcements from the newspapers, multiple confirmations from the HI dept. of health, and even the Republican Governor of HI.

So the reason people make fun of birthers is that at some point there's nothing left to do. When overwhelming facts and evidence have been presented and ignored the only thing left to do is laugh at the nutjobs who can't or won't accept that a black man is eligible to be President.


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:45 pm

captainsteve, WELL DONE!

I salute you.

:/
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:58 am

Actually, nobody has found anything you've gotten right. Delusions are not facts, so we'll just stick with the truth, blowers are nuts.


GOP Rep. Trent Franks Calls Obama "An Enemy Of Humanity" | Obama Biden White House
Pingback posted September 29, 2009 @ 11:17 am

[...] beyond traditional White House criticism. At one point, the Arizona Republican demanded that Obama release his birth certificate to his constitutionally eligibility to hold office. The bluntest charge, however, centered on the [...]


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

Borderraven, it would be nice if you had just a bit of reading comprehension. We were discussing her appealing the $10,000 sanction that Judge Land will probably give her and whether she would appeal that. Then, I brought up the California case as taking up her time, so I don’t think she will appeal, although she could. Why must you keep proving your stupidity and lack of comprehension? We already know you have no understanding of the law and constitution, why must you keep proving you’re even dumber that we thought?


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

Once again, you’re wrong. Nothing you say is anywhere in the Constitution, any Supreme Court case, or any federal law. Birfers have no idea what they are talking about..you just watch Glenn Beck and repeat whatever conspiracy theory that he scrawls on his black board. It’s a shame too because just like the birfers, the entire issue is very simple:

Citizen at birth = Natural Born Citizen.

Birfers lose again; what else is new?

And once again, DeVattel has nothing to do with this, since the writings of Swiss philosophers are not the law, and have never been the law. Orly’s too stupid to realize this, but there’s still hope for you. Stop being a birfer and join the rest of us sane people while you still have brain cells left.


jeffinohio
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 11:21 am

face palm, heavy sigh…..


Former birther Trent Franks suggests Obama ‘acts un-American.’ | Pure Politics
Pingback posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

[...] To Take Back America conference this weekend, Franks said that he believes Obama is American, “even if he acts un-American”: FRANKS: That solved the issue for me. I said, you know, I can’t — I believe [...]


GOP Congressman Calls Obama “Enemy Of Humanity” | NewsOne
Pingback posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:40 pm

[...] beyond the limits of traditional White House criticism. At one point, Franks demanded that Obama release his birth certificate to prove his constitutionally eligibility to hold office. The bluntest charge, however, centered on [...]


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

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

GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court

Wong Kim Ark has not, either by himself or his parents acting [p705] for him, ever
renounced his allegiance to the United States, and that he has never done or committed
any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the
decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for
determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a
child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth,
are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the
United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic
or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of
the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question
must be answered in the affirmative.

Order affirmed.

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

Citizen Yes, NBC No


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:53 pm

WRONG! Being born on USA is no absolute guarantee of NBC.

If you deny this, you are ignorant, you need an education, but more importantly, you are an uneducated.

Go back to your stall an vegetate!

:/
BR


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

Jim, NBC, is not an absolute, by birth on USA soil. Citizenship yes, but not NBC.

Are you reading US Code or Code of Federal Regulations?

Please list a reference and a quote, that you infer to mean a birth on USA soil guarantees NBC, when:
1. It is by one USA citizen parent
2. By two USA citizen parents.
3. The unique situation in 1961, where the mother not yet 21 years old, and the father was older than 21, but an alien national.

Jim what are your sources of reference, or are you making things up?

Please take your time finding the answers.

:/
BR


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:55 pm

BRAVO! michelle A+ Take the rest of the day off.

:)
BR


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

Simpleton F- Move to the front of the class, maybe you will be less distracted and actually learn something! I'll see about putting you in Detention for two hours after school

:
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

Well, let’s see what I can say about that. One, everybody knew about Obama being born to one USA citizen parent in Hawaii, he wrote about it and was quoted extensively. Two, nobody in congress, the supreme court, the electoral college, or the many thousands of real constitutional scholars said one thing about him NOT being a natural born citizen. If what you say was true, there would have been many saying the same as you. So, I’ve got many thousand more intelligent people than you saying he is a Natural Born Citizen…and you’ve got not one piece of evidence that he isn’t. I guess that about covers it.


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:17 pm

Yeah, it's like the evidence proving to any reasonable person that BHO is non-NBC is there; but what “reliable” evidence is present that proves BHO is “beyond the shadow of a doubt” a NBC? NONE!

All they got is one silly single piece of paper, that without the laser toner on it would be a blank form waiting to pass through the printer cartridge. But, that “COLB”, as shown on FactCheck is un-reliable for determining NBC. Legally that “COLB” is based on the oath of the persons certifying the data “transcribed” onto it is accurate and factual. That is what we call “trust”. But, to determine NBC, we need to verify for ourselves, and trust nobody.

:/
BR


Doubtful
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

So, can I take that to mean that you are planning to follow the Rule of Law and accept the outcome of all the law suits?

Like next week, when Orly is sanctioned by Judge Land and Judge Carter dismisses Barnett v. Obama?

Come on, patriot, take a stand! Support the Rule of Law!

What do you say?


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

Steve_X , the issue is not citizenship. We are talking about Natural Born Citizenship — NBC.


GOP Rep. Trent Franks Calls Obama An Enemy Of Humanity « The 44 Diaries
Pingback posted September 29, 2009 @ 2:30 pm

[...] comments that went far beyond the limits of traditional White House criticism. At one point, Franks demanded that Obama release his birth certificate to prove his constitutionally eligibility to hold office. The bluntest charge, however, centered on [...]


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:31 pm

And Obama is a Natural Born Citizen. What's the problem there, borderraven, you going to make up some new definition that is nowhere in the constitution or our laws? Or, is it just because you don't like Obama and can find no other way except to lie to try and get him out of the WH?


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:32 pm

Bill0, There is no reliable proof BHO is NBC either.

What have you got?

Tell BHO to “quo warranto” or show the “warrant”, or his license, to hold the office he occupies.

:|
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

Really borderraven, you should really have an understanding of our constitution and laws before you call someone else ignorant. You've proven time and time again how little you know, so coming from you, that's like a complement. So, what are you going to make up now? Remember, we're going to hold you to constitutional and legal standards so when you spout off, we're going to show how delusional you are. This is not an Orly type argument, where what you say is assumed true, since we know it's not.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:37 pm

OK, then, according to the constitution, what kind of citizen was he? There's only 2 in the constitution, Natural born and naturalized, so which was he? He couldn't be naturalized, he was born in the USA. That leaves only Natural Born. Again, border, thanks for proving our point and showing how truly delusional you blowers are.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:40 pm

Actually, I think SCOTUS is much more knowledgeable than you are, border, so the only F here is your understanding of the constitution and our laws. And, making things up like your hero Orly will never change that.


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

This isn't an appeal. Google: KEYES v OBAMA, Barnett v Obama
Orly will file NLT October 2, so the court can read it over, and be ready for October 5. A filing by FAX is given an electronic signature, recognized by the courts.

goto http://www.scribd.com and search the cases above.

:/
BR


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 1:43 pm

We can put an end to this baloney right now. The man who delivered Obama on Aug. 4, 1961 was Dr. Rodney T. West. Rodney T. West, M.D. was born on the island of Maui in the then, Territory of Hawaii. He graduated from the Punahou School in Honolulu and attended Northwestem University in Chicago, where he earned his Medical Degree. He returned to the Islands, spent l8 months as an intern and resident at the Queen's Hospital and then went into a private practice in Honolulu. He joined the United States Naval Reserve in January of l940. Twenty months later, September 5, 1941, he was called to active duty and was stationed at the Medical Dispensary on Ford Island in Pearl Harbor and was there on the morning of December 7, l941. He spent the rest of World War II on Johnston Island in the Pacific and at various Naval Air Stations on the American mainland. At the end of the war, he returned to Honolulu and on March 26, 1946 was discharged from active duty. In September of l949, he resigned from the Naval Reserve as a full Commander.

Then, after practicing on the Big Island of Hawaii for a year, he returned to Honolulu and joined the Obstetrics and Gynecological department of the Straub Clinic. In December of l956, after delivering at least 5,OOO babies – and other things, he retired from the practice of medicine. In l963, he served as the President of the Hawaii Medical Association and in l975, he helped found and was the first president of the American College of Physician Executives.

Barbara Nelson of Kenmore remembers the day Obama was born. It was Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu.

“I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here’s the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: “‘So, tell me something interesting that happened this week,’” she recalls.

His response: “Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that’s something to write home about.”

The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama.

“I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it,” said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the “Stanley” connection.

She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby’s father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby’s name.

“I remember Dr. West saying ‘Barack Hussein Obama, now that’s a musical name,’” said Nelson, who grew up in Kenmore and went to Hawaii in 1959 to be in Jo-Anne’s wedding party. When Nelson was offered a job as a newspaper reporter and photographer at her friend’s wedding reception, it led to her living in Hawaii for 47 years. She returned to Kenmore in 2006.

Ten years after that memorable birth announcement, Nelson would hear the Obama name again. This time, the father, now a Kenyan government official, was coming to speak at the Punahou School in Honolulu where Nelson was teaching and where his 10-year-old son was a newly enrolled fifth-grader.

“Dr. Obama had this lovely, attentive manner,” she said. “When he answered the children’s questions, he would do it as a story, which is the way they do it in Kenya.

“His son, whom he hadn’t seen in eight years, seemed as fascinated as we all were,” said Nelson, who went on to be a high school principal, a harpist, a watercolor artist and poet.

A few years later, Nelson encountered “Barry” again, when she watched high school basketball games, where her students played.

“The team came alive when he got on the court,” she said. “He was not only quick and graceful, but he could see the pattern and zero in on the opening. Though he wasn’t a starter, he was a graceful, passionate athlete who played back-up forward. He had a definite presence on the court.

“I often sat with his grandmother, who was a no-nonsense woman with these very solid Midwestern ways about her,” said Nelson. “She loved that boy and he adored her.”

As a high school teacher of British, Biblical and Middle Eastern literature, Nelson taught Obama.

“He wasn’t usually the first one to speak, but he was an attentive, active listener,” she said. “While the others might be bouncing off the surface, he came straight from the center. He picked up on the patterns of ideas and then he’d make a statement that moved the class to the focal point.

“He also had a lovely, engaging sense of humor,” Nelson said. “He was firm, but he wasn’t aggressive or in your face.”

http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html

I can hear the birther screams: “NO!”


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:55 pm

Jim, what grade are you in?

:/
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 7:01 pm

Borderraven, what nuthouse do they have you locked up in?


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 2:05 pm

Jim, I've been dealing with immigration issues of the USA, particularly MEXICO to USA, since 2005. A pregnant woman, can step over the border into the USA, squirt out a baby, get a ride to a hospital, fill out a form in Spanish, and we have an American citizen and alien mother, enjoying some of the finest medical care the American taxpayers can supply. However, that child is not NBC. Matter of fact that child should not even be a citizen, but due to a long practice of misinterpreting the 14th Amendment we have allowed millions of children, born to two aliens of unknown residency, to be considered USA citizen. So, can you prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a child born on August 4, 1961, to an 18 year old USA citizen woman and a British citizen father, is a NBC, under the laws in existence at that time? Please do your homework before answering.

:/
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 2:18 pm

So, again, what kind of citizen is that child? The constitution has only 2 types of citizens. So, the child is either Natural Born or naturalized. And, the only person who hasn't done there homework is you. So now, show all these nice people where in the constitution and law, there is any other type of citizen. Otherwise, it is just the same made-up BS as you being some sort of immigration expert. I tend to believe the laws of the land and the SCOTUS a heck of a lot more than an anonymous message board poster who has to inflate his own ego to make himself feel more important.


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

That's a good story, but as evidence, it is “heresay”. Bring witnesses to court on January 26. Well actually, Orly is doing sworn depositions between October 16 to November 16, 2009. I am certain, with witnesses and evidence, Judge Carter will sort it out.

:/
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 2:26 pm

No need, it will never get that far. And, if you haven't been paying attention, Orly will get shot down again come Oct 5, so there won't be any depositions necessary. But, you keep on pulling on yourself raven, and we'll keep laughing at you. Besides, that's all the evidence you and your blower friends have anyway. Although, I wouldn't even call it “heresay”, it would be closer to “delusionsay” which won't even get you past pre-trial motions.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 2:36 pm

Obama doesn't need evidence. This is merely confirmation that he was in fact born at that hospital. It also provides the name of the attending physician, and a witness to the fact that he discussed the uniqueness of the situation. The newspaper announcements, which come only from certified information from the Health Dept. were further confirmation. There is no way that this case is going to trial. Anyone believing that is even more naive than I thought. It will be dismissed and Orly Taitz will be fined and sanctioned.


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 2:39 pm

If, pending examination of vital statistic records, BHO was born in the USA, to one USA citizen parent, he is a citizen or national of the USA, but not NBC, which requires birth to two USA citizen parents.

:/
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 2:44 pm

If, by you saying it makes you think it's true, you're more delusional than Orly. Where does it state that in the constitution or laws? You making it up doesn't make any difference, you have absolutely no say in it. SCOTUS disagrees with you, Congress disagrees with you, Electoral college disagrees with you, and even the american people disagree with you. This has been no secret for the last few years. Obama even wrote about it. So why should we believe you know better?


Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Congressman Trent Franks: Birther, Wingnut
Pingback posted September 29, 2009 @ 4:33 pm

[...] First, here’s the Congressman saying he still needs to see Obama’s birth certificate: [...]


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

That's a good story, but as evidence, it is “heresay”.

No case, no evidence needed. None of the afterbirthers will ever get beyond dismissal of their frivolous, baseless lawsuits.

Bring witnesses to court on January 26.

What, for a case that will be dismissed on October 5? I think the courtroom will probably be in use for an actual case that day.

Well actually, Orly is doing sworn depositions between October 16 to November 16, 2009.

Ooh, I hope she does Larry Sinclair again! That guy's a hoot.

I am certain, with witnesses and evidence, Judge Carter will sort it out.

I'm certain he'll sort it out on October 5 when he tosses the case out of court.


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

but not NBC, which requires birth to two USA citizen parents.

No, it doesn't. You're a moron.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

Orly Taitz has panicked and withdrawn from the case. Judge Clay Land accepted her withdrawal saying:

The Court further notes that this order shall not be construed to authorize Plaintiff's counsel to breach any attorney-client privilege that may exist due to counsel's representation of Plaintiff. Moreover, the Court notifies counsel that in issuing its show cause sanctions order, the Court did not rely upon the letter sent by Plaintiff purporting to discharge counsel (Doc. 18), nor does the Court intend to rely upon that document in future proceedings regarding sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel. Whether Plaintiff expressly authorized counsel to file the motion for reconsideration is irrelevant to the Court's determination of whether the filing was legally frivolous.

She has until October 2 to respond.


Steve_X
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 3:48 pm

Since when do birfers believe anything Obama says? I find it hilarious that birfers don't believe anything else that Obama says, but then they treat that one statement like it's the gospel truth. It just proves how illogical the birfer movement is: you guys only believe things that further your conspiracy, no matter how insane it makes you sound.


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 3:50 pm

For the idiot birthers such as borderraven, 24braincells, and others:

There are two types of citizens in the United States, born (or natural born) and naturalized. If you are born a citizen of the United States, as opposed to immigrating and becoming a citizen, you are a natural born citizen. There is no third category of citizen. The framers of the Constitution thought it best to prevent naturalized citizens (like Arnold Schwarzenegger) from becoming president or vice-president, so they restricted those offices to citizens who were born citizens (i.e. “natural born citizen).

It's really not hard to understand, unless you're a deranged afterbirther.


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 3:53 pm

I've been dealing with immigration issues of the USA,

Furiously reading nutbag websites because you're filled with rage that Obama was elected president doesn't count, dumbass birther.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

A final word to birthers:

On July 27, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 593, commemorating the 50th anniversary of Hawaii's statehood, including the text, “Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.” The vote passed 378-0.

Good luck with your case.


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 4:10 pm

mantis, do you have something pertinent to the debate you wish to share?

:/
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 4:13 pm

This is a debate? I thought it was more of a comedy act, with you standing front and center being laughed at by the rest of us.


amuffinman
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

Anybody who wrights such a deranged article like this is deranged themselve. What you wrote is not the issue. This president has not exposed any type of legitimate birth certificate. The one from Hawaii is not legit. If you are an American, why wouldn't this concern you?


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

This sweet sounding lady, Ms Nelson, had better get around-the-clock protection from these foaming-at-the-mouth flat-earthers known as Birfers. I don’t think they’re any more civilized than the scumbag who killed the census-worker in Kentucky.


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 4:28 pm

mantis, if you are in school, stay there. If you somehow graduated, go to night school, but keep trying.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, asked us to simply judge people “by the content of their character”, and that is my sole basis for judging Obama.

You and many others fell for his “persona” and “charisma” and now you just cannot unlock your hold, on the emotional investment or love you have put into Him.

I only ask, that you be objective, and open your eyes before it is too late.
Orly Taitz, lived in Communism and experienced how it evolves. She sees the USA, evolving into Communism. Maybe, you are too young or naive to see the subtle changes, but Communism, is coming. If Obama, succeeds, I hope you find joy, in knowing you helped him.

:|
BR


Steve_X
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

Actually, there's an outside chance that statement would be admissible under the “present sense impression” admission to hearsay; it would be a long shot, but I could see it happening. In any event it wouldn't matter anyway, since the birfers don't have any evidence to back up anything they claim. They will never be able to meet their burden of proof on any issue, so the case (and I use the term loosely) would never get that far. The only thing that would happen is yet another dismissal and more sanctions.


spawn44
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

Dr. Maloney, that may be proof for you, but I am from Missouri. I can see the


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:38 pm

Borderline&Raving, you must be positively glowing. I have never seen a comedy act with so many straightmen lined up for a joker to riff off of. How anyone here can take you seriously enough to actually humor you with legalese is beyond me, but then again I also marvel at the patience required to work with the mentally retarded


Steve_X
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 4:41 pm

Wrong again, just like Orly Taitz. The COLB is valid under Hawaii state law until the birfers prove otherwise (which they will never be able to so), and it is recognized by every other state under the “Full Faith & Credit” clause of the Constitution. Even better for sane people, under FREv 902 the COLB is self-authenticating, which means that the burden of proof is on the birfers to show that the document is not authentic; since the birfers will never be able to show this, they will continue to lose every single case.


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:43 pm

The original message was received at 2009-09-29 17:40:09 -0400
from postoffice.hsd1.dc.comcast.net. [10.0.0.1]

—– The following addresses had permanent fatal errors —–

—–Transcript of session follows —–
… while talking to postoffice.hsd1.dc.comcast.net..:


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 4:43 pm

Jim, go back to class.

It is possible for a person in the USA or its possessions, to be: an illegal alien, an alien, a tourist, a non-resident alien, a legal (resident) alien, a national, a native, a naturalized-citizen, a citizen, a non-citizen national, or a natural born citizen (NBC), but only a NBC can be POTUSA.

The 14th Amendment does not define NBC.

:/
BR


spawn44
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 4:54 pm

THE NOBLE TRUTH is he was born in Hawaii. That's what his press secretary Gate's said when asked the question at a news conference. If that is the case then why is he paying an attorney (any amount) to fight the release of his long form birth certificate and other background information to the american people. And if his attorney knows it to be a fact he was born in hawaii and is a natural born citizen, then he may be commiting malpractice if he over bills to defend an issue that can be resolved for practically nothing. Obama needs to come clean with the american people if he truly has nothing to hide.


smrstrauss
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 4:57 pm

Re: “If that is the case then why is he paying an attorney (any amount) to fight the release of his long form birth certificate and other background information to the american people.”

IF there were a lawsuit against Obama that just asked for his birth certificate, you could say that he was fighting the release of his long form birth certificate. There is not such case. Obama has released the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it have been confirmed twice by the authorities in Hawaii.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

Why not defend himself? What do you want, everyone to lie down and let you blowers make up crap and get away with it? Won't happen and never should. Besides, spawn, how do we know you're an american citizen? You have no right to anything and need to go back to your country.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

Because you say it, it doesn't make it true borderraven. You have not yet shown where there is more than 2 types of citizen in the constitution or laws of our country. Until then, I'll believe the US constitution, the SCOTUS, the congress, the electoral college, and a majority of the american people over an anonymous poster on a message board who hasn't got a single fact straight yet.


Doubtful
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:05 pm

BR, you seem to have a lot of confidence in Judge Carter.

How about stating, here and now, that you will respect his decision whichever way he rules on the October 5 hearing on the Motion to Dismiss?


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

Quo warranto (Medieval Latin for “by what warrant?”) is one of the prerogative writs, that requires the person to whom it is directed to show what authority he has for exercising some right or power (or “franchise”) he claims to hold.


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, asked us to simply judge people “by the content of their character”, and that is my sole basis for judging Obama.

The judgments of others' characters offered by scumbags with no character themselves, are not compelling.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

borderraven: “I only ask, that you be objective, and open your eyes before it is too late.
Orly Taitz, lived in Communism and experienced how it evolves.”

And, her followers are now trying to make this into a communist country. You'll understand if most of us prefer to live under our democracy much more than Orly's communism. We're kind of strange that way.


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

Pointing and laughing at you engaging in what you call “debate.” That's what I have to offer. Don't like it? Hire Orly Taitz and sue me.


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

Good luck getting back your land from all those English lords who took it from you, King Edward.


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:23 pm

Back in your cave, afterbirther.


spawn44
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

smrstrauss, The cases his attorney is fighting involves proof of his eligibility to be president. His best defense would be to authorize the release of his long form hawaiian birth certificate to defeat his skeptics. He not only elects not to take this simply measure, he is actually fighting the release of this form. Why, this makes no sense. The certification of live birth you refer to which is continually thrown out by his supporters as a real birth certificate, is not one. A real birth certificate contains much more information such as which hospital he was born in, the doctor 's name who delivered him plus much more.


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:28 pm

Jim, I thought we were supposed to have a Republic, under the Rule of Law, but not a Democracy, under mob rule.

See Article IV Section 4 COTUSA.

:)
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

No claims necessary, he's already been given the authority, it was called an election and a inauguration. Funny how we prefer laws and constitution over nutty blowers. Furthermore, you have been given NO authority to even make any demands. So, go back to your latin lesson and have fun.


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

The cases his attorney is fighting involves proof of his eligibility to be president.

If by fighting you mean filing a motion to dismiss and waiting a couple weeks until the judge throws the case out. Tough fight.

His best defense would be to authorize the release of his long form hawaiian birth certificate to defeat his skeptics.

No, the best course of action would be to ignore crazy ass birthers and get their frivolous, baseless lawsuits thrown out of court, as they have been doing. Anything else lends legitimacy to a bunch of raving fools who deserve none.

He not only elects not to take this simply measure, he is actually fighting the release of this form.

Actually it's not a simple measure at all, as Hawaii no longer issues long-form certificates. They issue COLBs, and Obama's is readily available for you to consider.

Why, this makes no sense.

Nothing you say makes sense? I agree.

The certification of live birth you refer to which is continually thrown out by his supporters as a real birth certificate, is not one.

Yes it is, as confirmed by Hawaii health officials on numerous occasions.

A real birth certificate contains much more information such as which hospital he was born in, the doctor 's name who delivered him plus much more.

The COLB is a real birth certificate, and you are a real deranged fool.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:32 pm

That's why I said OUR democracy…so idiots like you would not parse words to further show your stupidity. You still have to show it. I give you credit, just when I think you've shown how totally worthless you are, you find a new low to stoop to.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:35 pm

You are wrong about that not being a real birth certificate.The State of Hawaii has certified that the President was born in the State of Hawaii, in the city of Honolulu. What is then required is to determine if the certified record of birth that the State of Hawaii has provided is sufficiently proven under the law to be held as valid?

The question becomes; ‘Is the short form Birth Certificate that was issued by the state of Hawaii sufficient to prove birth in the United States?’ The ‘Full Faith and Credit’ section of the Constitution provides that Congress may prescribe the manner in which the records of a state may be proved.

In order to determine what threshold of proof is for ‘Birth Certificates’ we must look at what the laws passed by the Congress have to say in this regard. There is no specific law that has been passed by Congress that is directly aimed at proving the authenticity of a state issued Birth Certificate, but there is clear guidance in this matter. Congress has specifically authorized a means for a citizen to prove citizenship, and this authority has been provided under a General Law. In 2000, Hawaii went to a paperless system and had to receive approval from Congress to use a “short-form” and to eliminate the “vault” or “long form” entirely.

The Congress has granted the Secretary of State, and by implication the Department of State, the authority to issue Passports under US Code, Title 22, Chapter 4. The granting of authority to the Department of State to issue a Passport implies that the authority to prescribe the manner in which citizenship must be proved has also been granted.

When this authority has been granted to a federal Department or Agency, the rules that the Department or Agency will use are then promulgated as regulations. These regulations are maintained as part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Department of State has issued regulations under CFR22.51.42 that state the following requirements for a citizen to prove birth in the United States:

(a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States. A person born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant’s place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of birth.

The State of Hawaii has issued a Birth Certificate that meets all of the requirements of CFR 22.51.42. That Birth Certificate is certified by the State of Hawaii, and is considered proven by the Laws of the United States. It will be up to anyone who challenges its authenticity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Birth Certificate is actually invalid. The Certification of Live Birth provided by Obama is LEGAL under Federal law for passports, drivers licenses, running for office, etc.

There is a very high standard of proof that must be met in order to override the Constitutional ‘Full Faith and Credit’ standard granted to the State of Hawaii in this matter. That standard of proof would require that the complainant show proof that there was an actual fraud committed by the State of Hawaii in the certification of that Birth Certificate, or that the certificate itself was fraudulent. Either way, the burden of proof rests with the complainant. Merely making accusations that this may have happened is not sufficient.

This would be true even if a foreign power were to present a Birth Certificate that was claimed to show birth in another country. Under the standard of ‘Full Faith and Credit’ that is specifically provided for in the Constitution, the public records of the State of Hawaii would take precedence over the public records of any foreign power. In order to meet the required burden of proof, the foreign record would not only have to be proven as true, but also the State of Hawaii’s record would have to be proven separately as false.

Demanding President Obama’s birth certificate is the 21st century version of 19th century demands of newly freed slaves: Show me your papers. And when they did they were still lynched. Because hatred makes you blind.


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:35 pm

Dr. Maloney, RESOLUTIONS are not laws, they only express resolve.

It would be a great surprise for any judge to give weight to a resolution in a court of law.

:/
BR


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

Hey idiot, no judge has the power to remove the president from office, as you hope. That power resides in the Congress. The House of Representatives, which passed a resolution 378-0 declaring Barack Obama to have been born in Hawaii, would have to impeach him.

What do you think the chances of that happening are?


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:40 pm

Go back to pecking at carrion along the border, dumbass, and quit pretending you understand anything about government or law.


BigGuy
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:49 pm

LOL! You're concerned that Obama's attorney is overcharging him!

Talk about NOBLE!

(Oh, and by the way, the Press Secretary's name is Gibbs. But why should you be any more accurate on this fact than on the others you mangle?)


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:54 pm

Spawn44: “The cases his attorney is fighting involves proof of his eligibility to be president.”

Sorry spawn, just isn't much of a fight there. What are you blowers now, 0-38? And, not even a sniff at a courtroom because you have no proof and no standing. Really, when a team is that bad they usually break them up and start over. Besides, didn't you even read Judge Land's opinion, it didn't cost Obama or his lawyers a cent, Capt Rhodes gets to pick up the whole tab…Orly's bill and the governments'. So sad when you have to pay to get your ass beat, isn't it?


spawn44
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

If the CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH he has presented is a short form version of the ORIGINAL LONG FORM. then why he he fighting the release of the long form. I don't buy the it's not available BS.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 5:57 pm

Doesn't matter what you buy, you've got no rights to it. Past that, you just look like a ranting 2-year old who doesn't get his way. What's next, going to stomp your feet and hold your breath?


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

I don't buy the it's not available BS.

Why not? It's the truth. Hawaii doesn't issue those anymore, and hasn't for years. Deal with it.


smrstrauss
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

Re: “why he he fighting the release of the long form. I don't buy the it's not available.”

First, it's not available. Hawaii sends out only the Certification, which is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualin…)

Second, Obama is not fighting the release of his birth certificate. He posted his birth certificate. He was the first US president to post his birth certificate.

And there are no lawsuits against him that simply ask for the birth certificate. Before the election all of the lawsuits asked to stop the election. After the election most suits wanted to stop the Inauguration. Current lawsuits claim many things, but they do NOT ask that Obama provide his birth certificate to the court.


ArthurB.
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

Hawaii says that “Certifications of Live Birth … are official government records documenting an individual’s birth.”

You're jumping up and down and screaming that he has to prove something that he's already proved. Don't expect him to do that just because you're throwing a tantrum.

We have a whole legal system for resolving disputes. If you can't get a judge to agree with you, you're just out of luck. Take it like a man, if you can.


spawn44
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

Your boy from CNN already tried that one and ended up with egg on his face.


Anonymous
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 11:37 pm

Hello Borderraven, It seems to me that it is pretty hard to misinterpret the 14th ammendment. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In other words, anybody born 1 fraction of a millimeter across the border is automatically a citizen. Period. Doesn’t matter one iota who their parents are. And, by virtue of there birth, because they did not need to be naturalized, they are Natural Born Citizens, and could potentially become president.


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:44 pm

spawn44, Exactly, the CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH has data from a source, the ORIGINAL LONG FORM. BHO and/or his lawyers need to show the ORIGINAL LONG FORM, and a few other items now requested by Orly Taitz, and we can stop this. But, the Obots fear the truth, cannot quote laws, or prove their point, and the continue drumming the same tune.

:/
BR


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

BHO and/or his lawyers need to show the ORIGINAL LONG FORM,

No they don't. Dismissed.

and a few other items now requested by Orly Taitz,

Hahahahahaha!

and we can stop this.

You'll never stop. You're deranged.

But, the Obots fear the truth, cannot quote laws, or prove their point, and the continue drumming the same tune.

But, the afterbirthers fear the truth, cannot quote laws, or prove their point, and the continue drumming the same tune. FIFY


Doubtful
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:49 pm

“WE CAN STOP THIS”??!!

Bwahahaha! What is that, a threat?

Please, don't stop it. You're getting laughed out of every courtroom in the country, and in just a few days you'll be seeing a couple of judges losing patience with your nonsense.

But just to be sure, why don't you hassle the judges just a little more? Pretty please?


Steve_X
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:51 pm

“His best defense would be to authorize the release of his long form hawaiian birth certificate to defeat his skeptics.”

Wrong. That long form is not the legal document that Hawaii used, the COLB is the official state document, and it is valid in every court of law. To refer to birfers as skeptics is generous at best and illogical at worst. Real skeptics doubt things based on empirical evidence; birfers doubt things based on their own ignorance of the law and their own unwillingness to stop being delusional.

“The certification of live birth you refer to which is continually thrown out by his supporters as a real birth certificate, is not one.”

Wow, you birfers just don't quit, do you? No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it will remain a lie. Under Hawaii state law, the COLB is their version of the birth certficate. I know that it doesn't look anything like the real Kenyan birf sertifikat that Orly Taitz is trying to fool people with, but that's because the COLB is an official state document. Orly Taitz has cheap eBay forgeries that she was stupid enough to buy from scam artists over the internet. Just because you birfers are delusional doesn't mean that the rest of us are.

“A real birth certificate contains much more information such as which hospital he was born in, the doctor 's name who delivered him plus much more.”

So what if it does? None of those things


smrstrauss
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 6:54 pm

Re: “then why he he fighting the release of the long form. I don't buy the it's not available.”

First, it's not available. Hawaii sends out only the new official birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth, which is what Obama posted. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualin…)

Second, he is not fighting the release of the long form. The lawsuits against him do not even ask that he provide his official birth certificate to a court.


gayetannenbaum
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 7:16 pm

If ANY public official or private citizen releases his/her personal information solely at the request of a private citizen, that would set a very bad precedent. THAT is the reason Obama is not releasing anything to the birthers. Besides – even if he released it now – do you REALLY think that would satisfy them? Even if they got a personal tour of the vault at Honolulu, they would still scream “conspiracy”. Orly Taitz has proven that she will accept an obviously phony birth certificate (and more than once) IF it says Obama was not born in the US. Why accept a real one if it says he really really WAS born in Hawai'i.

Even if the majority of birthers accept whatever long-form vault copy would be produced – they will look elsewhere – Was he adopted? Did he register with the SSS? Does/did he have dual citizenship? Was he born BEFORE Hawai'i became a state? and every other accusation in the various complaints filed. Long after Obama has retired from public service, these people will be standing on street corners with their tin bonnets and placards.


Steve_X
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 7:36 pm

=”BHO and/or his lawyers need to show the ORIGINAL LONG FORM, and a few other items now requested by Orly Taitz, and we can stop this.”=

More birfer nonsense. If there's one thing that Orly and the rest of you birfers have shown time and time again, it's that you won't stop. Shit, Orly's been laughed out every courtroom that she's ever set foot in, and she's still filing frivolous lawsuits while presenting no evidence that any of the stupid nonsense she believes in is even remotely true. Orly is too blinded by racism, hatred, ignorance and stupidity to realize that she will never, ever win.

The only thing that this “long-form” will do to birfers is give you dummies more fodder your stupid conspiracy theory. It has no legal validity, and it is not a legal document. Even if it was, you'd all still be screaming “It's a forgery!” long after the guys in white coats drag you off to the insane asylum.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:09 am

Thanks, borderraven, she didn’t lose her citizenship. She is therefore a NBC and has all rights and privileges, including running for president. Even though, BOTH her parents were Swedish. Because she was born in NY. It’s nice to see you’ve finally see the light and have come out of your basement.


RedGraham
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

Taitz, Keyes, Corsi, several military officers, Pat Boone, Chuck Norris, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, me and all the rest of the diehard birthers have been playing against a stacked deck from day-one. The Great Usurper isn't going anywhere soon & if a strong third party candidate shows up in 2012 he might even pull-off re-election. We might have to be satisfied with an asterisk in future history books noting the fact the Obama was never once even for a half of a second a natural-born U.S. citizen. Born a Brit or dual-citizen he later became an Indonesian. Hitler said it best “The bigger the lie the more people will believe it.” I bought an Obama Urinal Sticker at a gunshow and was very disappointed how many vendors believe the Hawaiian COLB as gospel.


gayetannenbaum
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

Using the Wong Kim Ark link provided by BR above:

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

Further – under the discussion English Common Law (since the US does not have a National Common Law):

Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics:

“British subject” means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown. “Permanent” allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is within the British dominions, owes “temporary” allegiance to the Crown. “Natural-born British subject” means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” “Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.

The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two:

1. Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [p658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.

2. Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the Crown by the Sovereign of a foreign State is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.

So – ANYONE born in the USA is a “natural-born citizen” unless he/she falls under one of the two exceptions – (1) parent(s) are in the country as an alien ENEMY at a time of HOSTILE OCCUPATION or (2) parent(s) are in the country as diplomats or ambassadors of a foreign nation.

So unless you are prepared to argue that Kenya was at war with the US at the time AND was in hostile occupation of the State of Hawai'i (or maybe just Honolulu) at the time OR Obama Sr. was an official diplomat…

Try actually READING what you are linking to. The question in Wong Kim Ark was NOT whether he was a “natual born citizen” but whether he was a citizen at all. The court only had to confirm that he was a citizen – in this case by reason of his birth in the US even though HIS parents were both Chinese citizens at the time.

So – to echo Mantis: you are a moron


Captain Pizaaz
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

US Code Title 8, 1401 says, in part, that a person is a born an American citizen if:

“(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person”

Given that nobody is denying that Obama's mom was an American, had lived in the US for over 5 years, including 2 after she was 14, doesn't that mean that the President was born a citizen, i.e. a natural born citizen, regardless of where he was born? Or am I missing something here?


john53
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

I think he was being kind to a man that has failed to represent the people of America. He has shown no leadership in his office. He has continueously associated with corrupt politicians and criminals. He has shown no understanding of foreign policy. He has shown no understanding of health care. He has shown no understanding of the economy. He has been a absolute failure in the office of president.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

But, wait a minute Red, Hitler was talking about people like you. All that you have provided is lies, forged documents, and a total misunderstanding of the constitution. And now, you want to be associated with Hitler? Shows what country you live in.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:23 pm

John, now that was an argument I can appreciate there. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I will agree with your right to spell out your real problems with the President. Me, I want to give him more than less than a year to clean up the total mess left behind by the prior administration. It is quick-fixes that got us into these problems, it's going to take thoughtful and precise action to get us out.


Anonymous
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Not only that, but it proves the two-person requirement for NBC.

:/
BR


BigGuy
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:29 pm

“Taitz, Keyes, Corsi, several military officers, Pat Boone, Chuck Norris, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, me…”

…and I think you've made our point right there. Those are the most credible legal authorities you can come up — and you think the problem is that you're “playing against a stacked deck.”

You wanna retract that silliness and try to come up with a real argument? And some real authorities?


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:30 pm

Sorry, Jim, but john53 does not make any sort of argument beyond “The president has no understanding of anything.” This is an argument you can appreciate? I suppose it's a step above birtherism, but it's not an argument against any specific policy or policies, the Democratic party platform in general, Obama's handling of any particular issues, or even liberalism (or more moderate governance) in general. That's not an argument. That's aggrieved whining.


chrisjay
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

Wow, you must have a classy single-wide, what wif cartoon stickers in your toilet so you can pee on the foreign-born not-president. Decorating suggestion: you should get that Hitler quote (wasn't Hitler, BTW) embroidered on your bathroom towels.
When gun-show denizens start telling you you're off the deep end you might want to pause and assess…
just saying.


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:32 pm

Taitz, Keyes, Corsi, several military officers, Pat Boone, Chuck Norris, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, me and all the rest of the diehard birthers have been playing against a stacked deck from day-one.

Your mental deficiencies and propensity to make fools of yourselves are not a “stacked deck,” crazy ass birther.

I bought an Obama Urinal Sticker

Well, aren't you special.


mantis
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:34 am

You moron, it clearly states that person born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship of his/her parents, is a natural born citizen. What a buffoon!


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

Mantis: “I suppose it's a step above birtherism,”

Hey, I'll take it! Blowers just blow, at least he's proven he just doesn't like him for being him and doesn't have to make things up.


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:41 pm

Stanley A. Dunham, the mother of BHO, was 18 years old at time of birth, and I think she was three-months shy of the requirement.

14 15 16 17 18 * 19

Damn the luck! BHO, may be a Brit. At any rate, his daddy was a Brit, so BHO cannot be NBC.

Hey Jim, have you finished your homework, and do have what I asked, to prove your point?

Still looking, or did you give up?

:/
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

You still can't read there can you border. I easily dismissed your non-argument about 5 minutes after you posted. Now, when are you going to show me the proof in the law or the constitution where you have to be born to 2 american parents to be a NBC? Of course, we all know that you can ask but not answer because of your limited mental capacity, but we still want to give you a chance to further prove your ignorance. I have asked you this same question at least 5 times and you have yet to provide an answer…thereby proving you don't know s**t.


Captain Pizaaz
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:54 pm

Huh? Did you drop out of second grade arithmetic, or something? So can you show me any evidence at all that demonstrates the his mom was not in the US or its possessions for a total of 5 years, with 2 of them being after 14? So somewhere between 14-18, was she not here for 2 years, and before 14 she only had to be here for 3 years. Note – nothing in the statute says anything about time spent consecutively.
In other words, he was born a American Citizen, therefore is a NBC, not a naturalized C.


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

Jim, you are not excused from proving your point, and neither will I prove your point for you.

:/
BR


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:05 pm

Maybe one of the valiant (professional?) anti-Birthers can answer this: why did FactCheck modify the birth cert photos they put online? Why didn't they indicate that they'd been modified?


Roy
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:11 pm

Why don't the so called “birthers” come up with something other than forged birth certificates from Australia with some superimposed forgeries about something from Kenya on top. If anyone has proof that the president wasn't born in the United States, then provide the evidence, but there is no evidence, which is why some idiots just keep on with such nonsense. I know for a fact that the President was born in Hawaii. His mother was born in Kansas. His mother works in Indonesia, and helps poor women learn how to run various businesses which enable them a way to get out of poverty. By the way, the Australian citizen who had his birth certificate ripped off by some of the freaks they call “birthers,” is really rather quite upset about it, and on top of being imbeciles, some of them are thieves. Also, it was the other candidate during the 2008 presidential election who was born in Panama, who also helped the Viet Cong to manufacture 32 anti American videos. One of his good buddies was Richard Nixon, who after the failed war on the poor in Vietnam, immediately went and made friends with the biggest communist in the world after having told the American people throughout much of the war all about just how much he hated communists. In fact, wasn't what that war was supposed to be about?


Empirical
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:18 pm

Congressman Franks' latest statement regarding Obama's citizenship status shows that he is not well informed regarding the various issues/challenges that have been raised. His response is SUPERFICIAL to say the least……. I suggest that he start by reviewing the briefs that have already been filed in federal courts……… (At least five such filings.) Court cases which Obama is spending a large sum of money (not his???) to avoid having to appear and respond……… Why???…… Any other citizen challenged in such cases would be obliged to at least appear and respond — under oath!!! Until Obama does so, the so-called birther issue will grow…….!!! It will not go away……..!!! Congressman Franks should not offer his uninformed view on this subject any more……. He does not provide either a valid answer nor has he furthered the search for an answer to what is IN FACT a serious Constitutional issue……….


chrisjay
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:20 pm

They're jumping up and down and screaming? I thought that was a dance. St Vitus' Dance.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:20 pm

Great! Thanks border, you can't prove your point because there is no truth to it. It always makes me feel good when you blowers finally give up and admit you've been wrong all this time. Now, you've proven it to the whole board, because you can't prove made-up facts. So, now we have it on record that you agree Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen so he is legally eligible to hold the office of President.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:23 pm

Nope. Made up facts doesn't change a thing. No citizen would be required to show up in court and answer to made-up allegations with no proof. Just spitting into the wind Empirical, as are the rest of the blowers.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:25 pm

Furthermore, it wouldn't cost me a thing to get it thrown out, you'd have to pay my costs for filing such a frivolous thing. Didn't you even read Judge Land's opinion? Poor Capt Rhodes has to pay her lawyer (and I use that term lightly) as well as the government costs. Living in a delusional world still will only get you laughed out of court.


Steve_X
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:26 pm

For the last time, no one is going to click onto your spyware-infested WND ripoff of a webpage in order to debunk the latest piece of stupid birfer bullshit. Like all birfers, you don't have any evidence to back up anything you say.

You idiot birfers are starting to get old, but at least you'll never stop being funny.


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

They reduced the resolution (and thus, the size) of the photos, likely because of the bandwidth (and thus, cost) used when the images were downloaded many thousands of times. So what?


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:29 pm

Is there any way we could do that with the blowers, Mantis? Their intelligence is already reduced to next to nothing, maybe we could reduce the size of their privates thereby making them even more envious of Obama.


williamcrumdisabledvietnamvet
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:32 pm

Mr Franks is a brainwashed individual and needs to step down from his seat in the U. S. House of Representatives. He has long been non-representing his district and should have been voted but because his district is Republicans, this is the only reason he is still in. The statement he has made is totally unAmerican and should be relieved of his duty. Besides, he feels he is too good to serve in our military so how can he be considered a patriotic.


Steve_X
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:32 pm

I agree entirely. Obama is reacting to eight years of increasing bad decisions made by George W. Bush, who fits all of those traits and then some. Bush had eight years to destroy this country from the inside out. It took Bush years to cement himself as the worst president, given his disastrous handling of the war on terror, protection of civil liberties, and other issues. With all of the mistakes that Bush made during his two disastrous terms in office, it's naive to think that all of Bush's damage can be undone in a few months. Fixing all of the problems that Bush caused will take a few years at best, and a few decades at worst.


Steve_X
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:36 pm

You're passing judgment too quickly. For example, when Bush was elected back in 2000, I didn't think that he would be an especially good president, but it too much longer than eight months to realize just how disastrous his legacy would be. Bush had eight years to destroy this country (and he did, make no mistake about that), so it will take a lot longer than eight months for anyone to fix all of his mistakes.


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:49 pm

Jim, once again you try to evade your responsibility of proving your claim that a birth, in the USA to one citizen parent and one alien parent, bestows NBC on the child. No doubt the child is a USA citizen, but you are stretching to claim such birth equals NBC.

Jim, the ball is in your court.

Please, cite and quote your reference.

:/
BR


Empirical
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:51 pm

Whether or not the evidence that has been filed in court briefs (by qualified members of the Bar) is valid or invalid — is, of course, for a court to determine……. It will not be decided by the kind of uninformed knee jerk statements provided below…….

Why are you (and Obama) afraid of the courts???


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 9:53 pm

No doubt the child is a USA citizen

There's is no doubt the child is born a USA citizen, making that child a natural born citizen. As opposed to a naturalized citizen.

Dumbass


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 10:00 pm

Whether or not the evidence that has been filed in court briefs (by qualified members of the Bar) is valid or invalid — is, of course, for a court to determine.

Ahem. From the (representative) dismissal of the most recent frivolous birther suit:

“Plaintiff has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States,”

“No credible evidence.” You were saying something about the courts?


Steve_X
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 10:08 pm

I've got a few questions of my own: Why are you (and Orly) afraid to meet your burden of proof? And if you're not afraid to meet that burden, why haven't you done so yet? If everything that birfers believe in is true, then why don't any birfers have any evidence to support anything they claim?


borderraven
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 10:14 pm

mantis, where are you getting this information, “the child is born a USA citizen, making that child a natural born citizen.”? That's not in the 14th Amendment, which only addresses citizenship.

But, you are correct in saying, “As opposed to a naturalized citizen.”, which is how legal-immigrants acquire US citizenship.

C+

:/
BR


Antibirther
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 10:19 pm

From Unitied States v. Wong Kim Ark:
———————————————————

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.”

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

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


Antibirther
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

My isn't that cute. Two sock puppets talking to one another.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 10:23 pm

So the children of teenage mothers are not citizens?


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

Nobody has shown ever to be afraid of the courts. Why should they, you're 0-38 on these suits. In fact, even Judge Land says you got nothing, and he's seen all Orly has to offer. So, as far as I'm concerned, I'm very informed and you're still a blower. Case closed.


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 10:28 pm

From Unitied States v. Wong Kim Ark:
———————————————————

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.”

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

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

Now, where is your so-called proof otherwise?


Jim
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 10:30 pm

Now, borderraven, you still going to avoid showing your proof of the 2-citizen theory? Or you going to go hide behind Orly's skirt like the true blower you are?


captainpizaaz
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 11:19 pm

Um, where does it say (yes, I want you to quote the law or court decision) that someone who was born in this country, but has duel citizenship, is not a Natural Born Citizen? I'm not asking about Obama so much, but rather my daughter who was born both as an American and as a subject of H.R.H. Queen Elizabeth.


mantis
Comment posted September 29, 2009 @ 11:20 pm

mantis, where are you getting this information, “the child is born a USA citizen, making that child a natural born citizen.”?

That's what natural born citizen means. Born a citizen, as opposed to becoming a citizen through naturalization. It's pretty simple language, and easy to understand, if you aren't a deranged birther. The framers preferred that the offices of president and vice-president be reserved to citizens who have been so since birth (i.e. natural born). They didn't create some mysterious third category of citizen, the definition of which they decided to keep secret. To believe otherwise is just idiotic, but that's birthers for you.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 12:02 am

See captainpizaaz, they don't want your daughter to grow up in 40 years and become president. They want to eliminate whole sections of the american citizenship to some made-up secondary class…something the constitution explicitly tries to avoid. That's why their blowers, they haven't a clue about anything this country stands for and hide behind nuts like Orly's skirt to carry on their delusions.


Empirical
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 12:03 am

There is much more to the “uncertainty” about Obama's (1) birth, (2) citizenship AND (3) HIS LEGAL STATUS TO SERVE AS EITHER A SENATOR OR IN THE PRESIDENCY — than the knee jerk responses provided below……. Go to the cases……. No court has yet dealt with the material issues that must be defended by Obama……. No court has yet even bothered to look at the HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE (CERTAINLY IRREGULAR) “certification” of his qualifications that the Democrats used to notify each of the states at the time of his 'nomination.'

If one truly regards our system as a system of Constitutional law — where NO PERSON is “above the law” — (as I do), then it is certain that the courts will soon surely start dealing with the pertinent facts. They will tire of excuses to avoid their duty … and will demand the evidence from Obama — under oath………..!!!

I repeat from above: there is MUCH MORE about Obama's birth, citizenship and legal status to serve as even a Senator much less a President!!! You have not read all the briefs…… Obama (and the Democrat Party) have MUCH MORE to answer for……….. NO PERSON — NOT EVEN OBAMA — is above the law……….


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 12:41 am

Nothing more than a rant, now, empirical. That's all you have left after all else has been proven wrong.


mantis
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 12:59 am

Yawn. Er, I mean YAWN.


borderraven
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:02 am

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.p…

:P
BR


borderraven
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:06 am

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939): The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that Marie
Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents naturalized in the
United States, had not lost her birthright U.S. citizenship because of her removal during
minority to Sweden and was entitled to all the rights and privileges of that U.S. citizenship.
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decree that declared Elg “to be a natural
born citizen of the United States.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.p…

Hooraaay for Orly Taitz, Gary Kreeps, and all the “birthers”!

Celebrate! Celebrate! Happy Dance! Woohoo! Take that Obots! LOL@U :P

BR


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:18 am

Thanks, borderraven..proved my point to no end. Did you not notice? They said no matter what the parents did, she did not lose her citizenship. So, no matter what her mother did after his birth in Hawaii, he was and would be american until reaching the age of maturity. You just proved my point…he was born an american citizen and is now our President. Nice of a blower to help prove our argument for us…makes it even more silly.


mantis
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:29 am

What exactly do you think you're citing, dumbass? Nowhere in that case is it established that both parents must be American citizens for a person to be a natural born citizen, In fact the court clearly states the opposite, that a person born in the US to two foreign parents is a natural born citizen.


borderraven
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Not even close, Jim, because BHO only has one USA citizen parent!

He is not, nor cannot be a NBC!

Stop trying to prove your ignorance, Jim, and shove off!

:/
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:35 am

And, did you get your law degree from an on-line box of fruit loops too, borderraven. That wasn't the question before the court. It was, if her parents renounced their citizenship, does the girl lose hers. The court said no. What idiotic plane of existence did you come from?


borderraven
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:36 am

Mantis, read this very slowly.

BOTH PARENTS WERE NATURALIZED USA CITIZENS AT THE TIME OF HER BIRTH!

That made her case.

Go play on the highway.

:/
BR


mantis
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:37 am

Ok crazy birther, show us the exact words from that opinion which state the requirement that both parents be US citizens. (Hint: you'll have to invent them, because the opinion explicitly recognizes that even a child born in the US of two foreign parents is a natural born citizen)


mantis
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:40 am

Nope. The fact that she was born in the US is what made her case.

'Assuming that Alexander Bohn (the father) never became a citizen of the United States, Jacob Bohn (the son) was born of German parents in the United States. According to the Constitution and laws of the United States as interpreted by the courts, a child born to alien parents in the United States is an American citizen, although such child may also be a citizen of the country of his parents according to the law of that country.

Idiot.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:41 am

First.-On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, [307 U.S. 325, 329] 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, U.S.C.A.Const.; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 S.Ct. 456. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case-that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States-the Court adverted to the 'inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.' United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, 169 U.S. page 668, 18 S.Ct. page 164. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. 1 And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law, on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents, does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, at citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.

As I read it, even if the parents weren't american citizens the girl would be a NBC. Like I said, thanks for proving our case…man, are blowers getting really desperate!


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:49 am

We now have a complete meltdown, ladies and gentlemen. Borderraven has now cited a SCOTUS opinion that shoots down every blower argument in it's tracks. He is now dancing all around his computer in his underwear congratulating himself for completely tearing down Orly's case and proving once and for all Obama is our legal President. And…he doesn't even realize he's done it to himself.


smrstrauss
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:38 am

Hawaii no longer sends out the Original, and it does not send out copies of the Original. It only sends out the certification of live birth, which is now the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii.


RedGraham
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:53 am

If we don't have a leg to stand on in our argument that Obama is possibly not a natural-born U.S. citizen why are the antibirthers trying so hard to drown us out?


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:57 am

We aren't trying to drown you out, we're showing you out in the open, where everybody can see you. We're showing how delusional and absolutely worthless your arguments are. We're laughing at you, not drowning you out. Haven't you figured that out yet?


crossland2
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:13 am

Mr. Franks,
As an employee of the people, you are expected to conduct yourself in a accountable manner, particularly in a public arena. Your remarks regarding OUR President are improper and foolish. YOU are NOT conducting yourself in the eyes of the people that elected you into office. Your small mindless comments show me that you are out of control and should be removed from office. We expect exceptional professionalisms without fail from our elected officials, you are not that person.

Ask yourself this, are you helping with your comments, or are your adding to the divide. As a man, father and husband, you must rise above these weak comments and add to ALL conversations with smart academic consideration without lowering these already difficult issues into ignorance.

That is unless you are performing to your base and lining up your next election.

That would make you King Franks of the simpleminded. A real man would take the high road and do the right thing.

Make your family proud.


mantis
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:20 am

Drown you out? Are our comments somehow being displayed on top of yours, rendering them illegible? We're not trying to drown you out. You're free to spout crazy all you want. In fact I prefer to highlight the incoherent, frothing insanity of you birthers. It amuses me. That's why.


bostwick
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:24 am

Damn! Well by that standard we'll have to shred the Presidency of Rappin' Ronnie Reagan as well…..it took him 30 years to get a birth certificate, which was dated 1940.

I would suggest that the birther movement be a little bit careful for the following reasons:

1) States rights. if you're saying Hawaii does not have the right to certify births, then surely no other states do either. That leads to the need for a national register of births, probably a national ID card….I know most of you guys would regard that outcome as krypto fascism.

2) If a certificate of live birth does nto suffice for evidence of birth, and you will not except an electronic redaction from the official data source as sufficient proof, then effectively you're talking about excluding more than 57% of Americans from ever standing for president. What happens if one of that 57% is Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman…that'd leave you looking a bit silly wouldn't it?

oh, and for God's sake learn what a commie actually IS before spouting off ignorant rants about it…..as a personal favour to me.


Steve_X
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 4:59 am

Why would I want you guys drowned out? Making fun of birfers makes the day go faster. Shit, if I had my way, birfers would get their own channel. One time I got so bored that I wished there two Orly Taitzs, but that much stupidity in one universe would create a rip in the space/time continuum from which we would never recover.


RedGraham
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 7:03 am

The Honorable Mr. Franks,
As an employee of the people you are conducting yourself in a manner that is responsible to the public. Your remarks regarding The Great Usurper are entirely proper. You are conducting yourself properly in the eyes of the people who elected you to office. Your selfless comments show me that you are not afraid of what the Obama-machine will do to remove you from office or harm your family. We expect exceptional professionalism, without fail, from our elected officials and you ARE that person.
As for King Obama of the simpleminded. A real man would take the high road and do the right thing by openly showing his ORIGINAL longform Birth Certificate and ALL other pertinent records.
Make your family proud and continue facing the giant undocumented worker.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 12:17 pm

Borderraven, the question at issue in that case is not about the citizenship status of a child born in the U.S. to aliens or to citizens, it is about whether a minor child can lose U.S. citizenship acquired at birth prior to achieving majority. The answer is that they can not.

So, BR, the case you are citing clearly determines that, in the case of President Obama, he did not loose his American Citizenship when his mother moved to Indonesia, don’t you agree?


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 12:18 pm

You are right. Your voices are being drowned out. . . by laughter.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

Have you noticed that none of the birthers have attempted to argue with that post?


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

There are certain things in American history I am not proud of. There is a long history of institutionalized and even legalized racism in this country. One particular example is the Chinese Exclusion Laws, of the late nineteenth century. These racial animosity behind these laws is ultimately what lead to the Supreme Court of the U.S. case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (WKA).

The legal brief of the lawyer representing the United States in WKA evokes a mixture of disgust and revulsion in the reader, in the same manner that turning over a rotting animal carcass to look at the maggots squirming underneath does.

It is a legal axiom, that in any argument before a court, you leave your best and supposedly strongest argument for last. I therefore invite you to examine the last and “best” argument for denying (WKA) natural born citizenship status. It starts at the bottom of page 33 (page 17 of the PDF file) and continues over the next few pages.

http://library.uchastings.edu/library/topical-a…

I won’t bother detailing just how incredibly vile and racist that argument is, read it to see for yourself. If you do, note how similar the arguments are to today’s arguments by the birthers. The only difference is that in 1898, they had the intellectual honesty openly express their hatred and prejudice as opposed to today’s birthers.

I do want to point out the primary reason, as expressed in the brief, that was presented by the state to deny WKA citizenship as a birthright.

”Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”

It would seem that even the opposing counsel in WKA conceded the fact that citizenship at birth was equivalent to “Natural Born” citizenship.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

Well, just because they try to hide behind their lack of knowledge of the constitution and law, blowers have always shown what their true reason for not wanting Obama in the WH. And, when you get them frustrated and angry, they have shown it in their postings. I'm glad I don't live in that country anymore, and I hope we can continue to move forward and improve on that.


Anonymous
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 6:47 pm

Yup. The only exceptions to the ruling that being born one infinitely small fraction of a millimeter over the border conveying natural born citizenship on you, regardless of the status of your parents are if your parents are part of an invading army or if they are part of the official diplomatic corps of another country. Since neither Mom or Dad were either, he is a NBC. And yes, this applies if mom crossed the border seconds before you popped out.


Anonymous
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 6:47 pm

Yup. The only exceptions to the ruling that being born one infinitely small fraction of a millimeter over the border conveying natural born citizenship on you, regardless of the status of your parents are if your parents are part of an invading army or if they are part of the official diplomatic corps of another country. Since neither Mom or Dad were either, he is a NBC. And yes, this applies if mom crossed the border seconds before you popped out.


borderraven
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:15 pm

Antibirther, Correct, a child born in the USA will not lose citizenship or nationality, to the best of my knowledge, until or unless upon reaching majority he or she acts to surrender USA nationality per 8USC1481– Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions.

I agree, a child carries nationality attained at birth, until acting after reaching majority for a change of nationality.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

So, can we expect that you will not be making the “he lost his citizenship in Indonesia” arguments? or the “He went to Pakistan on a foreign passport” arguments?


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:23 pm

Furthermore, according to this opinion, dual citizenship does not affect your US citizenship.

“As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. 1 And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law, on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents, does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law.”


borderraven
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

Jim, this has never been My argument, that a child born of two USA national parents (plural) would be NBC.

But, you and mantis were pushing NBC to a child born in the USA, to one USA citizen married to a foreign national, which fails NBC, but does convey nationality to the child. Such a child would be ineligible for POTUS, but could be a mayor, governor, senator….

:/
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:29 pm

Sorry, SCOTUS does not agree…

“'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”

It is his BIRTHRIGHT and no one can deprive him of that. And, he can become president of the US. See how wrong you've been all along? Why do people like you believe BS on the web over the state of Hawaii, the constitution, SCOTUS, and the american people?


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

BR, read my extract from the WKA oppinon below. Scotus found exactly that. If you are born in the U.S., no matter who your parents are, then you are NBC.


borderraven
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

Well, he could have acquired Indonesian (dual) citizenship, by actions of his parent(s), and a passport before age of majority, and this would have facilitated international travel. Keep in mind Indonesia is an island state, like Hawaii, and travel is the necessity of living. He still had USA nationality, while traveling to Pakistan, on an Indonesian passport. There is great doubt he traveled to Pakistan, on a USA passport, so the travel visa would be on the Indonesian passport.

:/
BR


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:36 pm

Notice that Borderraven is making the same argument below that Collins is making above. There is no reason to expect that borderraven’s argument has any more validity than it did in 1898 when SCOTUS rejected it.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:39 pm

You seem to be unaware of recent Indonesian history. From the mid 60’s through the turn of the century, Indonesian citizenship policy was heavily nationalistic and restrictive. There is no reason to expect that the government of Indonesia would grant citizenship to someone not even living in the country.


Empirical
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:41 pm

Step one in the process of turning a democracy into a dictatorship is: get rid of the Constitution.

Ignore it … or throw it out … or amend it … to the point where it is no longer a “check and balance” on the executive……. In short, leave the executive ('El Presidento' in the typical latino example) where he is no longer answerable to the Constitution. Typically, 'El Presidento' is first elected — in a manner of speaking — then he nullifies or finesses the Constitution………

Are we seeing an example of that … here … in the USA … the land and people who virtually “gave” Constitutional government and principles to the Western Civilization?????

Virtually none of the discussion on this thread subject has “worried” about the Constitution, its role, or its importance….. The discussion has been mostly about the superficial issues, like “where” Obama was born, what was his mother's age or his father's citizenship status, does he have a (valid) birth certificate, etc……… Yes, such questions may be relevant………. But, many other questions surrounding his total “citizenship” status are also relevant: Obama's subsequent activities and movements — and their legality or illegality — are also relevant!!!

e.g., What was Obama's citizenship status when he traveled to Pakistan (evidently on an Indonesian passport?) as a young, legally adult man??? What was his status at the time when he evidently accepted financial assistance for a portion of his education, on the basis that he was not an American, but was a “foreign” student??? Also, there is the very large question about the extent of vetting (or lack thereof) which the Democrat Party did, or did not do, when he was announced as the Party nominee (to the state party nominating electors) without reference to “his satisfying the Constitutional” standard of qualification…….. Why did they do that???

Why was the Democrat announcement different than the Republican announcements to all of the states??? (Was it because the federal courts already had “filed” evidence in hand that challenged his legality under the Constitution???) The Republicans made sure that they contained the Constitutional language in the case of their nominee………..

A few of the commentators on this subject have manifested a strong belief in the importance of the Constitution……… Well…….. Now you have a chance to prove it………. Let's hear from YOU…….


Steve_X
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:45 pm

=”Congressman Franks' latest statement regarding Obama's citizenship status shows that he is not well informed regarding the various issues/challenges that have been raised.”=

That statement is true of you and every other birfer out there. None of you are well informed on anything, including citizenship, Constitutional law, evidence, or civil procedure. There's a reason why the birfers keep getting laughed out of every court that they set foot into, and that reason is because nothing that any of you say is true. If it were, you would have evidence.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

Empirical wrote: ” he traveled to Pakistan (evidently on an Indonesian passport?)”

I’m sorry but there is no evidence to support this claim. None. Zero.

The real world is not like Alice in Wonderland where simply saying something is enough to make it true.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:50 pm

You have cited no facts to back up your assessment, borderraven. Assumptions have no standing in court or in the legality of Obama holding the Presidency. The only doubt about how he traveled is in the imaginations of a few blowers, who are slowly being filtered out by the continued display of how little water their arguments hold.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

“There is great doubt he traveled to Pakistan, on a USA passport”

Only in your mind.

There is no reason to suspect he traveled under anything but a U.S. passport.


borderraven
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:54 pm

Antibirther, keyword is “opinion”, it bears no weight. A law or a decision of a court, is more reliable to base your argument. But, keep trying.

:/
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

Great, thanks Emp, the constitution requires PROOF of the accusations you're making. Unless you have some proof to back up what you say, it's just the rantings of a poor fool. Thanks for agreeing that we believe more in the constitution than you do…something we already knew.


mantis
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

If you are born a US citizen, you are a national born citizen. There is no third category of citizen. You can claim there is all you want, with no basis of support, but that won't make it true.

Moron.


Steve_X
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:57 pm

I asked these questions of the birfers a few posts below, but I have yet to get a response so I'll ask them again:

Why haven't you (and Orly) ever met your burden of proof? Is it because you're afraid? And if you're not afraid to meet that burden, why haven't you done so yet? If everything that birfers believe in is true, then why don't any birfers have any evidence to support anything they claim? If all of this evidence to support your claim is out there, then why can't you produce ANY of it?

What is it about simple things like the burden of proof and evidence that the birfers just can't seem to figure out? Why can't birfers understand the most basic part of American court system?


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:58 pm

Uhm, that was taken from the majority decision in the WKA case. The Supreme Court of the U.S. case.

Last time I checked, according to the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court is still the final interpretation of the law.

I think it caries a lot of weight.

(Sheesh, talk about trying to toss out the constitution)


mantis
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

Excuse me, natural born, not national born.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

Birtfers want to toss out the U.S. Constituion.


mantis
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

You fucking idiot. The court opinion is the decision of the court.


mantis
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

You fucking idiot. The court opinion is the decision of the court.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

You ARE kidding, aren't you borderraven? As far as I know, all decisions of the court are called “opinions”. This is where you really show your desperation and total lack of understanding of our country. It is sad that you don't want to be an american.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

Only when it doesn't agree with their warped imaginations, otherwise they'll cite it to no end.


borderraven
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:06 pm

Jim, keyword is “opinion”, it bears no weight. A law or a decision of a court, is more reliable to base your argument. Steinkauler, is not NBC and not eligible for POTUS. Find me a law or Supreme Court decision confirming, a non-NBC meets eligibility for POTUS. Argument is moot as COTUSA, requires POTUS to be NBC.
NBC requires two USA citizen parents. Argument is moot, since only one of BHO's parents was USA citizen.

BTW — We are seeking proof BHO was birthed in Hawaii. Can you or he show a certification of birth and evidence to back it up?

:/
BR


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:09 pm

Do you have any understanding of how SCOTUS decisions are rendered?


borderraven
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:11 pm

Jim, the “opinion” you quoted was from an Attorney General” not a judge. AG opinions are not laws, and judges are not obligated to follow them.

D+

Stay in school.

:/
BR


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:15 pm

Borderraven, I have continually shown proof of how wrong you are, and you've continued to show how stupid you are. Yet, you have never shown a single piece of evidence in the constitution, law, or SCOTUS opinion that backs up your claim of 2 citizen parents. Why is that? Only reason is, because it's not true, and you know it. Besides, I'm not arguing with you, I'm laughing at you.

BTW: Since you are to stupid to even understand what a birth certificate is, I'll trump you with the State of Hawaii stating he was born there. And, since Hawaii is the recorder of the birth, they are the only one legally authorized to that fact, you can't have anything else.


Steve_X
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:21 pm

Quick writing tip: when you use the word “evident” you imply that you actually have evidence of what you claim. Since birfers have never had and will never have any evidence, you might want to start using a different word.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

The quote was cited by SCOTUS in support of their opinion, thus validating the original quote.

A Constitutional lawyer you are not


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

Borderraven, you're so smart, why haven't you shown me where in the constitution, law, or SCOTUS opinion where it states that a NBC has to be born of 2 citizens? Until you do, you've got no grade because all your arguments are incomplete. Maybe summer school in Northern Alaska would help.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

Borderraven, plese comment on the following, extracted from the majority opinion (The legal decision) in the Wong Kim Ark case.

From Unitied States v. Wong Kim Ark:
———————————————————

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.”

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

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

————————————

Well? it seems pretty clear that the court was saying that if you were born in this country, no matter who your parents are, then you are a natural born citizen.


mantis
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

You know, well, that's just someone's opinion, so it doesn't mean nuthin. You should try to find a court decision or something. FTW!

-borderlineretard


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

I'm waiting for borderraven to wieh in here. What say you, Border? do you agree with the arguments?


crossland2
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 4:14 pm

RedGraham:
Stand up straight, your knuckles are dragging mouth breather.
Only an empty simple sheep would think that a person could possibility be elected into the highest office in the world and fool everyone. Do yourself a favor, move past your feeling about an intelligent BLACK President. Obama’s job is cleaning up Bush’s mess, not answering your empty minded BS.


Empirical
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:05 pm

THE STATEMENT IS MADE IN THE DISCOURSE BELOW THAT: “THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO 'EVIDENCE' THAT OBAMA MADE HIS TRIP TO PAKISTAN UNDER AN INDONESIAN PASSPORT.”

Is the intent of the statement to be: That he was traveling under a U.S. Passport??? Or … no passport??? OR IS IT INTENDED TO CONVEY THE IMPRESSION THAT HE DID NOT GO TO PAKISTAN???


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:08 pm

What do you think, you caplock moron?


Empirical
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:13 pm

There is much evidence on that issue…….

Have you no answer — except to call names??? Won't be admitted in court………..


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

<h1 style=”font-size:150%”>HEY LOOK AT ME. I CAN TYPE IN ALL CAPS</h1>


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

Obama traveled to Pakistan. So what? He may have used an American passport and there was NO TRAVEL BAN to Pakistan then. That is a birther fantasy.

If he traveled under some other type of passport, it can only be because of his status as a “financial researcher” for Business International Corporation, a CIA front company for whom his mama worked and so did he. He even refers to it in his own resume, just saying it was in 1983. He may well have had his tuition and travel paid as part of his financial arrangment with the CIA.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

Then what is your evidence, Empirical. No more forgeries accepted or even considered, and your opinion is worth less than even Orly's, and that's saying a lot. Or, can we assume, that you're another of those “Alice in Wonderland” posters who assumes that because you say something it's true? We don't accept those in court either.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

I hope Orly files her response in Geogia soon, I want to see what she has to say before she's $10,000 lighter. It will be funny, as usual. Wish TWI would let us fine these blowers every time they misquote the constitution and the law, I'd have enough to send my kids to college in no time!


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:25 pm

Go ahead; present your “evidence.”

What proof do you have that President Obama traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport?

1) Why would Indonesia give him a passport? There is no evidence that he was ever an Indonesian Citizen. As I pointed out in a post, below, Indonesia was extremely restrictive in who they considered to be a citizen at that time.

2) Why would he not use a U.S. Passport? There was nothing preventing him from traveling to Pakistan on a U.S. passport. (in spite of what some liars have claimed).

You have nothing to support your conjecture.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

She is going to get a one two punch this weekend. Land will fine her in Georgia on Friday and Carter will toss her out on her ear on Monday.


Empirical
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:31 pm

Obama worked for the CIA???? (His mother too????)

I believe that is what Dr. Maloney is saying………..???


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:33 pm

Answer the question. What evidence do you have that President Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport?


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

Have you ever noticed how they stop posting after I put up those extracts? It seems they wait until the post drops down below the fold before they come back again.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:44 pm

Antibirther, I'm going to have to disagree with you. Judge Carter has a tough act to follow after Judge Land, he'll take until Wednesday. He's got to come up with something better than “Alice in Wonderland”, and quoting Yogi Berra…the challenge has been set by Judge Land! He's an ex-marine, I'm sure Judge Carter is up to the challenge…and I'm definitely up for another blower beatdown!


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:49 pm

They used to do the same thing with the warning I posted about avoiding their websites. So whenever they come back and start up again, copy and paste and re-post. Works every time! So, whenever they bring up their useless arguments again, I'll do the same with WKA and Erg. And, of course, before raven can get 2 posts in I'll ask for his proof of the 2 citizenship BS and call him out on anything else until he gives it up. This is fun! Blower Beatdown…the new internet action/entertainment game.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

Well he can't call her dumber than a fifth grader, Judge Land already did that.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

Do the research. Try Google. Business International Corporation. His mama worked for the Ford Foundation. She traveled to 11 countries. The Ford Foundation and BIC both were CIA front organizations. Obama was a poor, but brilliant man whose international experience was ideal for the financial research he conducted in various countries for BIC. He is in no way a Marxist or Communist and for this reason he HAS to keep his records confidential. Small thing called NATIONAL SECURITY. People like to portray him as a criminal and he is really a fairly conservative man with moderate beliefs. Who he surrounds himself with may be another story.


Steve_X
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

Empirical, you should know by now that nothing birfers say is supported by any kind of evidence, which is exactly why Orly Taitz has been laughed out of every court that she's ever set foot in. Just saying the magic words “there is much evidence on the issue” does not make evidence magically appear. That's why birfers have lost every single case thus far.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 6:01 pm

I’m surprised he hasn’t tried to pull the quote out of Minor v. Happersett to support his “2 citizen parents” argument. If he does, all you have to do is point out that the word “parents” in that quote is a collective noun and can refer to the singular as well as the plural instance of the object: “parent.” This always blows them away because they have no idea what a collective noun is.


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 6:06 pm

Empircal = Another hit and run birther.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

Empirical:

Here you go. Here's a teaser:

The eye-opener here concerns Obama's first job out of college. In his autobiography, “Dreams from My Fathers”, Barack Obama writes of taking a job after graduating from Columbia University in 1983. He describes his employer as

A consulting house to multinational corporations” in New York City, and his functions as a “research assistant” and “financial writer”

In fact he was recruited by Business International Corporation that was continuously being accused of as a CIA front company. Wikipedia, an independent source, supports this,

The company has been identified as cover organization for the Central Intelligence Agency, e.g. see Lobster Magazine, and issue 14 in 1987. According to a lengthy article in the New York Times in 1977, the co-founder of the company told the newspaper that “Eldridge Haynes [the other founder] had provided cover for four CIA employees in various countries between 1955 and 1960″

Oddly Obama's book doesn't mention the name of his employer. However, a New York Times story of 2007 identifies the company as Business International Corporation. In his book, he doesn't mention his employer's name nor does he say when he worked there, or why he left.
Researcher and blogger Joseph Cannon points out,

Obama's bios are as important for what they leave out as for what they reveal. I first became suspicious of his now-infamous trip to Pakistan (which he took in the summer between Occidental and Columbia) because he refused to mention this adventure in his books.”

Cannon further adds,

Think of it: We are talking about a man who compiled not one but two autobiographical works before the age of 46. We are talking about an ambitious politician intent on establishing his foreign policy cred. Yet he refused to mention a dangerous trip to Pakistan which he made at a time when travel to that country was discouraged by the State Department. That country was then the focus of the CIA's largest covert operation, the supplying of the Afghan mujahedeen. While there, this callow college kid met with one of the most powerful men in Pakistan — a meeting arranged by an unnamed personage with the American Embassy.

If the Pakistan trip was a pleasure jaunt, why did Obama keep it a secret? He wrote in his autobiography that he was broke and on food stamps which leads to the question how did he pay for this expensive trip?

Ann Dunham, Obama's mother, visited at least 13 countries, and had worked for companies that required travel to Pakistan. Her employers appear to have included the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Ford Foundation, Women's World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank. Note that USAID and the Ford Foundation have (allegedly) been used as covers for CIA agents. Like mother, like son. Ann worked for at least two organizations notorious for providing CIA cover. Barack went straight from college to an organization known to provide CIA cover and supposedly, his mother was a leftist. Yet she married Lolo Sotero who just so happens to be a key intermediary between the Americans and Indonesian strongman Suharto, who coincidently was, installed by the CIA in an extremely bloody coup. (Obama admits this in his book.).

http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Orange-County-C…

Sorry this destroys your arguments. Obama is a patriot. Who woulda thunk it?


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 6:13 pm

“Wikipedia, an independent source, supports this”

come again?


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

So, when using that, make sure to link to definition of collective noun. Got it, Anti…thanks. BTW, you know he's reading this now…bet he's even looking it up as I type.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 6:22 pm

Give him a break, Anti, he's on a roll! Besides, it's more interesting to read facts and actual knowledgeable posts rather than those idiotic rants that the blowers inevitably end up with.


RedGraham
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 6:42 pm

AntiBirther
Only an empty simple sheep would think that a person with an endless supply of ACORN&Move0n.org money could not possibily be elected into the highest office in the world and fool everyone that he ever was a natural-born citizen. Do yourself a favor, move past your feelings for intelligent-acting BLACK men. Obama’s job is not only perpetuating Bush’s mess but socializing the U.S.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 6:47 pm

So let me get this straight, Red, you think 49 years ago, Obama knew there would be an ACORN to get him elected and decided to fake his birth in Hawaii? Why would he even bother with President? With that kind of foresight, he probably would have bet the lottery multiple times and been a millionaire many times over…and never have to listen to you blowers. What a delusional imagination you have Red!


Antibirther
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 6:58 pm

If you are addressing me, I have no idea what you are talking about.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

That's OK Anti, neither does he. He proves it every time he posts.


Steve_X
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

=”Only an empty simple sheep would think that a person with an endless supply of ACORN&Move0n.org money”=

*yawn*

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing that a birfer has written thus far. Another birfer delusion supported by no evidence at all, but why am I even surprised? Delusion is all that birfers have, and this type of abject stupidity is why Orly and you birfers get laughed out of every court that you set foot in. You birfers are actually starting to bore me now.


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

BorderRaven…have you given up on me now? I'm still waiting on your proof that a NBC has to be born to 2 citizen parents. You've called me names and belittled me, now where is your proof? Or, have you decided that I'm correct and are now willing to admit that Obama is our legal President? I have to assume that your silence says that, since the only time you've ever shut up is when you've been proven wrong, again. Or, are you like captainsteve, once proven wrong go off to a different message board spouting the same, tired arguments and hope nobody notices?


Jim
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 8:21 pm

I hope that TWI comes out with a book sometime…”Stupid Blower Comments”. I think it will shoot right up to #1 on the NY best seller list for comedies.


whatstolove
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 10:09 pm

So, in conclusion, Sen Trent Franks really does not believe, in his heart
and soul, that Mr. Barrack Obama really shouldn't be president because he is
not a U.S. born citizen.


whatstolove
Comment posted September 30, 2009 @ 10:25 pm

….And he's black muslim who is a racist against white people….
Got it Sen Trent Franks. Hearing and reading you pretty loud and clear.
Thank you.

P.S.
What is happening to our great country of ours? Have the American citizenry all gone completely mad?


Steve_X
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 12:34 am

They'd need to do a series of volumes…they could call it the Encyclopedia Retardica.


crossland2
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 12:40 am

RedGraham:
Please sterilize yourself… nothing worse than more of the same from another generation of zero logic mouth breathers. Look back at your life and try to figure out when your judgment turned inward towards childlike fear. You are a little person with shallow, narrow minded beliefs. You are beyond shame.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 1:10 am

Get this folks…the blowers' savior, Orly, can't even properly file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. I think she's starting to get on the Judge's good side early, considering it was Kreep who pointed it out. Now she has to refile by Friday. Now we get to see Orly in real action, in both California and Georgia on the same day. There's going to be a lot of laughs this weekend!

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/…


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 1:38 am

I would have thought that Judge Carter might have wanted to do about 1,000 other things than have to read another Orly filing this weekend.


Lawyer
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 2:10 am

It is extremely clear to the great majority of persons in this nation and the world that neither the Obama administration, nor the State of Hawai’i, are even attempting to be trustworthy or honest in their dealings. I’ve never in all my long life witnessed such an obvious group of amateur deception artists working in any state’s government as “The Three Hawai’ian Stooges”, Fukino, Okubo, and Lingle. Many millions of Americans know full well that everyone involved in this massive deception, fraud, and sham will eventually be duly exposed, removed from their positions, prosecuted, and imprisoned. “It can’t happen”, you say? Be patient, justice, like a house fire, usually begins with a spark, then, before anyone realizes it, quickly achieves an unstoppable momentum. Very soon, the events of the Watergate scandal will seem miniscule by comparison. Barack “Pinocchio” Obama and his gang are foolishly attempting to hide his entire background from the Citizens of these United States – it will not work – we will not stop making inquiries and conducting investigations until we know every factual detail! As dripping water wears away stone, so shall we the people dissolve Obama’s facade. I predict that after every scintilla of hidden information has been publicly exposed and the evil doers are finally placed on trial, all those involved in the great Obama deception will suddenly develop horrible cases of Tourette’s syndrome, loud outbursts of profanity will accompany each and every breath they take. The first rat to jump ship, go to the authorities, and confess the whole truth will be given immunity, the remainder will rightfully be carted away to prison in government issued orange garments and silver accessories. GOD BLESS AMERICA!


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:11 am

According to school records in Indonesia, Obama was registered under the name Barry Soetoro, Indonesian.
Could it be that his step-father had adopted him?


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 2:31 am

Well, that was boring Lawyer. You live by your delusions. The only thing I can come up with are the “Three Stooges of Blowers” that seem to like posting here…Lawyer, BorderRaven, and Red. Not only have they totally missed what is said in the constitution, they even can't come up with any laws or reason that Obama isn't our legal President. They are left with mindless rants and useless slogans, hoping that no one notices it is them that are the enemies of our freedom. So, to Larry, Curly and Moe, thanks for all the slapstick comedy, it's so much fun to watch you slap each other around.


ArthurB.
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 2:53 am

Why, Lawyer, I bet you're waiting for an OMG moment!

BWAHAHAHAHA!


RedGraham
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 3:15 am

Crossland2
Please sterilize yourself… nothing worse than more of the same from another generation of zero logic mouth breathers. Look back at your life and try to figure out when your judgment turned inward towards childlike fear. You are a little person with shallow, narrow minded beliefs. You are beyond shame. Another thing you might want to consider is sticking to the issue at hand instead of totally losing it ranting, raving & namecalling. Kind of childish don't you think? Bottomline Obama is hiding something very serious about his past or at least attempting to.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 3:32 am

Oh , Red, now it's scare tactics? Don't you think that's just a little childish? This is about Obama's legal right to be President, not your imaginary world of multinational conspiracy…that's only in your deranged mind.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 3:46 am

The three Hawaiian Stooges?

Barack “Pinocchio” Obama?

A complete lack of any facts, law, logic, or reason?

A delusional rant about “citizenship” and “deception?”

Cut the shit Orly, we know it's you. No matter how many times you change your screen name on this message board we know your specific brand of mental retardation when we see it.

Get back to your padded room, birfer.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:13 am

Obama has two problems related to his eligibility for presidency:

1. He cannot prove his birthplace. If he could, he would not have hired expensive law firm to fight for the dismissal of eligibility lawsuits. If the COLB document, posted on factcheck.org, were legitimate one, Obama could have submitted it to a court for verification. What is he afraid of?
No other presidential candidate has been as secretive about ordinary biographical data.

2. As a dual citizen at birth (his father was a British citizen), Obama is not a natural born citizen of USA. Therefore he is not eligible to run for presidency.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:26 am

Being a US born citizen is not enough to be eligible for presidency. One has to be a natural born citizen.


RedGraham
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:30 am

The above was a paraphrase of crosslands rabid insults. However since you want to hear more, did you see this from yesterday's news?
Rumors of the “birther” movement's death appear to have been greatly exaggerated. The group has been demanding for months that President Obama produce a “valid” birth certificate to prove he's a natural-born citizen of the United States – and it's not giving up just yet. A Christian website called LivePrayer.com produced an infomercial that the United States Justice Foundation organization is set to air in seven Southern states.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:30 am

If another country can claim you as their citizen at birth – you are not a natural born citizen of USA.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:30 am

If another country can claim you as their citizen at birth – you are not a natural born citizen of USA.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:50 am

What are you talking about? It is Obama who is trying to DISMISS eligibility lawsuits based on the technicality that those raising the lawsuit have no standing. No court has actually examined the evidence of Obama's birthplace or dual citizenship at birth.
If Obama was legitimate natural born citizen, how difficult would it be to prove it?

Hiding behind a COLB document posted on factcheck.org counts as a proof of eligibility?
Is this a new legal standard? Posting documents on the web and having supporters proclaim that those documents are legitimate?

Obama is lying about his birth in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu. The COLB document has registration number 10641. Nordyke twins, born in the Kapiolani Hospital on August 5, 1961 – one day AFTER Obama, have registration numbers 10637 and 10638. There was a published article in Honolulu Advertizer about Nordyke twins, and their mother showed the long form birth certificate with above mentioned registration numbers. Document snapshots were part of that article.
How is it possible that Obama was born in the same hospital day earlier than Nordyke twins, yet his registration number is higher. It does not make any sense. Let's check hospital records to see if Obama was indeed born there? Would you oppose to this investigation?


resplazapunchbowl
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:50 am

THE REAL CERTIFICATE

You birthers have been screaming to see the 'real long-form Certificate of Live Birth.' Here is the information you are missing. Numbers in parenthesis indicate information not carried in the “new post-2001 valid Certification of Birth issued in June 2007 which Barack Obama placed in the internet in 2008.
Name of child: (1)(Twins or Single Boxes) Parent's name and (2) ages'(3) POB. (4)mailing address, (Farm or Plantation boxes, (5) parent's occupation (6) type of industry of occupation,(7) name of hospital (8) signature (no print) of attending physician (MD or DO? boxes)with date; (9) signature(s) (no print) of attending nurse(s) with date; (10) name of informant providing information (usually parent), with date (11) stamped signature of Director of Health Department (12) stamped signature of Registrar, Bureau of Vital Statistics. Date of issue. (Other information such as child's name, DOB, date and time of birth are the same in both certificates. No printed state seal or authentication statement. but hand embossment.

New ” Certification of Live Birth” (top) contains: Official printed Seal of Hawaii State (top) words 'State of Hawaii” (top right), City/Town of Birth (Honolulu), Island of Birth(Oahu) ,County of Birth.(Honolulu)
Bottom of certificate: State seal embossment. THIS COPY SERVES AS PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE OF BIRTH IN ANY COURT PROCEEDING (HRS 335-13 (b) 335-19) ANY ALTERATION INVALIDATES THIS CERTIFICATE
Question? Will the absence of any information in the old certificate have a material and legal effect in disqualifying Barack Obama in any way? If so, what information and under what law? Is this what he was “hiding.”?
As a reference check under Eleanor C. Nordyke, who furnished two copies of Hawaii's pre-2001 “old Certificate of Birth.” for her twin daughters. She was in the Kapiolani Hospital ward with Stanley Ann Obama (Obama's late-mother) the same day of Barack Obama's birth.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:53 am

Obama is lying about his birth in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu. The COLB document has registration number 10641. Nordyke twins, born in the Kapiolani Hospital on August 5, 1961 – one day AFTER Obama, have registration numbers 10637 and 10638. There was a published article in Honolulu Advertizer about Nordyke twins, and their mother showed the long form birth certificate with above mentioned registration numbers. Document snapshots were part of that article.
How is it possible that Obama was born in the same hospital day EARLIER than Nordyke twins, yet his registration number is higher? It does not make any sense. Let's check hospital records to see if Obama was indeed born there? Would you oppose to this investigation?


mantis
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 6:55 am

That is the definition of natural born citizen. Born a US citizen? You're a natural born citizen of the US. It's real simple.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:02 am

US born of citizen parents.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:51 am

How is it possible you could be that dumb? It simply means they pulled his certificate out of the booklet after they did the twins. There are countless reasons that may have happened.

Why do you birthers chimp out over really stupid irrelevant stuff like that? And deliver it with grave seriousness as if it's the most important thing in the world?

Let me ask you this–How did Obama manage to get a certificate number within 3 of those Nordyke twins if his certificate was forged? If the forgers knew the right numbers to use why wouldn't they have used one that came before the twins? And if they didn't know then how did they get so close?

It's just amazing you could even think it's surprising that those numbers aren't always in the exact order of peoples births. You have a strangely cartoonish idea of the perfection of how it works.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:53 am

Well, if they say it in an infomercial it must be true.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:54 am

Gotta love how birthers keep trying to rewrite the Constitution.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:57 am

“No other presidential candidate has been as secretive about ordinary biographical data.”

And let's not forget rewriting reality. No other President in history has proven his place and date of birth anywhere near the degree Obama has. Most never show a birth certificate at all.

But birthers just close their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, and yell, “lalalalala! I can't hear it! lalalalala!”

Oh well. You nutjobs are at least entertaining.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:00 am

Rewriting the constitution and the law again, I see.

Too bad it doesn't work like that. You don't get to just make up new laws whenever you want to…. or… well, you can, but no one will pay any attention.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:03 am

Oh, that's just brilliant. By your logic then, any country could veto any President simply by making them a citizen. In case you don't get it, any country can claim anyone as a citizen if they want to. Fortunately foreign laws don't apply in the U.S.

You know, what you are espousing is exactly what the framers sought to avoid–allowing other countries ndue influence in U.S. Presidential elections. If you had your way they would have total veto power over Pres. elections.

Good thing the framers were a lot smarter than you are.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 3:08 pm

Or, could it be they misregistered him? Doesn’t matter, being adopted doesn’t cost you your american citizenship anyway. So, it wouldn’t make a difference one way or another.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 3:08 pm

Or, could it be they misregistered him? Doesn’t matter, being adopted doesn’t cost you your american citizenship anyway. So, it wouldn’t make a difference one way or another.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:50 am

I tend to believe SCOTUS before I believe you NC. “As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality.” PERKINS v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Dual nationality has no affect on american citizenship…according to SCOTUS. You don't get to interpret laws to fit your needs, NC…no one gave you that authority. Go back to your hole in the ground.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:52 am

First.-On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, [307 U.S. 325, 329] 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, U.S.C.A.Const.; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 S.Ct. 456. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case-that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States-the Court adverted to the 'inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.' United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, 169 U.S. page 668, 18 S.Ct. page 164.
PERKINS v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

SCOTUS disagrees with you NC…do you want to try again or admit defeat yet?


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:57 am

Red, you don't get to determine what is “Valid”. Nobody gave you that authority, and you don't get it just by saying it. Hawaii is the only one who get's that right, and via the 10th amendment, they say he was born there…he was born there. And no the death has not been greatly exaggerated and you have yet to prove he isn't a NBC and you never will. That christian website is by a storefront minister with a mail order pastor, so it fits with your mail order lawyer, as is just as worthless. HAHAHAHA you are such fools following more fools into oblivion.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:02 am

So, what you're saying NC, is if the poor Nordyke twins were to happen to lose their BC and order new ones…they would no longer be citizens of the US because Hawaii only issue COLB? No wonder you'll never get anywhere with this, you want to take away people's citizenship on just your word. LOL, show how foolish you are again! That's why this will never go anyplace, you haven't a clue!


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

I tend to believe SCOTUS before I believe you NC. “As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality.” PERKINS v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Dual nationality has no affect on american citizenship…according to SCOTUS. You don't get to interpret laws to fit your needs, NC…no one gave you that authority. Go back to your hole in the ground. BTW, no court has ASKED Obama to submit his BC, only blowers. And, since blowers have no standing, he doesn't have to.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 1:10 pm

My wife used to work as a unit secretary in a labor and delivery ward at a small hospital. Trust me, there is nothing unusual about the numbers being out of sequence. Factors that can influence the sequence of the numbers include: the time of the delivery, staffing and census levels at that time. The particular person(s) on each particular shift. The availability of both parents to answer questions for the form, etc. In addition, in those pre-computer days, for a large hospital like Kapiolani, which specialized in maternity care, there would have been multiple secretaries and nurses stations, each with its own, separate stack of pre-printed forms.

The fact that they were that close in numbers actually confirms that Obama was indeed born at that Hospital.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 1:17 pm

To all the birthers out there (Borderraven, RedGraham, Lawyer, naturalizedcitizen, Empirical, and the rest of the sock puppets), please review and respond to the following:

From Unitied States v. Wong Kim Ark:
———————————————————

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.”

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

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

————————————

Well? it seems pretty clear that the court was saying that if you were born in this country, no matter who your parents are, then you are a natural born citizen


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

Maybe he's a fan of fantasy fiction?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 1:25 pm

That'll be the moment when the California Bar Assoc. disbars her.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

Besides, the Nordyke twins were induced…meaning the doctor knew beforehand when they were going to be born. It seems that maybe the doctor for the Nordyke twins may have started filling in a lot of the paperwork before their birth, which makes sense. And, explains the numbering sequence. Besides, it will take a lot more than conjecture to remove a sitting President…much as you blowers hate it.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

Won't that by OUR OMG moment Anti? As in, “OMG they finally did it!!!” as we laugh at the blowers delusions again.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 1:58 pm

Re: “The COLB document has registration number 10641. Nordyke twins, born in the Kapiolani Hospital on August 5, 1961 – one day AFTER Obama,”

The COLB numbering has no relation to the original birth certificate numbering.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 2:10 pm

“Lawyer” who posted below last night,on Scienceblogs under the handle: “nunyabiz.”

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/09/anot…

From one of her posts:

” Excuse me for pointing out a couple of easy to comprehend facts, but I am an extremely competent and capable (remember the O.J. “dream team”, dear? I was one of the members) practicing Attorney at Law. It is patently obvious from you baseless post you are nothing more than a severely mentally-ill practicing pathological liar. Thank you.”

LOL LOL LOL LOL


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

Well, we ran off “BorderRaven” the other night. He's now over at the ledger-enquirer.com.

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_ne…

And, what's really funny, is he's using Perkins V Elg to try and prove his point there. How delusional can one individual be? Should I just copy and paste the argument here, or should I just string him along again? How about the rest of you come over there and say HI to him? This is too hilarious! BWAHAHAHAHAHA


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

One more hilarious post from her:

Contrary to rumors floating around the net, both “Wong Kim Ark's” parents WERE United States Citizens.

I guess they don't teach much American History in Moldavia, eh?


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

Which begs the question…is borderraven more of a Curly, or Shemp?


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

Hawaii DoH index records are in public domain. Legal opinion rendered by Hawaii AG Benett and used by Dr. Fukino, claiming that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen”, is also in public domain. The truth about Obama’s birth will come out.
Read about details at:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

Are you sure about that? I would imagine that there has to be a unique record numbering system involved.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

The only real fact that we have is registration numbers. Everythng else is pure speculation.
I have my own theory on Obama's registration number. His foreign birth was registered in the Department of Health by a relative. Because of the delay in reporting the birth his registration number is higher.
This is entirely plausible scenario.
The only way to verify whether your theory, or mine is correct is to actually look into hospital records. Obama is afraid to do this. Why?
If he was born in the Kapiolani, there will be records there to show it. There will be the long form birth certificate on records with DoH (same document that Nordyke twins have)


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 4:06 pm

What do you mean speculation? Hawaii says he was born there…good as gold in any court, state, federal, or government in the US. The only speculation is on your part…and you don't count.

Let me ask you a simple question, if the Nordyke twins lost their BC's and ordered new ones from Hawaii, Hawaii would send them the COLB. Is it your contention that because they no longer have the original, they are no longer citizens? Is it your contention the the Nordyke twins, or for that matter anyone else born in Hawaii, has to meet some arbitrary standard that only you get to decide? Is that how you want it to work? LOL, you've really lost it now.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 4:06 pm

Look at my response above. You are purely speculating. There is no need for this. Obama has already waved his privacy claim about birth certificate issue. The short form has been posted on the web and he did not object to it.
What is so special about the long form that he does not want to show it to the public? Give me a reasonable logical answer for this behavior.
I just do not understand why would he hide the long form when it only has few additional pieces of information.
The only explanation I can think of is that he does not have a long form birth certificate, which would confirm birth in the USA.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

You said:”Hawaii says he was born there…good as gold in any court, state, federal, or government in the US”
Could you clarify your statement: Hawaii = what exactly do you mean.
Okubo, Fukino or somebody else?

We are talking about presidency! If he wanted to, he can release any information needed to establish the eligibility. He could do it in a heartbeat. Original documentation is on file with DoH.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 4:16 pm

Well, let me see. Logic to a blower…talk about a waste of time.

1) COLB is proof of birth in USA. Hawaii is the recorder of the birth, and they decide what forms/information to release. Not some blower who thinks they have some special power endowed upon them and not given anywhere by the american people or any other law.
2) What privacy claim are you talking about? He did the same thing millions of americans do every week. He showed his Birth Certificate for identification. Who he decides to show it to, as with you when you decide to show yours, is entirely up to him. And, just like when you show your BC, it doesn't all of a sudden allow me to see every aspect of your life.
3) Your demands are useless and it has already been stated, multiple times, that even if he does show it…you folks still won't believe it.
Now, logically, legally, and any other way…can you prove Obama was NOT born in Hawaii.


mantis
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

Could you clarify your statement: Hawaii = what exactly do you mean.
Okubo, Fukino or somebody else?

The State Department of Health records, and multiple officials.

We are talking about presidency! If he wanted to, he can release any information needed to establish the eligibility.

He already has. Thank you for playing.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

Why? The original birth certificate, meaning one of the series of long-form
birth certificates, is numbered as those were numbered.

The Certifications of Live Birth are numbered as Certifications of Live
Birth are numbered. The number on Obama's Certification reflects the date that
it was issued, not the date of the original long-form birth certificate.


mantis
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

Wrong. Go back to your former country if you can't be bothered to learn about the US.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 9:41 pm

Someone is afraid of truth. There are no viruses.
There are no conspiracy theories. If Obama was born in Hawaii, there is a record of it. The statement issued by Dr. Fukino about “natural-born American citizen” is part of the inquiry and documents used by her to reach that conclusion have been requested under the Hawaii laws about transparent government. In her correspondence with a US citizen, she mentioned that her statement is based on legal opinion by the AG Bennet. Under Hawaii law, his legal opinion provided to other public officials is a public document.
It has been requested from DoH to release it.
We shall see if DoH complies with the law.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 9:49 pm

The record of Obama being born in Hawaii is called the BC and has been verified that Obama was born in Hawaii by Hawaii officials. Everybody born in the US is a Natural born citizen. That conclusion was reached by the SCOTUS. The rest is just your imagination. Since you have no proof he wasn’t born in Hawaii…case closed. Other than the laughing at your delusions.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:01 pm

I see that you still can’t answer my questions. I don’t even know why I keep asking; if you ask me, no birfer can produce any evidence of anything that they claim.

If what you say is true, those records are in the “public domain,” and those records say something that you think would actually help the birfer movement, then why can’t birfers get them into court? If those documents are readily available, why can’t you guys get your ducks in a row and meet your burden of proof? What is it about valid, admissible evidence that the birfers are so terrified of?

And go back and read what you wrote above. Apparently you think that officials from Hawaii would somehow change their story and switch to the side of birferism after stating that Obama is indeed a natural born citizen. Then you claim that the “truth about Obama’s birth will come out,” as if there were any valid evidence that Obama was born anywhere else but Honolulu, Hawaii. You and I both know that there is no evidence of any foreign birth, yet birfers continue to insist that this evidence exists even though they have yet to produce it.

I’ll ask it again: if there is evidence that Obama was born anywhere else but Honolulu, why can’t birfers produce this evidence? Lawyers in courtrooms produce evidence and meet burdens of proof every single day; what is it about the prospect of valid, admissible evidence that makes birfers pee their pants in horror?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

You are talking about the date stamp, this is about the cert record number.

The COLB cert record # is: 151 1961-010641

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_ce…

If he re-ordered it today, it would have the same record number on it but with a different date stamp on the back.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:18 pm

He has proven nothing. COLB document posted on a friendly web site is not a proof.
In the article published by the Honolulu Advertizer, Eleanor Nordyke presented long form birth certificate for her twin daughters. There is nothing in that document that would require invocation of privacy laws.
Why is Obama refusing to present the same document (long form birth certificate)?

His college records are sealed (we cannot examine whether he registered as a foreign student). All recent presidential candidates released their school records. That is how we know that Bush, Gore, Kerry and McCain were mediocre students.
What is Obama hiding?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:21 pm

Test – Is there a problem with the board here?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:23 pm

See my reply above.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:34 pm

Birfers have at least two problems related to their understanding of Constitutional law, evidence, civil procedure, legal research, and pretty much everything else law-related. Since it' such a beautiful day outside, I'll keep this short.

1. Birfers cannot prove that Obama wasn't born anywhere but in Hawaii. Every time Orly goes into court with those cheap eBay forgeries she gets laughed out of court. Why? Because Orly is the plaintiff's attorney, and the burden of proof is always on the plaintiff. Legally speaking, Obama is the defendant and he has no obligation to release any more evidence than he already has. Logically speaking, when you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas; birfers don't have (and will never have) any evidence of anything they claim, which is why they always lose. Furthermore, the birfers are an embarrassment to themselves and Obama's isn't stopping this because the birfers are making themselves look stupid.

To put it another way, birfers have no proof of anything, because nothing they say is even remotely true or even logical. If it was, you guys would have evidence. Since you don't (and remember, in any case the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the plaintiff) you will never, ever win. I mention the burden of proof specifically because Orly had to have Judge Land explain it to really slowly, and since she's the smartest of the birfers I want to make sure that part is crystal clear. There is never burden any on the defense to produce anything; this is especially true when the plaintiffs (here that would be the birfers) have absolutely no evidence at all to back up anything that they claim

And speaking of evidence, I should take the time out to mention FREv 902(1), which deals with self-authenticating documents. Since the COLB is a valid state-issued document, it falls squarely within the definition of self-authenticating documents. In a nutshell, any birfer that claims that the COLB is a fake has the burden of proving so. Since the birfers are incapable of doing this, the COLB is accepted as prima facie evidence of exactly what is written on it's face: that Barack Obama was born in Honolulu Hawaii to an American mother on American soil. You may want to explain that to Orly the next time you see her, since she didn't collect enough cereal box tops to send away for the Evidence coloring book.

2. Nothing in the Constitution, Supreme Court case precedent, USCA, or any other legal authority states that dual citizenship precludes being a natural born citizen, which is exactly what Obama is. To paraphrase Judge Land “This is not Alice in Wonderland. Simply saying something does not make it so.” Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far, the birfers don't have extraordinary proof. The birfers don't even have ordinary proof. Hell, at this point us sane people would settle for mediocre proof, but the birfers can't even manage to make THAT happen.

To conclude, the birfers have no evidence to back up or prove anything that they claim. They have reams of Constitutional law and Supreme Court precedent that only state the exact opposite of what they claim the law to be. These are the reasons that Orly Taitz and the birfers get laughed out of every court that they've ever set foot into.

Of course, this won't be the end of the discussion, which raises a few questions of my own: Why can't the birfers submit any reliable, valid, admissible evidence to meet their burden of proof? Other lawyers do it every day, yet the birfers refuse to.

What is it about meeting the burden of proof that has birfers so terrified that they'd rather be laughed out of every single court that they set foot into?


Steve_X
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:44 pm

Apparently she's about as much of a lawyer as OrlyTaitz is. I wonder if they were assigned the same coloring books when they were earning their “law degrees?”


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:47 pm

1. If DoH continues with their delay in releasing the public information – the case will end up in court. In this case there will be no possibility to use the “standing” issue. According to the Hawaii law – public has standing when it comes to transparency in government issues. The case will be heard in the court based on facts – not based on “standing” technicality.

2. In Orly’s case – she submitted an afidavit from Lucas Smith that birth certificate from Kenya is a legitimate one. If he is lying, he should be prosecuted, as simple as that. The only way to verify his claims is to look into Obama’s records on file with Hawaii DoH. These records will tell the court if Mr. Smith is lying or not.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

It's so nice when someone outside the Democratic party tells the truth…

“Sen. Lindsey Graham , the Republican senator from South Carolina who helped Sen. John McCain of Arizona campaign for president, has a suggestion for some of the more radical elements of his own party challenging President Barack Obama:

“I'm here to tell you that those who think the president was not born in Hawaii are crazy,” Graham said at a “First Draft of History'' conference sponsored by The Atlantic, The Aspen Institute and the Newseum in Washington.”

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog…

I agree 100% with Senator Graham, and appreciate his openness and honesty. So tell me blowers, since the only way the constitution allows removal of a sitting President is by impeachment, and the ones who will vote on it are calling all of you “crazy”, what kind of relief do you think you'll ever find? Especially with only forged documents and wild theories behind your effort. Courts aren't going to help you, they demand proof. Congress thinks you all are nuts. You've got nothing left but to go to WND to stroke yourselves, and come here to get shown how absolutely stupid you are. Not much of an existence, if you ask me. LOLOLOLOL


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

NaturaldDick: 2. In Orly’s case – she submitted an afidavit from Lucas Smith that birth certificate from Kenya is a legitimate one. If he is lying, he should be prosecuted, as simple as that. The only way to verify his claims is to look into Obama’s records on file with Hawaii DoH. These records will tell the court if Mr. Smith is lying or not.

Well, now you continue to show your stupidity. Hawaii can’t authenticate a Kenyan BC, only Kenya can. And, like Orly, your stupidity continues to shine through. So, Hawaii has nothing to do with the Kenyan BC and no requirement exists you stupid blower. You are so full of hot air, it’s pathetic.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:54 pm

=”It is Obama who is trying to DISMISS eligibility lawsuits based on the technicality that those raising the lawsuit have no standing.”=

Unless I’m reading that wrong, you seem to think that Obama’s lawyer is the first lawyer to ever move to have a case dismissed. I can’t tell if this is really a serious statement or not but what the hell, I’ll bite. You actually seem surprised that a defendant in a civil case would have the audacity to move for a dismissal. The first thing defendants in civil cases do is move to dismiss. Ask any lawyer that has been served with process; the first thing you do is to look for a way to dismiss the case. You can read more about that in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b); I won’t get into it here.

=”Hiding behind a COLB document posted on factcheck.org counts as a proof of eligibility?”=

Under FREv 902, yes it does. Look closely at that document, and you will see a seal from the State of Hawaii. Read Rule 902(1), and you will see that it explains in detail the types of documents that are self-authenticating. I won’t cut and paste the rule here, but you can read it for yourself on Cornell University’s website. Long story short, if birfers claim that the COLB is fake then they have the burden of proving that it’s fake. Since no birfer has come forth in any court of law to explain why the COLB is fake, then that COLB is prima facie evidence of what is written on the document: that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii in 1961. That document is admissible in any state or federal court and in any criminal or civil proceeding until the birfers prove otherwise.

And the COLB is posted on a website because it would be impossible to mail a copy of it to every household in America. That seems to be what the birfers want when they talk about the fact that it’s only available for viewing online, and there is no requirement for that to be done in any case or federal law anywhere in America.

=”Obama is lying about his birth in Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu.”=

Again, you have no proof of this. At all. The rest of what you wrote is a collateral issue, and if you were to go into court and argue that something as immaterial as a numbering discrepancy is concrete evidence of a decades-long plot to install a then-newborn Barack Obama as president in 2008, then the judge is going clown you even harder than Judge Land clowned Orly Taitz. Additionally, what makes you think that the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates were numbered correctly? As far as you know, THEIR documents may have been the ones that were misnumbered, and not Obama’s.

=”How is it possible that Obama was born in the same hospital day earlier than Nordyke twins, yet his registration number is higher? Let’s check hospital records to see if Obama was indeed born there? Would you oppose to this investigation?”=

I can tell by the way you wrote this that you think you’ve discovered the one piece of evidence that will undo last year’s valid, Constitutional election. Of course, I disagree entirely and here’s why:

Let’s say you go to the hospital. You comb through all of the records of all of the babies that were ever born at that hospital. During your fishing expedition you don’t find Obama’s records anywhere in that hospital. Guess that mean’s it’s game-set-match for us sane people, right? Wrong.

It seems like you assume that if Obama wasn’t born in a hospital, then he wasn’t born in Hawaii and is lying about everything that he’s ever said or done. As you can see, that’s a very slippery slope. Furthermore, even if Obama wasn’t born in a hospital so what? There is no requirement that natural-born citizenship can only be given to children that were born in hospitals, so that point is moot.

Every man is entitled to his own opinions and beliefs, but not to his own facts and laws. You and Orly can believe whatever you want to believe, but that doesn’t mean that you get to ignore established rules of evidence, civil procedure, professionalism, and constitutional law in the process.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:03 pm

Naturalizeddickhead: “Someone is afraid of truth. There are no viruses.”

No, but the only reason you’re here is for clicks on your site. You know you have nothing and you’re just trying to keep the money coming in by getting clicks. So, the best way to shut you up is not give you what you want most. That’s why you ignore everyone else and keep putting out BS without a bit of proof.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:04 pm

Just in the interest of accuracy–I believe Lucas Smith has said he will not
be returning to court with Orly. Even he says Orly’s a nutjob.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:04 pm

If Hawaii DoH has the original birth certificate on file (as claimed by Dr. Fukino) – this document could be compared with the document provided by Lucas Smith.
If they are not the same – Mr. Smith has a problem.
If they are same – Mr. Obama has a problem.

Very simple case to prove. There is no need to involve Kenyan authorities at all.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:08 pm

Why should Hawaii have to prove something they’ve already authenticated against something that nobody in Kenya says exists, Naturaldickhead? Are you saying that the USA should be beholden to Kenya? Sorry, we don’t go that way.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:09 pm

So you are under the impression HI would have a copy of a purported Kenyan
BC?

Look, even WND says the Lucas Smith BC is a forgery. He couldn’t even get
the date formats right. And last I heard he’s said he won’t be returning to
court with his forged BC, so he will probably avoid prosecution in that way.

Actually, he probably wouldn’t be prosecuted in either case. To prosecute
they would have to prove he knowingly presented a forgery. All he’d have to
do is claim he honestly believed it was real.

But in neither case would that be what HI has.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 6:17 pm

Oh, I think she is Orly.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 6:19 pm

Birther: “She's a RINO!, Obama paid her off!”


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:29 pm

It is not my site – I am not involved in any web sites other than as a reader.
I clicked on this site more than on the other one.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

1. Wrong again. This case will not be heard in court because no court, state or federal, has the authority to undo a valid election. No citizen has standing to sue the president and remove him from office. I don’t know who told you that or where you got it from, but it sure as hell wasn’t the Constitution or the USCA.

Go read Article II of the Constitution: the only body that can impeach the president and remove him from office is Congress. For that to happen, Congress would want to see some evidence that anything the birfers say is true, and that those allegations somehow affect his natural-born citizen status. Since birfers can’t produce any evidence to back up anything they claim they will continue to lose.

And standing is no mere technicality. It is a centuries-old legal doctrine that dates back to English common law. It’s in the Constitution and numerous SC cases discuss the doctrine at length. It applies in every case no matter who is filing suit. To refer to standing as a “technicality” shows that you know nothing about it or the Constitution.

And under Hawaii law, birth certificates are not public information…which is why there is a law in Hawaii that those records are only released to people that have a tangible interest in those records. Members of the general public do not have a tangible interest in the birth records of another person.

2. The only way to verify those cheap eBay forgeries would be for someone from Kenya to vouch for their credibility. The only way to tell whether Smith is lying is to trace the document to it’s original source, and that source won’t be anywhere near Honolulu because the documents (allegedly) came from Kenya. Furthermore, if Orly submitted that forgery as evidence without first checking to see if it is authentic, then she’ll be in even more trouble than she is now.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 6:38 pm

’ I have my own theory on Obama's registration number. His foreign birth was registered in the Department of Health by a relative. Because of the delay in reporting the birth his registration number is higher.”

Then please explain the following:

According to the Obama COLB, the birth was registered with the state on August 8, 1961.

According to the Nordyke BC, their births were registered with the state on August 11, 1961.

Ooops, it looks like you just tripped over a big bucket of fail.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:40 pm

Orlys latest case before Judge Carter has not been dismissed. Carter says he
will decide it “on the merits” rather than dismissing it for lack of
standing.

Seems like a weird bad precedent to me, but actually I’m glad he’s going
that way with it. Maybe when he dismisses it “on the merits” birthers will
finally shut up.

Who am I kidding? They’ll just start claiming Carter is an Obama supporter
too, or that he was paid off, or that the alien mind control rays had taken
control of him, or whatever it is they come up with this time. But at least
they won’t be able to continue claiming the case has never been decided on
the merits.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:44 pm

1. This particular case is not about standing to sue the president of the USA. The court cannot impeach Obama. At least we can discover whether his biographical information is truth or fiction.

It is about transparency of Hawaiian government records. The case should be heard, in expedited fashion, according to the Hawaii law. It will require DoH to provide the Index information and documents related to the legal opinion provided by AG Bennet abot”natural-born American citizen” statement by Dr. Fukino.

2. Court could compare Mr. Smith’s document with the original BC kept by the Hawaii DoH. If these two documents do not agree about Obama’s birthplace – Mr.Smith will be in legal trouble for perjuring himself. No need to ask Kenyan authorities for authentication.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:52 pm

“If Hawaii DoH has the original birth certificate on file (as claimed by Dr. Fukino) – this document could be compared with the document provided by Lucas Smith.”

Now you’re just grasping at straws. This doesn’t even make any sense. Why in the Hell would Hawaii have a Kenyan birth certificate on file? And Fukino stated that the document on file in Hawaii shows that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. If you’re saying that Hawaii has a Kenyan birth certificate that lists Hawaii as his birthplace, it would still prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:57 pm

No court has authenticated Obamas birth records. The closest thing to eligibility confirmation is July 2009 statement by Dr. Fukino.
I have already told you that an inquiry into her statement is in progress and I also told you where to find this information.
So far she has refused to provide her definition of “natural-born American citizen”.
Regarding Kenya: Why did a junior US Senator travel to Kenya in 2006 to actively campaign for Raila Odinga (who became the prime minister of Kenya). Acces to Kenyan government documents has been blocked last year.
It looks suspicious to me that a current US Senator would travel to foreign country to participate in a political campaign. Did he earn a favor from Odinga?
You see, when there is no transparency – people can speculate about lot of things.
Obama could have provided long form birth certificate and there would be no “birther” issue.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:01 pm

“The State Department of Health records, and multiple officials”

We are going in circles.
I asked for specific information. Give me one example where Hawaii DoH confirmed Obama's birth in Honolulu.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:03 am

“At least we can discover whether his biographical information is truth or fiction.”

Again, you run smack into the standing issue. You can’t sue a person simply because you think that person might be lying; so far this is all the birfers have to go on. If the only concern is that his biographical information may not be true, that doesn’t come anywhere close to being the type of case or controversy needed to give a plaintiff standing.

“I think he might be hiding something” isn’t a cause of action in any court anywhere in the country.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:05 am

No court has authenticated the birth records of any President in history,
ever. Why the double standard? Why do you insist that Obama be the first
President in history to be required to go this route?

As for the rest, you are still promoting long debunked lies. Obama never
“campaigned for Odinga.” He made one public appearance with Odinga and
that’s it. I’m not sure why you think there’s something sinister about a Jr.
Senator traveling. That’s just bizarre.

It’s obvious you have been taken in by a lot of chain email hoaxes and scam
sites like the NBC blog. Try getting some of your information from sources
other than birther misinformation sites. It might not be what you want to
hear, but you won’t be so wrong about so many things so much of the time.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:05 pm

You first NC, give me one instance of any proof that you have he wasn't. He's in the WH now, you have to prove YOUR theory to get him out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:10 pm

Not so fast, buddy.
If you were right, it should be simple to verify it.
COLB document posted on factcheck.org has not been verified as an official document. Could you name a person who verified Obama's COLB?
There have been numerous documents posted on various web sites – how do we know that the one on factcheck.org is an official one, and not a fake?

Let's see Obama's LONG form birth certificate and see if it indeed shows the registration date as you mentioned.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:18 pm

When you have no arguments – use fould language to ridicule people who have different opinion.
I am sure you can be polite and express your tyhougths in a calm logical manner.

I am merely saying that there is enough reasons for suspicion about Obama's birthplace. My speculation about registration number is given in another post: His birth was registered not by a hospital but an affidavit from a relative. There was no need for anybody to forge anything. According to Hawaii laws, children not born in hospital could have been registered using an affidavit. This is my theory of what happened.
Unless we see the LONG form birth certificate – we can only speculate about his birthplace.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

“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.

BTW, NC, do you even understand what a BC is?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

Eligibility lawsuits were raised more than a year ago, several months before general elections. Obama is using stalling tactics to DISMISS eligibility lawsuits.
The only evidence Obama has presented is COLB posted on a friendly web site.

Dr. Fukino from DoH gave statment in October 2008 saying that Obama's original birth certificate is stored there. In July 2009 she said that multiple vital records show that Obama is a natural-born American citizen.

Her second statement mentions multiple vital records (plural). There would be no need to have multiple records to prove his eligibility if his original birth certificate showed Hawaiian birth of citizen parents.

Her second statement implies that Obama's birth records have been amended. This means that COLB document cannot be used to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:34 pm

The COLB is a statement by the DoH that he was born in Honolulu. Fukino stated on the record that he was born in Hawaii.

I don't understand what you are asking for.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:36 pm

What are you smoking? A foreign birth would have to be registered with the Dept. of Health. It was policy in Hawaii when a foreign birth was registered to list the actual place of birth. If someone was born in Toronto, Canada, it would say “Toronto” on the BC. However, we are talking about a registration number that was assigned to the hospital where he was born. Your desperation is very sad.

We have a COLB that is LEGAL for passports, drivers licenses, etc. Its number is in reasonable sequence for others born in the same hospital at the same time. We have a lady named Nelson who remembers discussing the birth of Obama with not only a physician, but who wrote down the name and discussed it with her father in 1961.

We have a birth announcement in both Hawaii newspapers that could only come from certified verification from the local hospitals and the Department of Health.

We have confirmation that the address was in fact a rental that his grandmother and grandfather lived in in 1961, as confirmed by a local directory.

Then we have birthers screaming that he was born in Kenya, a country his mother never visited, a country that his father did not visit in 1961, and a country that was at the tail end of the Mau Mau Rebellion in 1961. There is no way an 18 year old pregnant white girl from Kansas left her parents' home in Hawaii to go to a backward third world hospital to give birth WITHOUT HER HUSBAND, then hurried back to Hawaii to register his birth so he could become President in 47 years. You guys are really nuts.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:37 pm

And, you have absolutely no rights to them. But, why do you keep avoiding MY questions? What are you hiding? Why is it you can ask, but can't answer? Where is any of your proof that he wasn't born in Hawaii? Since Hawaii says he was born there and you offer no proof that he wasn't, using your logic, it means he was born there. You'll continue to lose and look silly doing it.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:37 pm

You are creating your own fantasy version of our legal system.

Under the “full faith and credit” clause, official state documents are proof. If you think your theories are valid, explain why there's not a single judge who has ruled your way.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

She said that DoH has the original birth certificate is on their record. Tell me where does she say anything about the content of that document?


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:42 pm

No, NC, until you come up with any proof otherwise, Obama was born in Hawaii. Twisting words and making up scenarios no longer cut it. You want him out, prove he wasn't born in Hawaii and quit with the wordplay…it won't work.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

Obama's original birth certificate has been amended. That is why the COLB document is meaningless.
Without it, there is zero proof that Obama was born in Honolulu.
There is an inquiry in progress – people are asking DoH to release documents used to prepare Fukino's second statement where she proclaimed Obama “natural-born American citizen”. She said that her statement was based on the input from Hawaii AG Benett. Acording to Hawaii state laws – public has the right to know about legal decisions rendered by the AG.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

“I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,” she said in a brief statement. “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

“I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen,” she said in a brief statement. “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”

The state of Hawaii says he was born in Hawaii. Do you even come close to understanding what a BC is? You sure don't act like it.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

Birth could have be registered by the grandparents using an affidavit. That would explain registration numbers, newspaper articles, address.
The COLB published by factcheck.org is meaningless becasue Obama's vital records have been amended – see my posts below about Dr. Fukino's recent statements.
Ask yourself – why is it that Obama would not produce the Long Form birth certificate? It would end all speculation.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

This is total bull. The COLB was issued in the last couple of years, based on the data stored in Hawaii's official records. If you are convinced that an official State of Hawaii document contains false information, the burden is on you to show it.

But it's a pretty stiff burden — the document is prima facie evidence in any court of law, and it will take a lot more than unsupported speculation to counter it.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

And, what proof do you have that it was amended? So why is it you only offer theories and no proof? You definitely come from the Orly school of “I don't know jack”. Why can't you just say the truth…you have no proof he wasn't born in Hawaii and you just don't like the man. Is that so hard for you? Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind…again.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:00 pm

There are only desperate invented reasons for suspicion. The fact is he has
proven his citizenship far beyond what any prior President in history has.
If you can't accept that it says volumes about your lack of honesty but
nothing about Obama's citizenship or lack thereoff.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:04 pm

“Obama is using stalling tactics to DISMISS eligibility lawsuits.”

Wow, you're really ignorant! A motion to dismiss has nothing to do with stalling. It involves making the argument that there is no legal basis for the lawsuit. If it's granted, the case is not stalled — it's thrown out.

And that's what's been happening time after time. The judges have ruled that the suits are invalid.

I know you don't like it, but that's our legal system. Those of us who love our country and respect the Constitution understand that.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:04 pm

“Obama's original birth certificate has been amended. That is why the COLB
document is meaningless.”

Do you see why people make fun of you? You just make up lies and state them
as if they were facts. If his certificate had been amended the COLB would
say “amended” on it and the filing date would reflect the date it was
amended. BUt don't let facts get in the way of your compulsive lying.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

I know it’s the official document simply because the state has not come out and said that it is not. They are well aware of the existence of the document, hell, you birthers are calling them and harassing them about it constantly. If that document were fake, then the state would have hard evident that a crime (altering an official document) had been committed. They have not come out and said this; therefore, no crime has been committed; therefore the document in question is in fact genuine.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:08 pm

Dr Fukino mentioned in her July 2009 statement that she had seen vital records (plural) and came out with conclusion that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen”.
There are multiple records on file – not just the original birth certificate (she mentioned only the original BC in her October 2008) statement.
More details at:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

Details about latest inquiry into DoH records:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

Read the following report on lte latest inquiry into DoH statements:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

So you think twisting her words is somehow proof of something. What if I were to pull up multiple state officials talking about a person's vital records? They also have marriage certificates, etc, etc, etc. You have no rights to them and making up stuff doesn't give you the right. Now, where is your proof Obama wasn't born in Hawaii? Because, if you have none, that proves he was. Thanks for that.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

If you had another brain it would die of loneliness. “Vital records” means
his birth certificate. It's one of those phrases that are typically
expressed in the plural. It would be quite unusual to say “I've seen his
vital record.”


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:14 pm

You keep posting links to naturalborncitizen blog. Those idiots wouldn't
know the meaning of the word “truth” if it was tattooed on the insides of
their eyelids.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

WARNING: DO NOT CLICK ON BLOWER LINKS, they offer nothing in the way of proof, just wild theories and forged documents. There have also been reports of viruses being spread by their sites. I no longer click on them, especially when NC has continually proven he has no proof or facts to back up his assertions, just wild conspiracy theories.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:17 pm

What's the point of giving the link? It doesn't offer any proof that Obama was born anywhere but in Hawaii, it just talks about more speculation.

Speculate all you like, but as far as evidence goes you've got absolutely zero.


mantis
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

We're not giving you traffic on your crappy website, afterbirther. Support your claims here, if you can.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:19 pm

Obama has waived his right to privacy when it comes to birth certificate because he posted the COLB on the web one year ago.
There is an inquiry in progress where citizens of USA have asked the DoH to release the relevant information. read the above link for details.
Index information maintained by the DoH is in public domain. It should be simple to find out who filed what type of document related to Obama's vital statistics without examining actual documents.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:20 am

Let me repeat once again. This is not a law suit against Obama.
Hawaii state law gives public the right to know about any legal opinion provided by the AG to any department heads.
By law, it was AG’s duty to file this letter within 3 days of providing the advice to Dr. Fukino (she admitted that her statement in a press release was based on his advice).
To support the enforcement of the transparency in government law in Hawaii, there is a separate state office where lawyers assist the public in their requests for government information. Any citizen has standing when requesting the government records.
Bennet’s legal advice to Fukino is a public document – there is no standing issue.
A request has been issued for the release of this document. Read that blog for detailed information on Statutes involved, then go and check those statutes yourself.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:23 pm

So, NC, if you ever show your BC to anyone, your whole life can be torn apart by me? Are you sure you're even american? Sounds like a communist country's laws to me. BWAHAHAHAHAHA you are such a stupid s**t!!!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:24 pm

Read the report I cannot cut and past all the relevant information. A citizen of USA has asked for Obama's amended records and the DoH did not deny that those exist. They denied access to them. According to the Hawaii law, if DoH did not have amended records on file they would have had to explicitly say that such records were not on file.
By denying the access to specific request to Amended records, the DoH has admitted that those records exist but are not available to the public.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

Last time I went to NBC blog they were crowing about a bombshell document
which they found and saying stuff about it like, “Rarely is an historical
document so on point…” blah blah blah. The bombshell find was an 1800's
article in The Nation from which they had cherry-picked a quote from some
Sec State opining to be a citizen (at all, not just “natural born”) you had
to have citizen parents. What they didn't tell their readers is the same
article had numerous quotes from other legal scholars disagreeing with that
interpretation, including Supreme Court rulings.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:26 am

nope, Orly’s filings tomorrow are going to be much more interesting. Your theories and made-up monsters no longer are interesting. go home, you got nothing.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

So are we right? You don't have the slightest evidence that he was born anywhere but Hawaii, but you demand the right to go on a fishing expedition?

From a legal point of view, he's definitively proved where he was born. If you want him to prove it again, you better have some compelling evidence for it, otherwise you'll keep getting laughed out of court.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

Really, can you quote the relevent section of Hawaii law that states that. Wait, forget it, I've seen your interpretations and you wouldn't have a clue as to what a law covers. Good luck, you'll be shot down in court again.


mantis
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

Obama has waived his right to privacy when it comes to birth certificate because he posted the COLB on the web one year ago.

Support your assertion that posting images of one's birth certificate means one has waived the right to privacy.

There is an inquiry in progress where citizens of USA have asked the DoH to release the relevant information.

Crazy people making demands may be an “inquiry” of sorts, but it has no legal standing and will be ignored.

Index information maintained by the DoH is in public domain. It should be simple to find out who filed what type of document related to Obama's vital statistics without examining actual documents.

Well, what you would find is that the hospital filed the birth certificate with the Hawaii Department of Health. Good luck on the hunt.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:27 pm

I have read NBC blog. (see above) and don't even bother any more. They are
not only morons, they are dishonest morons.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:28 pm

What private information is hidden in the long form birth certificate (in addition to what is shown on COLB): Birth hospital and attending physician?
This information will torn Obama's whole life apart?
Only in case that he was born outside the USA. Otherwise it is a benign request.


ArthurB.
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:30 pm

How dumb can you be? Fukino said he was born in Hawaii, and she said it in the past few months.

Unless you're claiming that his records have been amended since then, none of it is relevant. The official records of the State of Hawaii show him to have been born there. Case closed.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

NO, no request for information in benign…that's why we have laws. And,you have yet to show anything that says Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, so twisting words and making up scenarios will not get you what you want. You have to have proof, not your blower delusions. Otherwise, you got nothing, you get nothing.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:32 pm

You would not have to use the foul language if you could defend Obama's behavior with logic alone.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:33 pm

If you think the word “moron” is foul language you have led a very sheltered
life.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:33 pm

Magic words: Index information is in public domain, and there is no standing issue.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

Well, since you have no logic, we'll use something you can understand, blower. We don't even have to defend Obama, we have yet to see any proof that would NOT make him our legal President. We're just here laughing our asses off at a poor delusional pitiful fool who wouldn't know evidence or laws if they were written for a 3-year-old in crayon…and you continually prove it!


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

Besides which, “logic alone” clearly doesn't have any affect on you. Perhaps
foul language is called for, though I have not used any yet.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

NaturalizedNutcase:

THINK! Let's say you are right and Obama was born in Kenya. Obama is qualified even if he WAS born in Kenya. Of course he was not as nobody has ever provided one shred of physical evidence that his mama was ever in Kenya. Why would a pregnant white girl visit Kenya during the Mau Mau uprising without her husband? She wouldn't and didn't.

If he was born in Kenya, his mother & father’s marriage in the US was illegal because Pops was already married. That marriage is not recognizable by the US. So, Obama was born out of wedlock, and the natural born laws require only 1 year of physical US presence by an unwed mother prior to birth overseas.

This is from the State Dept. website: [b]Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother[/b]: “A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309© INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.”

[b]Loss of U.S. Nationality by Marriage[/b]

In some countries, marriage to a national of that country will automatically make the spouse either a citizen of that country or eligible to become naturalized in that country expeditiously. The automatic acquisition of a second nationality will NOT affect U.S. citizenship.

Now, THINK AGAIN. Let's say you don't believe me and decide to pursue it further. Do you know what you would have to do? Or how long it would take? Or how much it would cost?

The State of Hawaii has issued a Birth Certificate that meets all of the requirements of CFR 22.51.42. That Birth Certificate is certified by the State of Hawaii, and is considered proven by the Laws of the United States. It will be up to anyone who challenges its authenticity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Birth Certificate is actually invalid.

There is a very high standard of proof that must be met in order to override the Constitutional ‘Full Faith and Credit’ standard granted to the State of Hawaii in this matter. That standard of proof would require that the complainant SHOW PROOF that there was an actual fraud committed by the State of Hawaii in the certification of that Birth Certificate, or that the certificate itself was fraudulent. Either way, the burden of proof rests with the complainant. Merely making accusations that this may have happened is not sufficient.

This would be true even if a foreign power were to present a Birth Certificate that was claimed to show birth in another country. Under the standard of ‘Full Faith and Credit’ that is specifically provided for in the Constitution, the public records of the State of Hawaii would take precedence over the public records of any foreign power. In order to meet the required burden of proof, the foreign record would not only have to be proven as true, but also the State of Hawaii’s record would have to be proven separately as false.

Get a job.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 8:51 pm

To the birthers:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 9:00 pm

Let me repeat. The record number on the COLB and the record number on the long-form certificate have nothing to do with each other. They are on different systems. The original comment was that the COLB has to be wrong because its number does not relate to a long-form birth certificate that was issued to twins on the day after Obama's birth. I replied that it does not relate because they are on different systems. Moreover, the facts on the COLB have been repeatedly confirmed by the authorities in Hawaii.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 9:19 pm

There are no “Different systems” there is only one system, the current electronic database that is now the official record. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think that the state would have</i. to carry over the legacy record numbering system in the new database to maintain the continuity of the records.

In fact, looking at the original BC record issued for the Nordyke twin in 1966 the actual record number is:

151 61 10637

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Graphics…

As I noted above, the cert number on Obama's COLB is:

151 1961-010641

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_ce…

They are the same numbering system, the only difference is the use of the full year format and the leading zero in Obama's number.

If the Nordyke woman were to request her COLB from the state, I can guarantee that the cert number on the top of the document would be:

151 1961 010637

Do you see my point?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 9:48 pm

Dr. Fukino never said Obama was born in Hawaii. Could you provide a link or full text of her statement?
You guys have so much faith in statements of one person. Few years ago Colin Powell went in front of the UN and claimed that Iraq had WMDs. It was all based on faulty intelligence. CIA director George Tennet claimed that WMD case was a slam dunk.
Fortunately in Obama's case we do not have to rely neither on intelligence reports nor on public officals being honest – there are records on file which, according to Hawaii “sunshine laws” allow public to see how government operates.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 9:55 pm

Posting a COLB document on a web site (factcheck.org) that was proven wrong on some aspects of Obamas citizenship issue means nothing.
Is this a new legal standard that we can use in courts – posting documents on web and claim they are legitimate?


ArthurB.
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 9:58 pm

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino … have seen the original vital records … verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaií…”

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

Will you acknowledge please that you have seen it, so we can at least put this part to rest?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:01 pm

He's seen it before. His MO will now be to ignore it, then, in 15 minutes,
he'll go back to asking for proof Fukino ever said it. We keep trying to
debate him as if he's an honest intelligent being, when he's repeatedly
proven otherwise.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

Just earlier today he was himself quoting that same statement trying to make
something of the fact Fukino uses the plural “vital records” rather than the
singular “vital record.” So as you can see, he's not even an honest debater.
Not sure why anyone would even expect him to be–he's a barfer.


ArthurB.
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:11 pm

Thanks for the tip. If he doesn't respond honestly, he will expose himself as a total fraud.

And I can't say I'd be surprised.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:31 pm

OK. She has been called on to prove her statement.
She mentioned that it was issued under the guidance of AG Bennet. His legal advice is a public document.Hawaiian transparency-in-govetrnment laws make this document PUBLIC. We shall see if her statement was a truthful one.
Public officials have lied to us before (WMDs in Iraq case). Dr Fukino is Obama's supporter – why should we take her words as gospel of truth.
Show us documents which are in public domain (DoH Index documents for example)! As I mentioned before requests for such information have been sent to DoH and we shall see if they comply with the law.


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:38 pm

WARNING: Naturalizedcitizen is a member or runs the site naturalborncitizen:wordpress:com, all his arguments are about getting you to click on his site. If you read just a little of what he's offered here, you see that his only interest is your click, he has no real debate and refuses to answer any questions. All he does is parse statements and try to BS his way through. Like all blower sites, I recommend you do not click, cut them off where they get their money.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:43 pm

Legal advice is never a “public document.” The fact you could even say that
proves how amazingly ignorant of the law you are. Legal advice is always
privileged. It's called attorney client privilege.

And Fukino is not an “Obama supporter.” Do you just make this crap up off
the top of your head? She's a Republican.

And Linda Lingle also has stated she's seen his original BC, and she
certainly isn't an Obama supporter either.

So your theory (as usual) boils down to either assuming the entire HI DOH
plus the Republican Gov. of the state are lying to protect Obama… or you
are full of it.

Which is more likely?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

Ya kinda gotta feel for Republicans like Franks. On the one hand a significant portion of his constituents are nutjobs and he needs those nutjob votes. On the other hand he needs to walk a fine line and get those votes without appearing to be a nutjob himself.

Thank the Lord I'm not a politician. Thank him double I'm not a Republican politician in the age of the birthers.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

According to Hawaii law – legal opinion rendered by the state AG is is in PUBLIC domain. You can read the detail on the Hawaii law on using the link I posted before.
You will also find detail there about Obama's links to Dr. Fukino.
We do not need to speculate – let Obama provide long form birth certificate to the public – that will end the birther debate.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

Ya kinda gotta feel for Republicans like Franks. On the one hand a significant portion of his constituents are nutjobs and he needs those nutjob votes. On the other hand he needs to walk a fine line and get those votes without appearing to be a nutjob himself.

Thank the Lord I'm not a politician. Thank him double I'm not a Republican politician in the age of the birthers.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:02 pm

I've read the NBC blog. It's not even worth bothering to do so again. They
constantly get facts wrong, take facts out of context, and cherry pick facts
to support their case. In short, they aren't honest, accurate, or worthy of
even bothering to give their site more traffic.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:21 pm

I do not run that web site, i came across it few weeks ago.
In summary, the blog is about an active inquiry into statement provided by Dr. Fukino in July 2009 about Obama being a “natural-born American citizen”. Acording to Hawaii laws, the transparency in government requires that any documents used in such finding be released upon request from citizens.
Dr. Fukino also admitted that her statement was based on legal advice by AG Bennet. Samples of the actual correspondence from DoH in this case are also posted there for everyone to see.
The inquiry has revealed that the Index information about DoH records is in public domain and such requests from public must be honored. This was confirmed by a lawyer from another state agency in Hawaii, whose official duty is to assist public in obtaining government records. Letter from this office is also available for everyone to see.

I have honestly answered all your questions – as a concerned citizen I want to remove the cloud of suspicion about Obama's eligibility. If Obama had nothing to hide – long form birth certificate would have been available to public for examination. If COLB document is a legitimate one – why not send it to the court for verification. Publishing it on a web site – is this an acceptable policy that all of us can use in court proceedings?


Jim
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

Natualdickhead, you've proven nothing except you're a conspiracy nutcase. You have not offered one piece of evidence to your delusions, just wild theories and forged documents…that you have the stupid idea it is up to Hawaii to prove. You cannot prove Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and dismiss all legal evidence like it doesn't exist. No, it IS your website and you need more clicks to keep it going, that's why every hour or so you provide a link to it. But, you further show your stupidity by thinking we even care what you think. We just keep you typing to continue laughing at how little you understand our constitution, our laws, and our country. Therefore you shall forever be known as naturaldickhead.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:46 pm

“why not send it to the court for verification.”

No court has asked for it. If they do he will. And if any of those cases
were merely about the birth certificate he might already have done so.
Unfortunately they throw everything but the kitchen sink into those cases,
demanding to see not just the BC but everything from his kindergarten
records on up.

And BTW, I'm not making that up–they are quite literally demanding to see
his kindergarten records. No joke.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:54 pm

Re: “If COLB document is a legitimate one – why not send it to the court for verification. “

Because no court has asked for it. Why has no court asked for it? Because no lawsuit against Obama has simply asked that a court require Obama to provide a birth certificate to the court. In any case, no court has asked for it.

So we have to go on the evidence we have, which is that it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and that the facts on it were authenticated twice by the officials in Hawaii, and that there were notices in the newspapers on the weekend after his birth, and that these notices were sent out by the government of hawaii for births in Hawaii (and not for births outside of Hawaii). And, there is even a witness, who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

And there is no evidence that he was born anywhere else than Hawaii. (His Kenyan grandmother did not say that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii.)


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:56 pm

Re: “If COLB document is a legitimate one – why not send it to the court for verification. “

Because no court has asked for it. Why has no court asked for it? Because no lawsuit against Obama has simply asked that a court require Obama to provide a birth certificate to the court. In any case, no court has asked for it.

So we have to go on the evidence we have, which is that it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and that the facts on it were authenticated twice by the officials in Hawaii, and that there were notices in the newspapers on the weekend after his birth, and that these notices were sent out by the government of hawaii for births in Hawaii (and not for births outside of Hawaii). And, there is even a witness, who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

And there is no evidence that he was born anywhere else than Hawaii. (His Kenyan grandmother did not say that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii.)


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 1, 2009 @ 11:57 pm

Re: “If COLB document is a legitimate one – why not send it to the court for verification. “

Because no court has asked for it. Why has no court asked for it? Because no lawsuit against Obama has simply asked that a court require Obama to provide a birth certificate to the court. In any case, no court has asked for it.

So we have to go on the evidence we have, which is that it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and that the facts on it were authenticated twice by the officials in Hawaii, and that there were notices in the newspapers on the weekend after his birth, and that these notices were sent out by the government of hawaii for births in Hawaii (and not for births outside of Hawaii). And, there is even a witness, who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

And there is no evidence that he was born anywhere else than Hawaii. (His Kenyan grandmother did not say that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii.)


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:05 am

There would be no reason to doubt Obamas birth certificate – if other documents could corroborate his birthplace. That is why you see people asking about kindergarten records, college records, etc…
When everything about Obama's past is sealed from the public – it raises a suspicion that something is not quite right with his eligibility standing.
In his book “Dreams from my Father” Obama mentioned that he had a copy of the original birth certificate in his hands. Yet this is not the document posted on a factcheck.org. What happened to that copy? Did it ever exist or was Obama trying to create an image of a person eligible to run for US presidency – without having to actually prove it.
He promised transparency in government yet everything about his past is off the limits.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:08 am

There is no reason to doubt his birth certificate. No corroborating evidence is necessary.

That's the law. Deal with it.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:10 am

Transparency in Gov. means official stuff, not personal stuff.

Anyway, he's proven his birth circumstances far beyond what any prior President in history has, ever. So why the double standard? Why are the standards you set so much higher for him than any other President in history?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:17 am

Your namecalling shows that you feel insecure about the strength of your arguments. Let your arguments speak on their own.

I provied the link when people asked about things mentioned in that blog (related to the current iquiry into Dr. Fukino's July 2009 statement). Using cut and past on such a large material would not be practical.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:17 am

No corroborating evidence is necessary, yet in spite of that there IS
corroborating evidence. Birthers just dismiss it too. If there was a video
of him emerging from his mother while a flashing neon sign screamed “Welcome
to Honolulu!” right outside the window it would still not be enough for
them. Nothing will convince them that the black guy with the funny name
could possibly be eligible to be President of the United States.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:20 am

Birthers are funny. You obstinately ignore facts, continually repeat lies
which you KNOW have been long debunked, then when people get frustrated
enough to call you a name you get all self-righteous about it.

Stop lying and promoting BS and no one will call you any of those mean mean
names.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:21 am

Yes, those of us dumb enough to click on that link once know not to do it again. All it has is wild speculation. Not a bit of evidence.

If you've got an argument, let's hear it. We don't need the speculation; just give us a fact or two that indicates that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

That's all.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:23 am

This is simply not true. Obama has been by far the most secretive presidential candidate in recent history.
You are mentioning high standards – what high standards?
Eleanor Nordyke has published long form birth certificate photos for her twin daughters. Nothing in that document is really private.
In addition to information provided in COLB the long form documnet confirms birth hospital and attending physician.
Name one president in history whose birth hospital is a secret information that public cannot confirm.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:47 am

hohum, nobody's interested in your nonsense theories anymore, quit trying. no proof, no theory, just speculation…endless speculation


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:51 am

I can only speculate.
1. Obama's campaign web site had two different hospital listed as his birthplace (Queens hospital and Kapiolani). They could not get their story straight in the first place.
Kapiolani hospital published the letter from Obama (January 2009) where he congratulates them on the aniversary and claimed that he was born there. When journalists asked the Kapiolani to confirm the authenticity of the letter posted on their web site – they refused to do it. Instead they took the letter down.
The letter was provided to them by Rep. Neil Abercrombie and it used White House letterhead. There is a YouTube video of Abercrombie reading this letter at the Kapiolani celebration event.
Tell me why would a birth hospital refuse to confirm that president of the USA was born there? I would think that they would be proud of the fact and try to use it to raise funds for the hospital.

2. Sealing of all other documents that could indicate his birthplace is another suspicious fact. Why hide ordinary things?

3. Kenyan ambasador in USA confirmed the Kenyan birth in an interview to a Detroit radio station (on November 5, 2008). There was a simple question (without any ambiguety) and he confirmed it. It is on You Tube.
Only later on did they realize what happened and issued a retraction.

4. Kenyan birth documents are hidden from public. If Obama was not born there there would be no problem in allowing reporters to investigate records for births in the Mombasa Hospital on August 4, 1961.
We know for the fact that Obama (as a sitting US Senator) campaigned for Raila Odinga who became prime minister of Kenya. Kenyan government deported an investigator from WND who tried to find out wheter Obama was born in Kenya.
Why did Obama campaign for Odinga? Name one other US Senator who got involved in a foreign country domestic political campaign.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:03 am

464 comments? Hokey smoke. I think Our Lady Of Nitrous Oxide's had at least three cases tossed since this was posted.

Meanwhile, Barack Hussein Obama is still President of the United States.

A Patton Oswalt quote comes to mind. “You'll die angry and miss all the cool stuff.”


Doubtful
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:04 am

Yes, as I thought, you have absolutely no evidence. There are some things that raise questions for you, which I understand; but you have not the slightest credible evidence on your side, and you can't expect the rest of the world to drop everything and answer your questions for you,

Do I have more than speculation? Yes, I think so. I think the COLB is absolutely overwhelming, conclusive legal evidence that he was born in Hawaii.

But you know what? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what I think, and I don't need evidence, because I have nothing to prove. If you want to show that Obama was not eligible to be president, you need evidence. And you have none. Zero. And while there is still a small hard core of believers like you, most people know better.

Check what Lindsey Graham had to say about you.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:17 am

Come on Sheriff, we have to give some blower beatdown before the Orly double-dump filings tomorrow. Give us some credit for gathering entertainment material.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:18 am

It is absolutely true. Name one President in history (recent or otherwise)
who have shown their birth certificate at all. Obama was born at Kiapolani
medical center. You know that. You know it the exact same way you know the
hospital that any other President was born in.

So I ask again–why the double standard? Why do you not accept the legal
state certified birth certificate Obama has shown when most Presidents never
show any birth certificate at all?

In addition to his legal state certified birth certificate we also have
multiple confirmations from the HI DOH, the Gov. of HI, and 47 year old
birth announcements in the newspapers from when he was born. He has
officially proven his birth circumstances far beyond what any President in
history ever has before.

But you won't accept overwhelming proof. So I ask yet again–why the extreme
double standard?


Doubtful
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:23 am

As far as our being “in the same boat” is concerned, I don't see how you can write that with a straight face.

My evidence? I have an official legal document, newspaper announcements, and statements from multiple state officials. You attack the evidence with speculation.

Your evidence? You have speculation.

Plus the burden of proof is yours.

Listen, you've got a right to keep at this. Be my guest. But if you can't see that this is going nowhere, you deserve what you get.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:30 am

Hey, did you get the one that just came in?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20508475/KEYES-v-OBAM…


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:33 am

I could care less what Lindsey Graham says. Republicans nominated McCain who has his own eligibility issues. McCain and Obama are in this one together.

Could I use the same approach when dealing with US courts? Post documents on the web and claim that they are legitimate?

Could you name one president (except for those who had to use the grandfathered clause in the eligibility requirements) whose father was a foreigner, thus making the president dual citizen at birth?
Obama is not a natural born USA citizen.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:40 am

Naturalbornnut: “Could I use the same approach when dealing with US courts? Post documents on the web and claim that they are legitimate? “

Well, a couple of problems with that statement. One, he didn't post for the courts, he posted so that blowers like you could have a cow when it said he was born in Hawaii. Second, the legitimacy of the document is not determined by the poster, it is determined by the recorder of births, and they say he is born there. I'd come up with a third, but your BS is just BS, so two will have to do for you


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:41 am

Doubtful, you're a GOD!!! I'll read over and we can start anew.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:43 am

The “official” document posted on the web? I don't think so.
Until June 2009 the COLB document could not be used in several State agencies in Hawaii as a proof of Hawaiian birth. The law was changed in June 2009.

Newspaper announcements were generated automatically from DoH records. If Obama's grandparents registered his birth using an affidavit (stating that he was born in Honolulu) – the newspaper announcement would have been printed without an actual check of hospital records.

Official statements were misleading from the beginning and the only statement that is close to an offical recognition of Obama's hawaiian birth was Fukino's statement in July 2009. As I mentioned there is a request for the documents related to this opinion – under the Hawaiian law legal advice from AG to department heads is in public domain.
The DoH index information is also in public domain. If state officials follow the law, it will be easy to prove or disprove the validity of COLB document.
The investigation began recently and is still in progress.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:44 am

“Could you name one president (except for those who had to use the
grandfathered clause in the eligibility requirements) whose father was a
foreigner, thus making the president dualcitizen at birth?”

Chester Arthur, among others. Just off the top of my head. His father wasn't
even a citizen at all. I believe there have been several who were dual
citizens.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:47 am

” Until June 2009 the COLB document could not be used in several State
agencies in Hawaii as a proof of Hawaiian birth. The law was changed in
June 2009.”

That is utter BS. You got that from WND, and it was BS when they published
it, and still BS now. They weirdly misinterpreted what the DHHL website
said, then when they clarified the language (they didn't “change the law”)
WND bizarrely claimed they changed the law.

Seriously. You are feeding off utter BS sites.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:48 am

And BTW, you keep saying his grandparents could have registered his birth
with an affidavit. Nope. HI law specifies it has to be the parents or the
person themselves (like as an adult.)


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:50 am

1. The factcheck.org site was explicitly mentiond by a judge who criticized Orly in Rhodes case. The same judge who had to exclude the fake statement from capt. Rhodes (sent by fax, not notarized) complaining about Ms. Taitz's conduct.
He also mentioned that the fake statement initially included into the court documents did not influence his judgement.
Yeah, right. Did he fire court clerk for attaching fake faxes to offical court documents?

2. DoH Index information is in public domain – that is all you need to know. The truth will come out – we will find out whether COLB is a legitimate document or not.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:53 am

ooh, getting desperate now natdummy? making up more and more…theory after theory…boogieman after boogieman. Nothing else.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:56 am

Excellent, we are getting somewhere. The fact that Chester Arthur's father was not a US citizen was hidden from public at the time of his presidency. It became known after the fact.
At the time there was a debate about his birthplace (Vermont vs. Canada) which was used as a smoke screen for the real eligiblity question: dual citizenship at birth.

Obama is trying to pull a “Chester Arthur” on us. Not in the day and age of Internet when people can easily coordinate their inquiry.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:00 am

Now the call to arms…following the usual pattern. He uses it whenever someone bring up Chester Arthur, that's why he asked the question the way he did. Hohum…the one detail to remember is it didn't matter, he was the legal President.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:05 am

You have to understand, guys like naturalnuthead went out and created these websites and such and were making money for hits to their websites. Now, their traffic has died down so low, they're starting to lose their shirts. So, they run around to message boards trying to drum up traffic. Each has their own style, but you start to recognize it after a while and it gets even funnier when you realize that they no longer believe, they just want to make a buck.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:06 am

LOL, you are confirming everything I said!

What I said was, “My evidence? I have an official legal document, newspaper announcements, and statements from multiple state officials. You attack the evidence with speculation.”

And sure enough, you attacked my evidence with speculation. (And in some cases with outright lies. It is absolutely not true that DHHL changed its policies in June, it just clarified them on their web site. Don't try that crap with me, I know better.)

And your evidence? Come on, the good stuff!


chrisjay
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:11 am

Naturalb, I think it is marvelous that you are obsessed with exposing this conspiracy. I heartily encourage you to pursue it with every ounce of energy, every waking minute and every dollar you can scrape together. I hope that you encourage all of your rightwing friends to do the same. Also, I sincerely hope that you and all other birthers tirelessly lobby your republican reps to pursue this for you. Call them all, emai them ceaselessly and write lots of letters. Call radio and tv stations and demand that they cover this story. Dont give up. Ever! Please promise me that you will dedicate your life to this pursuit. ou must never lose your focus. Just think how satisfying the sweet vindication will be, how we'll all have to eat crow and admit that you were right—-”OMG the president is a freakin' KENYAN!!!!!. I assure you it will all be worth it. Take out a second mortgage. Make a sandwich board sign and walk the streets. Someday they will all see the light. But you must work tirelessly. Your friends & family will understand–honest!


Antibirther
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:12 am

Holy crap, batman. . . .


mystylplx
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:12 am

Wrong again. Now you're reading Donofrio's blog. He's the only one who
thinks that. The truth is the citizenship of Arthurs father was known and
written about in (among others) the NYTimes. Hinman (who was claiming Arthur
wasn't born in the US) mentioned it as well, but never made an issue of it
since it was irrelevant.

Isn't it funny how no real historians think it was unknown, but Donofrio (an
ambulance chasing lawyer from NJ) says Arthur lied about it and all the
birthers believe it?


Doubtful
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:15 am

The filing is absolutely irrelevant. She requested leave from Judge Carter to file a surreply based on developments in the pleadings and he granted it, but she didn't address any of the appropriate issues and this is just another pile o' poop.

(Oh, but in one of the attachments she gets a new P.I. to state a bizarre new version of the social security number nonsense.)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20509291/KEYES-v-OBAM…

Enjoy!


mystylplx
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:16 am

Yeah, same with the 911 truthers. Not much difference between them, really,
except truthers at least have some kind of argument that is at least
complicated enough to understand where the confusion comes from. All in all
truthers are mental giants compared to birthers… though of course that's
not saying much.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:20 am

Birfoons should be mocked and ridiculed because they are paranoid idiots deserving of ridicule. Don't like ridicule? Then let's call it sedition, idiotic assmunch.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:23 am

I'm sure Obama is a natural born US citizen as sure as I am that you're a fart in the wind.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:23 am

Well, at least she didn't disappoint too much. I was worried she was going to lose “usurper”.

I'm no lawyer, but at least I can understand what point a real lawyer is trying to make, her's just make me glad I don't have to read crap like that all the time.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:24 am

The funniest thing is that you're impotent little prick. Obama will be President, get re-elected and you'll drift into obscurity with a moldy stink.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:26 am

You are showing a real ignorance of the law.

First of all, it's not the posting of the COLB on the web that makes it legitimate. It's the fact that, by it's very existence, it is prima facie evidence. That's the law. What that means is that it's absolute legal proof until you prove otherwise. Not until you conjecture otherwise, or until you speculate otherwise, but until you prove otherwise. Until you do, it is full legal proof, and nothing you say will change that.

Second, the “grandfathered clause” has nothing to do with Obama's eligibility, as his legally uncontested birth in Hawaii makes him a Natural Born Citizen. Find me a single reputable legal scholar who disagrees.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 3:17 am

Actually, you are wrong. His enrollment in school in Indonesia by his stepfather lists his place of birth as Honolulu, HI.

The sealing of his documents has to do with his CIA employment. Records are classified and sealed.

Next question?


RedGraham
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 5:05 am

Antibirthers are rude and insulting because of their fear the Chicago thug Obama really is hiding information deeming him ineligible to run for president. If he has nothing to hide why is he hiding it? Why are there so many people concerned about this issue? Could they all be racist, ignorant nutjobs? Some who come to mind are: Pat Boone, Chuck Norris, Alan Keyes, Dr. Michael Savage, Jerome Corsi, Rush Limbaugh, senators, congressmen, attorneys, and military officers. They and I all take our Constitution seriously & put our hand over our hearts when the National Anthem is played(unlike the Obama). It is a travesty that anyone, especially a man some people refer to as “president”, should be allowed to blatantly violate the law of the land. Remember when those same antibirther-types ridiculed Linda Tripp, Paula Jones & a host of others when Clinton was impeached? Figuratively speaking there's a blue dress out there with Obama's DNA and somebody like his half-sister Maya or even Michelle knows where it is.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 5:13 am

It would be easy to shut the “birthers” down. Just provide a long form birth certificate – same type of document as we have seen from Nordyke twins. It is that simple.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 5:25 am

It was not the WND, I read it on the “theobamafile.com.”


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 5:33 am

Was there a requirement that the affidavit be signed in person, or was there a form to fill and send to the State?

The address published in the newspaper is where his grandparents lived in a rented house. Obama's father never lived at that address, he had an apartment much closer to the university. Neighbor was recently interviewed and she does not remember ever seeing a black child living in that house.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 5:38 am

We have a poet in the house today.
Are you one of those NEA sponsored artists who have been recently asked to produce artwork supporting the new administration?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 5:54 am

Can you recommend any web site providing good information on the topic you mentioned? I am not familiar with Hinman.

The time has come for the Supreme Court to resolve the natural born debate and provide a clear ruling on the issue.
Donofrio's argument makes sense to me. A person born on the US soil of citizen parents is the only definition that provides unquestionable loyalty at birth. No allegiance to a foreign country can be claimed. There can be no debate whether such person is eligible for US presidency.


resplazapunchbowl
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 5:54 am

MY LAST COMMENTS RE OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE

Ladies and gentleman, please lets not accuse each other of lying and using vile epitaphs so loosely. Can't we have a civil discourse and agree to disagree with each other's strongly held views. I apologize for any hurtful things I may have said. I would like to present some facts, background, suppositions and opinions and hope this will be my last comment on this subject.

FACT 1: Since 2001 the state of Hawaii ceased use of hospital reporting of births via the old “long form Certificate of Birth” familiar to most Americans. This was essentially a hospital's internal admin record of births which the Bureau of Vital Statistics effectively used by stamping the Registrars name, date and registration number. These numbers were stamped by receiving clerks on birth certificates as it was taken from the In-box of the bureau and was not numbered by dates of birth. The hospitals assumed the major burden in preparing this form. However, most adult Americans are familiar with this form and questioned the new form. These were later kept in microfilm and microfiche files. In 2001 Hawaii converted all data to a digital data base and initiated hospital birth reporting by electronic means. A new Certification of Live Birth was henceforth issued by means of electric and later laser printers. This is what Barack Obama received from state of Hawaii in June 2007 and which he displayed in 2008.

SUPPOSITION 1: Based on the old type birth certificates of the Nordyke twins carried in the internet I have taken the liberty or transposing some information which I believe is on the “old long form” now stored in Hawaii State's vital statistics archive for Barack Obama.

Child's Name: Barack Hussein Obama (Boxes for “Twin or “Single” unmarked) (same as new cert but no boxes for twins or single)
DOB: August 4, 1961 Time of Birth: 7:24 P.M. (same in new cert.)
Father's name: Barack Hussein Obama Sr. Age 36; POB: Monbassa, Kenya, Race: African ; Mailing Address: 6085 Kalanianaolle Highway, Honolulu Hi 96821 (Boxes for “Farm or “Plantation” unchecked) Occupation: student Type Industry of Occupation: blank or possibly “education” (age, POB, mailing address, occupation, type industry not in new cert)
Mother's name: Stanley Ann Dunham, Age 18, POB: Kansas USA Race: Caucasian
Mailing Address: 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, Honolulu 96821 (Boxes for “Farm or Plantation” unchecked) (age, POB, mailing address, occupation and type of industry not in new cert)
Name of Hospital: Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital for Women, 1319 Punahou St Honolulu Hi 96826
Ink signature of Attending Physician (Boxes for MD or DO) (unable to decipher)
Ink signature of Attending Nurse (unable to decipher)
Name of Informant Providing Information: (probably Stanley Ann Dunham)
Stamped signature of Director of Health Department (not on new cert)
Stamped signature of Registrar, Bureau of Vital Statistics (not on new cert)
Date of issue: unknown
No seal of state but hand embossment on rear of document. No authentication statement.

New Certification of Birth also contains:
Printed State of Hawaii seal (top center of cert)
City/Town of Birth: Honolulu Island of Birth: Oahu County of Birth: Honollulu
This Copy Serves As Prima Facia Evidence Of Birth In Any Court Proceeding (HRS 335-13(b) 338-19) (bottom of new cert)
Printed bold letters: State of Hawaii (top right corner with date)

QUESTIONS:
What do you think Barack Obama wants to hide from his old certificate? The fact that his father was born in Kenya? Every one knows that it is not a disqualifying factor of his natural born citizenship.
Is knowledge of parents DOB, POB, mailing address, occupation, helpful in determining whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?
Is knowledge of the attending doctor and nurses name cogent in determining Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii?
Is the fact that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital critical to determining his birth in Hawaii? Would it make a difference if he was born at home or in a tent, with a mid-wife performing the delivery? The truth is Kapiolani cannot confirm or deny a birth to any person without tangible interest under Hawaii and federal privacy laws. Barack Obamai does not have the right to release information on hospital records and hospital personnel without release from persons involved under privacy laws. Hawaii;s state Governor, the health department offcials and Kapiolanii Hospital pesonnel also are subject to the same privacy laws.
They and Hawaii's Governor and her Attorney General are being bombarded by a host of law suits but must fight these frivolous suits under Hawaii and federal privacy laws. They are performing their lawful duties and name calling and epitaphs absolutely serves no useful purpose.
Is there anything I mentioned above that you may want to use to further your attack along with the birthers, and I ask you, for what noble purpose.? Can't stand a black president? Be honest. .Best regards to all and ALOHA NUI LOA until we meet again.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 6:00 am

There is a provision in the Hawaii law that allows citizens to ask for public records. Index documents in the DoH fall under such category. The process of discovery whether COLB document is a legitimate one will not take very long.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 6:12 am

“… Barack Obamai does not have the right to release information on hospital records and hospital personnel without release from persons involved under privacy laws. Hawaii;s state Governor, the health department offcials and Kapiolanii Hospital pesonnel also are subject to the same privacy laws….”

How is it that Eleanor Nordyke could publish the long form document without violating the privacy laws of anyone involved?

The latest line of inquiry (not a lawsuit) at DoH involves request for the DoH Index data. There is also request for AG Bennet's letter providing legal advice to Dr. Fukino to issue a press release that Obama is “a natural-born American citizen”.

The DoH director issued a press release – pubic has the right to know what documents were used to support such claim.

You could send the same request to DoH as a citizen/resident of Hawaii, to see AG's letter. The law says that AG must file this letter with archives within 3 days of issuing.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 11:35 am

No, it wouldn’t. Idiots like naturaldick would do what they’ve always done, claim it is a forgery and ask for more proof. Meanwhile offering none of their own. The only way you get this to court, is to PROVE Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. And, you still have not done that. Until you do, courts are going to do what they’ve done for over 200 years, laugh you right out…or even better, ignore you blowers.


Empirical
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 8:16 am

The wordy and 'puffy' discussion that is taking place on this subject overwhelms me (and probably most of the other participants) with exchanges that are totally MEANINGLESS because of their TOTAL absence of any legitimate “legally” authenticated confirmation. That can only happen in a court of law in which BOTH PARTIES APPEAR UNDER OATH AND PRESENT THEIR EVIDENCE TO THE SCRUTINY OF THE COURT (JURY)…….

That has not happened because the courts have so far failed to even permit “discovery” to occur. Why??? The fact that a judge dismisses a case does not mean that their is NO evidence. It does mean that whatever evidence each side wishes to present is “unworthy” in his/her eyes……. In fact, a dismissal by a judge (prior to “discovery”) merely means that he/she does not want that case to be tried — in his/her court AT THIS TIME…….

A judge has the power to reach such a decision about the case on virtually any ground that he/she deems sufficient — even out of his/her bias … or conflict of interest … or placing himself in the place of the jury. When a judge excludes evidence that should be seen by a jury, he/she is making a decision which prevents an examination that “the law” expects. UNTIL BOTH PARTIES, UNDER OATH, HAVE PRESENTED THEIR CASE IN COURT … NEITHER SIDE IN THIS CASE IS JUSTIFIED IN CLAIMING THAT THE “OTHER SIDE'S” EVIDENCE IS INVALID……..

The puffy dismissal of the allegations in the briefs presented to the courts by much of the commentary appearing here… is just that … puffiness, a bunch of hot air……..

Keep in mind that the briefs may (often) exclude the most convincing evidence……..!!! The briefs are intended to get both parties to the point of “discovery” — not to DECIDE the case……… The fact that the judges have so far not allowed even 'discovery' to occur is creating much of the 'controversy' (or certainly making it worse) and is, in my opinion, doing a disservice to the cause of JUSTICE, the sanctity of the CONSTITUTION, and the best interest of our governmental system……

There is at least as much “smoke” within the briefs that have been filed — on a number of valid issues — to justify the courts allowing this case to go forward … rather than choking it off and thereby 'making the case' for an abundance of “conspiracy” theories to titillate the public record….. Is Obama's citizenship status or his legal qualification to serve … any less 'worthy' of the kind of scrutiny that was given to Nixon — or Clinton???

I submit that the Constitutional issues alone make this case more worthy of a trial (it's not yet ready for impeachment to be considered) than either the Nixon or Clinton cases……. Why is Obama being protected??? Because of an alleged CIA connection……..??? If so, the public has every right to know that, too……..

The courts must (and I believe they will) do their duty…….. In the meantime, there exists no valid basis for the kind of puffy “total dismissal” of the charges that are surfacing in this space — by many people who have not bothered to read the briefs…….


Anonymous
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

There are two different numbering systems.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 11:16 am

—Antibirthers are rude and insulting —

Hey, I resemble that remark. . . .

Actually, I am rude and insulting because I think birthers are idiots on a par with 9/11 truthers, chemtrailers, grassy knollers, moon hoaxers, FDR bombed Pearl Harborers, etc, etc, etc.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 11:20 am

—”And BTW, I'm not making that up–they are quite literally demanding to see
his kindergarten records. No joke”—

That's because, according to rumor, Barack was often coloring outside the lines, or even worse, coloring people with colors other than “flesh.”*

* I'm dating myself there :)


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 11:20 am

As everyone can see, the blowers have been busy overnight. Empirical, resplaz, naturalkook, and Red have all made comments below when no one has been around to challenge them. Nice how they can talk it over with each other, and yet not a single one of them has faced the one fact that they cannot overcome, the State of Hawaii. No reason to tear each of their statements apart, because there's nothing in them that faces up to overcoming that Hawaii said Obama was born there. The rest is the usual ramblings they throw out when they can't get you to agree with them. Boring! Hey guys, when you can PROVE Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, maybe we'll listen…otherwise we'll just stay away from your websites and laugh at your empty arguments. The courts say they are frivolous. I say they are just idiot blowers who cannot get over the fact that a black man is President.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 11:23 am

LOL LOL LOL Stupid echo chamber sites citing each other.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:05 pm

apologies to resplaz, he's not a blower. But, as always, they will ignore a well-written argument. So I should just say the “Three Stooges” of Empirical, naturalkook, and Red.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:14 pm

Naturalizeddickhead: “How is it that Eleanor Nordyke could publish the long form document without violating the privacy laws of anyone involved? “

You are such a total idiot, it amazes me that your mother would ever claim you. You know exactly why she could publish it and the only reason for asking is to be a jerk. But here's a better question, If Eleanor Nordyke lost her long form document and requested a new one from Hawaii, would she cease to be born in Hawaii and be an american citizen because it would be a short form? Answer me that one. Of course, you'll not answer it because it is better to avoid answering instead of making up conspiracies. So, I will expect another non-answer from you along with another conspiracy-type question. It's all you have and it's all you've ever had.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 12:32 pm

What issue? Obama was elected President. He submitted a COLB that is the legal form of proof of birth in Hawaii. The Congress voted unanimously to congratulate Hawaii on 50 years of statehood and declared it to be the birthplace of Obama 378-0. It is virtually impossible to overturn this situation.

The State of Hawaii has certified that the President was born in the State of Hawaii, in the city of Honolulu. What is then required is to determine if the certified record of birth that the State of Hawaii has provided is sufficiently proven under the law to be held as valid? The question becomes; ‘Is the short form Birth Certificate that was issued by the state of Hawaii sufficient to prove birth in the United States?’ The ‘Full Faith and Credit’ section of the Constitution provides that Congress may prescribe the manner in which the records of a state may be proved.

In order to determine what threshold of proof is for ‘Birth Certificates’ we must look at what the laws passed by the Congress have to say in this regard. There is no specific law that has been passed by Congress that is directly aimed at proving the authenticity of a state issued Birth Certificate, but there is clear guidance in this matter. Congress has specifically authorized a means for a citizen to prove citizenship, and this authority has been provided under a General Law. In 2000, Hawaii went to a paperless system and had to receive approval from Congress to use a “short-form” and to eliminate the “vault” or “long form” entirely.

The Congress has granted the Secretary of State, and by implication the Department of State, the authority to issue Passports under US Code, Title 22, Chapter 4. The granting of authority to the Department of State to issue a Passport implies that the authority to prescribe the manner in which citizenship must be proved has also been granted.

When this authority has been granted to a federal Department or Agency, the rules that the Department or Agency will use are then promulgated as regulations. These regulations are maintained as part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Department of State has issued regulations under CFR22.51.42 that state the following requirements for a citizen to prove birth in the United States:

(a) Primary evidence of birth in the United States. A person born in the United States generally must submit a birth certificate. The birth certificate must show the full name of the applicant, the applicant’s place and date of birth, the full name of the parent(s), and must be signed by the official custodian of birth records, bear the seal of the issuing office, and show a filing date within one year of the date of birth.

The State of Hawaii has issued a Birth Certificate that meets all of the requirements of CFR 22.51.42. That Birth Certificate is certified by the State of Hawaii, and is considered proven by the Laws of the United States. It will be up to anyone who challenges its authenticity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Birth Certificate is actually invalid. The Certification of Live Birth provided by Obama is LEGAL under Federal law for passports, drivers licenses, running for office, etc.

There is a very high standard of proof that must be met in order to override the Constitutional ‘Full Faith and Credit’ standard granted to the State of Hawaii in this matter. That standard of proof would require that the complainant show proof that there was an actual fraud committed by the State of Hawaii in the certification of that Birth Certificate, or that the certificate itself was fraudulent. Either way, the burden of proof rests with the complainant. Merely making accusations that this may have happened is not sufficient.

This would be true even if a foreign power were to present a Birth Certificate that was claimed to show birth in another country. Under the standard of ‘Full Faith and Credit’ that is specifically provided for in the Constitution, the public records of the State of Hawaii would take precedence over the public records of any foreign power. In order to meet the required burden of proof, the foreign record would not only have to be proven as true, but also the State of Hawaii’s record would have to be proven separately as false.

Demanding President Obama’s birth certificate is the 21st century version of 19th century demands of newly freed slaves: SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS. And when they did they were still lynched. Because hatred makes you blind. You Birthers have zero chance of displacing Obama from the presidency and your stomping your feet like a little girl (or boy) won't change a thing. It just makes you look stupid.


Empirical
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

Dr. Maloney (unregistered) wrote, in response to Empirical:

“What issue? Obama was elected President. He submitted a COLB that is the legal form of proof of birth in Hawaii. The Congress voted unanimously to congratulate Hawaii on 50 years of statehood and declared it to be the birthplace of Obama 378-0. It is virtually impossible to overturn this situation.”

Virtually impossible………??? What would you bet???

Hawaii (like Chicago) has long been a 'kingdom unto itself.'……… Let us wait for the “objective” — indeed, “physical” — facts to be surfaced…….. A court will be able to do that — even from Kenya perhaps…….. If the full force of upholding our Constitution is allowed to assert itself…….

Moreover, there are a number of additional 'unsettling' allegations within some of the briefs … which Obama should answer under oath…….. Nixon and Clinton did……..

As to the unanimous vote of a “resolution” by the Congress: One word — irrelevant…….

Cheerio…….. (P.S. Why did the Democrats fail to claim that Obama met the 'Constitutional language' in their Certification announcement of their nominee to all the states???)


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

So, now you're giving a court in Kenya power over our President, empirical? Why do you want to give up our freedoms to a foreign power? What is your true reason for all the BS you post? Are you now saying you're a traitor? Sounds like it.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

smstrauss…do you remember the Y2K scare at the end of the last century? Hawaii did what millions of governments and businesses around the world did, they fixed their dates and numbering systems to conform with the passing into 2000. Now, if you can’t/won’t see that, then I can’t help you.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

smstrauss…do you remember the Y2K scare at the end of the last century? Hawaii did what millions of governments and businesses around the world did, they fixed their dates and numbering systems to conform with the passing into 2000. Now, if you can’t/won’t see that, then I can’t help you.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

Empirical, if you used punctuation properly and wrote in complete sentences, maybe the rest of us would know what you were babbling about.

BTW, you can use simple HTML tags like < i > and < b > to highlight quotes.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

“UNTIL BOTH PARTIES, UNDER OATH, HAVE PRESENTED THEIR CASE IN COURT … NEITHER SIDE IN THIS CASE IS JUSTIFIED IN CLAIMING THAT THE “OTHER SIDE'S” EVIDENCE IS INVALID”

So, you really think that Orly is going to present a birth certificate that she knows is a forgery to a court of law?


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:37 pm

Hasn't she already? Didn't she submit it in Georgia? Oh yeah, Judge ripped her a new one on that too.

“Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel's failure to properly authenticate the document.”

Orly not doing her job, again. Can't wait for Judge Carter to dive in!


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 2:54 pm

Apparently empirical has reading comprehension issues. Unsettling allegations are only unsettling to you. I'll bet $10,000 on the virtually impossible issue. Get him out before 2012 and the money is yours. Don't remove him and my leg breakers will be on your front door to collect.

I'll print this again for your re-edification. Under the standard of ‘Full Faith and Credit’ that is specifically provided for in the Constitution, the public records of the State of Hawaii would take precedence over the public records of any foreign power. In order to meet the required burden of proof, the foreign record would not only have to be proven as true, but also the State of Hawaii’s record would have to be proven separately as false. Good luck with that one. You'll be 80 years old before that happens.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

We are talking about two types of documents and the numbers on them. There
are the old documents, which have one kind of numbering system, and the new
documents which have another kind of numbering system.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

We are talking about two types of documents and the numbers on them. There
are the old documents, which have one kind of numbering system, and the new
documents which have another kind of numbering system.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

Re: “(P.S. Why did the Democrats fail to claim that Obama met the 'Constitutional language' in their Certification announcement of their nominee to all the states???)”

And did the Republicans claim that McCain met the Constitutional language in their filings to the states? If so, show it. I'll bet they didn't say it either, because they do not have to say it, and neither did the Democrats.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

It’s the same numbering system. The new documents take their numbers from
the old system. They don’t just make up new numbers for the new
documents–that would be crazy.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

It’s the same numbering system. The new documents take their numbers from
the old system. They don’t just make up new numbers for the new
documents–that would be crazy.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 8:13 pm

That is both correct and incorrect. The new printings of the documents will have the the year identified as a 4-digit number. The older printings of the documents will have a 2-digit number for the year. In order for great-grandma, born in 1903, not to get confused with a young girl born in 2003, they had to make that change. I know of no other way to explain it to you, if you just want to go with conspiracy instead of an honest answer.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 8:13 pm

That is both correct and incorrect. The new printings of the documents will have the the year identified as a 4-digit number. The older printings of the documents will have a 2-digit number for the year. In order for great-grandma, born in 1903, not to get confused with a young girl born in 2003, they had to make that change. I know of no other way to explain it to you, if you just want to go with conspiracy instead of an honest answer.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

I know this doesn't belong here, but it follows the blowers delusional rantings and how they are starting to fall apart. One of their favorite announcers and conspiracy theorists may be done after today at FOX.

“Fox News declined to comment for this story, but rumors have been circulating that Friday’s show would be Beck’s last on the network.”

http://thediscust.com/?p=1249

Even FOX doesn't like it when it starts hitting them in the pocketbook. Even the pubs are coming out en masse against him, maybe his radio show will be next? We can only hope.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

At least you didn't mention flat-earthers, Anti, I would have resented that. I'm almost to the edge and can prove it. It's just over the next horizon. And then you'll see, the space mission was just a giant hoax to cover it up by the government.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 3:57 pm

=”Hawaii (like Chicago) has long been a 'kingdom unto itself.'……… Let us wait for the “objective” — indeed, “physical” — facts to be surfaced…….. A court will be able to do that — even from Kenya perhaps…….. If the full force of upholding our Constitution is allowed to assert itself…….”======

You don't have any evidence of anything you claim, so you resort to writing nonsense and hope that no one notices. It's just too bad that the rest of us arent as stupid as birfers, so the only people that'll fall for the crap you wrote will be other birfers. I don't know what the hell you're smoking, but lay off of it unless you want people to continue to mock you like the birfer you are.

=”Moreover, there are a number of additional 'unsettling' allegations within some of the briefs … which Obama should answer under oath…….. Nixon and Clinton did……..”=============

Another birfer misunderstands the law. Today must be a day that ends with “y.”

Once again, birfers have fallen through the looking glass. Birfers think that just because they accuse somebody of something, that person should have to show up and answer all of their asinine questions. “So what if we don't have any evidence?” the birfers say. “We just know that dark-skinned guy is hiding something!”

And this is where the birfers make one of their many mistakes. There is no court in the country that will compel ANYONE to testify under oath just because a birfer plaintiff “alleges” something. That plaintiff had damn well better have proof that what he is saying is true, or that plaintiff is shit out of luck. If you don't believe me look at all of Orly's cases thus far. Lack of evidence = FAIL.

I noticed that you mentioned Clinton and Nixon, and I'm glad that you did. Since you're a birfer, you conveniently left out the fact that both of those Presidents testified under oath AFTER there was actual evidence presented against them, and that's the way that it always works. Until you birfers submit some evidence of something (aside from your won racism and stupidity) you get nothing, and the courts won't change established laws and procedures just because the birfers are too stupid to understand the burden of proof.

Either you birfers (as the plaintiffs) submit some evidence that won't get you laughed out of court, or go back to your padded rooms and let the adults run the country.

=”As to the unanimous vote of a “resolution” by the Congress: One word — irrelevant…….”+

Do you have any proof of this allegation? A statute that says that the resolutions of Congress are irrelevant? How about a Supreme Court case…no? A Court of Appeals case, from any circuit…no? What about a federal district court case…still nothing? I see. Once again, a birfer has no evidence to back up any of his claims.

But then again, you're a birfer. You're just too damn stupid to know any better.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

I did my best to try to figure out what he was writing. Like all birfers, nothing he wrote made any sense, and nothing he wrote was supported by any evidence at all.

Orly Taitz strikes again (under a different screen name)!


Steve_X
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 4:09 pm

“Demanding President Obama’s birth certificate is the 21st century version of 19th century demands of newly freed slaves: SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS”

This.


Empirical
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 4:16 pm

Dr. Maloney wrote:

“I'll print this again for your re-edification. Under the standard of ‘Full Faith and Credit’ that is specifically provided for in the Constitution, the public records of the State of Hawaii would take precedence over the public records of any foreign power. In order to meet the required burden of proof, the foreign record would not only have to be proven as true, but also the State of Hawaii’s record would have to be proven separately as false. Good luck with that one. You'll be 80 years old before that happens.”

Yes — likely 80 years old……… Is that supposed to be a an insult……….???

(My 60 year old girl friend doesn't understand why????)

Cheerio………. (P.S. I see that Chicago was the first city to be eliminated in the Olympic site selection competition……..!!! That's a shame — I do understand why…….. Lacking in Rock Star power………!!! You might have done better with Sarah Palin in your corner………. LOL … as you kids say……….)


Paul
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

The birthers, the tea baggers, the screamers, and the deathers continued extreme minority presence will become tiresome to mainstream America, if it has not already done so. To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true, if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it. In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”. I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC).


thesheriffsani
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

Sarah Palin would've quit before she even got to Copenhagen.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 4:43 pm

{annoying palin voice}Oh, golly gee no, there's no snow machine races in the olyimpics, you betcha.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 4:44 pm

No, we're rude and insulting because the collection of racists, traitors, and morons that make up the continually discredited Birther movement deserve as much respect as the dog doo on my lawn.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

Also.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

I like the way that you took the time to quote Dr. Maloney's legal contention, and yet you completely ignored the issue he raised. It's good to see a birfer finally admit that he knows nothing at all about anything in the Constitution.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 12:22 am

Who says? The number on the COLB refers to its sequence in the COLBs that
were issued. The number on the original is based on the date on which it
was issued.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 12:22 am

Who says? The number on the COLB refers to its sequence in the COLBs that
were issued. The number on the original is based on the date on which it
was issued.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

Breaking news, Ted Williams' frozen head used for batting practice.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sportsprose/2009/10/t…

For those of you who are getting tired of the same old nonsense from the birthers.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 12:38 am

We are referring here to the sequence number on COLBs and on the original
documents.

Obama’s number on his COLB reads: 151 1961 010641

Clearly the 1961 refers to the year.

It has been pointed out that a long-form birth certificate for a child born
one day after Obama in Hawaii reads:

151 61 10637

It is clear that there are some similarities. 151 is a file number that is
common to both. 61 means 1961. But 10637 and 010641 do not relate. To be
sure, there is a six in both numbers, and an earlier writer on this blog
assumed that this relates to the order in which they were issued, meaning that
in the last three digit is 637 was ahead of 641. This is obviously true,
and if they were sequence numbers, that would mean that the child who was
born one day later got a number that was several numerals earlier.

This MIGHT be interesting (just how, i’m not really sure).

BUT, there is NO evidence that the number 010641 relates to 10637 in any
way. 010641 could be the 10641st COLB issued, and the 10637 the 10637th
long-form issued. In any case, the fact that the last three digits start with
the numeral 6 is purely a coincidence.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 12:38 am

We are referring here to the sequence number on COLBs and on the original
documents.

Obama’s number on his COLB reads: 151 1961 010641

Clearly the 1961 refers to the year.

It has been pointed out that a long-form birth certificate for a child born
one day after Obama in Hawaii reads:

151 61 10637

It is clear that there are some similarities. 151 is a file number that is
common to both. 61 means 1961. But 10637 and 010641 do not relate. To be
sure, there is a six in both numbers, and an earlier writer on this blog
assumed that this relates to the order in which they were issued, meaning that
in the last three digit is 637 was ahead of 641. This is obviously true,
and if they were sequence numbers, that would mean that the child who was
born one day later got a number that was several numerals earlier.

This MIGHT be interesting (just how, i’m not really sure).

BUT, there is NO evidence that the number 010641 relates to 10637 in any
way. 010641 could be the 10641st COLB issued, and the 10637 the 10637th
long-form issued. In any case, the fact that the last three digits start with
the numeral 6 is purely a coincidence.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

I'm still waiting for them to tell me where Jimmy Hoffa's buried. BTW, anyone seen Orly's filing in Georgia yet? I've got her calling Land a puppet within the first 3 pages in the office pool.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 12:49 am

The thing you have to understand is when you’re programming computers you want to make sure you provide enough digits in any number for past, present, and future. When they upgraded their software for Y2K, they obviously had to provide a couple of extra digits for the year so 1903 and 2003 weren’t confused, also they added another digit in the last part for anticipated growth (more kids being born each year). Now, the part that says it’s interesting that someone born later would have an earlier number assumes that the forms are grabbed after the baby’s out the chute. If they knew then what they know now, they probably would have been more careful about that. However, that is rarely how it works. The twins with the earlier numbers were going to be induced on a certain day, so it would be no surprise if their doctor went ahead and grabbed a couple to pre-fill out. It’s not like doctors are never busy and do everything in a certain order. But, like you said, it is interesting but in the overall scheme of things it’s inconsequential.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 12:49 am

The thing you have to understand is when you’re programming computers you want to make sure you provide enough digits in any number for past, present, and future. When they upgraded their software for Y2K, they obviously had to provide a couple of extra digits for the year so 1903 and 2003 weren’t confused, also they added another digit in the last part for anticipated growth (more kids being born each year). Now, the part that says it’s interesting that someone born later would have an earlier number assumes that the forms are grabbed after the baby’s out the chute. If they knew then what they know now, they probably would have been more careful about that. However, that is rarely how it works. The twins with the earlier numbers were going to be induced on a certain day, so it would be no surprise if their doctor went ahead and grabbed a couple to pre-fill out. It’s not like doctors are never busy and do everything in a certain order. But, like you said, it is interesting but in the overall scheme of things it’s inconsequential.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 12:56 am

Yes, but someone on this blog drew the conclusion that there was a fraud of
some kind based on her or his reading of the numbers and on the assumption
that the last set of digits showed that the child born after Obama got an
earlier number. It is silly to think that there was any kind of fraud
involved in 1961, and it is absurd to believe that there is a fraud of some
kind today that can be found out by those numbers. The two sets of numbers do
not relate. The COLB numbers are probably give in the order that COLBs were
issued while the originals were given in that order.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 12:56 am

Yes, but someone on this blog drew the conclusion that there was a fraud of
some kind based on her or his reading of the numbers and on the assumption
that the last set of digits showed that the child born after Obama got an
earlier number. It is silly to think that there was any kind of fraud
involved in 1961, and it is absurd to believe that there is a fraud of some
kind today that can be found out by those numbers. The two sets of numbers do
not relate. The COLB numbers are probably give in the order that COLBs were
issued while the originals were given in that order.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 1:09 am

Some of those blogs would find something amiss with Obama if the sun rose in the East. I don’t put any stock in them. The numbering system for the COLB’s would have to coincide some way with the old system so they could be cross-referenced, if need be. So, the COLB numbers are basically the same as the old numbers in 1961 except that they have to provide for the needed features of Y2K and expanded births. But, you could easily use a COLB number to go back and find the original BC with the almost identical number. Their only argument is the twins, who were born a day later, have an earlier number than Obama, who was born on the 4th. That just assumes the doctors grabbed forms only when the babies were actually born…which in real life is a HUGE assumption as I stated above.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 2:12 am

The numbers were given in the order they came out of the booklet, which is
not necessarily the same as the order they were born in. It can vary
according to all kinds of things, like how soon the parents fill out the
forms, or whether the forms got shuffled in someones inbox, or even if
someone flipped open the booklet to not the very next form. Obama’s number
varies by only 3 from that of those twins mentioned, which merely proves the
certificates were issued at close to the same time.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 2:12 am

The numbers were given in the order they came out of the booklet, which is
not necessarily the same as the order they were born in. It can vary
according to all kinds of things, like how soon the parents fill out the
forms, or whether the forms got shuffled in someones inbox, or even if
someone flipped open the booklet to not the very next form. Obama’s number
varies by only 3 from that of those twins mentioned, which merely proves the
certificates were issued at close to the same time.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 9:16 pm

FLASH!!

Orly Taitz was given two weeks to show cause why she should not be fined $10,000. She waited till the last minute, then filed two motions — one to request additional time to respond and another to have Judge Land recused.

I imagine she's invited a higher sanction for herself now.

http://ia311029.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.usco…

http://ia311029.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.usco…


Paul
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

We are all adults here, and as adults we know there are consequences for are actions, so if you do not agree with his policies, you can a) do nothing, b) support him, c) not support him, d) protest and picket, its your choice, live the dream! As for Orly Taitz, to this point she has not been successful because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. I would not bet the farm on this one. She has a mail-order-degree get someone with real credentials (Harvard, Yale Law School) not a crazy Russian immigrant with dual US/ Israel citizenship (where are her allegiances?). Have you even thought of who is paying for all these legal filings, her travel and all her wigs? Sorry she has no juice because she does not have any proof, documentation supporting her claims except her wild rants. I heard they are now playing the victim card as well. Please, feel sorry for us the “Birth Certificate” that we built our entire case around and that we have been dancing around turn out to be a big “Fake”. Her material might work on “Fake News” but not in a Court of the United States.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 9:32 pm

Paul: “She has a mail-order-degree get someone with real credentials (Harvard, Yale Law School) not a crazy Russian immigrant with dual US/ Israel citizenship (where are her allegiances?).”

But, what the blowers don't understand is, these real lawyers wouldn't get with 5 miles of a case like this. They know the laws and constitution too well and don't want to mess with their credentials. So, Orly's all they got!


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

Well, I'll leave it to the lawyers to tear it apart…it was just senseless babble to me. It is funny, though, how she just did a copy and paste on most of it. Easily detected (blowers, please note how we can easily tell your forgeries) because she has LAND capitalized in all the copied areas to replace the last Judge she wanted recused in California. She should be getting good at it, any Judge that doesn't agree with her should be thrown out…and once she's emptied the Judiciary, maybe she'll find someone dumb enough to believe her arguments. Oh, forget it, there's no one that stupid except the blowers.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

Orly (yes we know it's you), as much as I would love to make fun of whatever it is you wrote, I can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say. Go back to English Composition 101 and learn how to write, then read the Constitution and find out what it actually says. You can go do both of those things now, if you'd like.

I'll wait right here until you're done.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 10:10 pm

Actually, it's worse than that. If you check the properties of the PDF document, you'll see that the author is Charles Edward Lincoln III. He has been working for Orly in some capacity, but whatever it is, it's illegal. Lincoln is a convicted felon and disbarred attorney, and there are strict rules forbidding his involvement in any legal work.

It's one of the issues the California Bar is taking a very close look at. I wouldn't expect Orly to be practicing too much longer.


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 10:27 pm

Well, I don't want to give up too many secrets to the blowers, they might even learn something! LOL Couldn't say it with a straight face! Maybe the bar could wait until after the midterms next year, give the Dems some extra ammo? Guess it doesn't matter, the pubs are now trying to separate themselves from the nutjobs, birthers, Beck, Limbaugh, Empirical, Red, and our favorite NaturalizedIdiot. I'm waiting to see if the Beck out at FOX is true. If so, today was his last day…thankfully one less idiot who believes his wealth is more important than our country.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

Avert your eyes, because I'm about to be rude and insulting. Ready? Here goes…

After reading your post, I can see that like most idiot birfers, you can throw out stupid birfer accusations with no proof to back them up. The only thing that you and the other birfers do is rant and rave, making up laws and facts as you go along.

You do this because you are birfers, and thus you are stupid. This is why we mock you. You believe in made-up fairy tale nonsense, and you never have any evidence to back up anything that you claim. I would explain the burden of proof to you, but it wouldn't matter because you don't even have any evidence to prove any of the stupid shit that you believe in.

In conclusion, birfers are stupid, racist, drooling, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, tinfoil hat-wearing, illiterate morons. None of you understand the law (which is why you make up your own as you go along), and none of you understand the Constitution (even as you claim to defend it). Somewhere in a landfill there is a broken doorknob with a higher IQ than all of the birfers combined.

That is why we mock you.


Empirical
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 10:51 pm

Steve_X wrote, in response to Empirical:

Orly (yes we know it's you), as much as I would love to make fun of whatever it is you wrote, I can't figure out what the hell you're trying to say. Go back to English Composition 101 and learn how to write, then read the Constitution and find out what it actually says. You can go do both of those things now, if you'd like.

Steve……… Please try to pay careful (open minded) attention:

1. Orly is NOT the only person working on this case……..

2. I am NOT Orly……. (You are right…….. The case is too much for her………)

3. One day, you may know: I am listed in Who's Who in the World and Who's Who in America……

Cheerio……… (Sorry that you don't approve of my writing style…… But it WORKS very well.)


Jim
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 11:17 pm

Are you sure it's not “Who's a Nut” and “Who to Avoid in America”? Your writing style looks too familiar to be anybody important. Of course, you could also claim to be worth $50 million like another blower, but then you'd be repeating yourself. And so that begs the question, why even mention it? We've been proving you wrong again and again, so you obviously have to know that anything you say about yourself is as worthless as an anonymous name on a message board, wait…That IS what you are, an anonymous name. So, the only reason to mention it is to inflate your own ego. Basically what I'm saying is…BS!


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 2, 2009 @ 11:28 pm

You can buy your way into the Who's Who by paying to have it included. Wow! Impressive!


chrisjay
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 1:56 am

Calling all Birfers:
The movement has a new threat. Out of nowhere we have had to move a new name to the TOP of your Enemies List——stalwart Republican and conservative Senator Lindsey Graham of S Carolina is now on record as having called you, and I quote, “CRAZY”.
Have you checked on HIS birf sertificate yet???
Well then: hop to it!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:42 am

GOP sent the same letter to all 50 states: confirming McCain's constitutional eligibility.

Democrat Party sent two letters: One for Hawaii which contains the phrase that Obama meets Constitutional requirement. Other 49 states got slightly different language:
Both DEM documents and a sample of a GOP document are shown in the following article:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2009/williams091…


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 11:00 am

Birthers theory is already (long since) blown away. Any additional blowing
would just be overkill.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 11:00 am

Birthers theory is already (long since) blown away. Any additional blowing
would just be overkill.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 11:06 am

You are a proven liar. He went through high school as Barry Soetero?

The rest of your post is just typical muddled barfer BS. Gotta love the part
about Ayers writing Obama’s book. If you guys get any more full of crap
they’ll build a methane plant around you and solve the energy crisis.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 11:06 am

You are a proven liar. He went through high school as Barry Soetero?

The rest of your post is just typical muddled barfer BS. Gotta love the part
about Ayers writing Obama’s book. If you guys get any more full of crap
they’ll build a methane plant around you and solve the energy crisis.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:24 am

Are you claiming that Obama lost his birth certificate? The one described in his book “Dreams from my Father”? That is the reason why he asked for the birth certificate and DoH issued a COLB!? He is just following the standard procedure, right?
A sitting US Senator and later on elected President could not access his own long form birth certificate from DoH? What else is off the limits to an elected President?

So far no Obama supporter on this board has answered the following question:
What is it in the long form birth certificate document that merits privacy protection?
I would think that the birth hospital and attending physician would have been honored for delivering the future President of the USA.
The public's right to know that the President elect is Constitutionally eligible to serve is more important that phony claims to privacy for an ordinary document like birth certificate.


The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should … | Obama Snafu
Pingback posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:27 am

[...] posted here:  The Washington Independent » Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should … Tags: alias, Birth, contains-claim, even-though, evidence, high-school, Illinois, Obama, [...]


RedGraham
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:56 am

At no point in the string of documents filed by the DNC or Obama, did anyone certify to the state of Arkansas that Obama was eligible for the office he sought. This is true in many states… though not all 50 states have been reviewed as of this writing.
The US Senate never passed a resolution affirming that Barack Hussein Obama is a “natural born citizen” in accordance with the same definition the Senate used to make just such an affirmation on behalf of John McCain during the 2008 election.
Everyone in America knows who John McCain is, who his parents are, where he was born and that he is a true American war hero. Still, the Senate felt it necessary to pass a resolution affirming McCain’s “natural born citizen” status on the basis that he was the son of TWO US citizens, born on American soil at a US Navy base in Panama where his father was deployed at the time of John’s birth.
But nobody knows who Obama is or where he came from, as even his family in Kenya claim to have been present at his birth in Kenya, and no authenticated proof to the contrary has ever been presented.
Many Americans, at home, in congress and in the media, have assumed that Obama meets all qualifications because the DNC said he did. But in 49 states, they never said it, at least officially!
If you ask Nancy Pelosi, on what basis did she “certify” Obama as eligible under Article II, she would simply state that she never made any such certification, except in Hawaii… and she would be telling the truth!
The language necessary to certify Obama as eligible was omitted from the documents filed at 49 Election Commission offices, and in most of those cases, such certification was also missing in the primary filings.
Why did the DNC certify Obama’s eligibility only in Hawaii?
Why did no state DNC office, DNC elector, or Election Commission office catch it?
Since the DNC made no such certification, on what basis do we assume Obama to be eligible?
Without any such certification, isn’t it more important than ever to see the actual birth certificate and ask the courts to make an official ruling on the definition of “natural born citizen?”
Why did the DNC use TWO different docs, one incomplete, when the RNC used the same complete doc nationwide?
On what basis will the media continue to claim that Obama is eligible?
Why did Nancy Pelosi show signs of stress in her Hawaii certification of Obama?
When will every American demand answers to these and many more questions


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:14 am

Obama is a proven liar – only the most partisan hacks do not see it.
1. He promised transparency – all legislation will be posted for 5 days on the web before he signes it, right?
2. There was a great urgency to pass the stimulus bill several moths ago. Over night they added 300 pages and forced Members of congress to vote on it only hours after the latest changes were added. They pass the bill and Obama takes 4 days to sign it – if this was such an urgent matter as his administration suggested, why did he wait four days to sign it
3. How about pledge that he will have no lobbyist in his administration?
4. His registration form to the Illinois Bar association contains claim that he never used any other alias – even though he went through elementary and high school as Barry Soetoro.
5. Bill Ayers was just a neighbor. Obama wrote the book “Dreams From my Father” himself. There is a new book out there about Barack and Michelle's marriage, the author claims that Ayers co-wrote the book with Obama.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/and…


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:19 am

“birther's” theory could be blown away with a single document: Original Long Form Birth Certificate.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:00 am

Let's see:Chicago-not really a part of USA in your estimation, Hawaii–same. At this rate you will eliminate most of the country before long… the reality is that you Birfers are the 'kingdom unto yourself' I wonder how many of your ilk–besides Orly–have the courage of your convictions to come out of the closet and stop hiding behind the anonymity of the www. I don't think you could handle the mocking in your 'real' life. Its easy to be a deranged wingnut blogger. Just cowards, though, really, casting these senseless accusations from behind your screen.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:02 am

Three Stooges of Moe, Larry and Orly


chrisjay
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:10 am

Red, everybody you named is a degenerate scumbag (Boone is just senile) Oh and your metaphorical blue dress is quite apt: The visual I will attribute to you folks is of each of you rummaging around someone's laundry hamper, sniffing their underpants and appropriating skidmark samples with your fingernails. And yes, you look just like Linda Tripp!


Empirical
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 9:41 am

Red Graham's posting at 02:56 a.m. Today (below)…….. A VERY IMPORTANT POSTING….!!!
It should be carefully studied and understood. Solid documentary evidence of a fraud……. Good idea to go to the original posting of that information — in the link he provides. AND FOLLOW UP IN THE NEWS AS MORE IS PUBLISHED ON THAT “CERTIFICATION” ISSUE……….

Cheerio……….. (P.S. There IS more……… I do not know Red, but he is onto something……….)


Empirical
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 9:50 am

CORRECTION………. Sorry — Natualizedcitizen is the person who provided the correct link for the Canadian article (about the election fraud), in his posting at 01:42 a.m…………. Cheerio……….


mystylplx
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 10:50 am

You barfers are truly dingbats. You know the original blog that came up with
that whole thing has also come up with previous years certifications for
Gore and Kerry. Guess what? They don't have the part about “qualified under
the constitution” either. You morons get so excited about such nonsense.

Or I guess now you'll be claiming that Gore and Kerry were also born in
Kenya.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 10:52 am

It's not a Canadian article. Even the name of the website is dishonest.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 11:06 am

One minor detail there, Red. Once Hawaii said he was born there, all other states are required by law to accept it. Acrkansas has no say in it. They can't authenticate a Hawaii BC. But, why should folks like you care about little things like laws or the constitution. That's why you've taken to writing at 2 in the morning now, so you can avoid us pointing out how badly delusional you all are. Keep trying, your still blowers.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 11:10 am

DNC sent the same letters for Gore and Kerry as for Obama. Breaking news!
Gore and Kerry were born in Kenya too!!!!!

Gotta love how barfers get soo excited about such nothing. But when nothing
is all you've got to get excited about then I suppose you play the hand you
were dealt.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 11:34 am

Naturalizeddumbs**t: Nice of you to do exactly as I said. Didn't have the balls to answer my question and then start in asking leading questions. Well, you have all these questions, yet you won't answer any…why is that? Because you have no proof of anything, just wild theories. The public KNOWS that Obama is our legal president because he was born in Hawaii. The blowers KNOW they've got nothing but their own delusions…and you prove it every time you ignore questions and bring up another useless theory.


Empirical
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 11:57 am

Yes……… Once again we see the Democrats' quick readiness to ignore the Constitution……. That's why it is so important to get an issue like this “certification” issue into the courts………. Of course, this also gives the Republicans an excellent issue for the next election………..!!!

Cheerio……….


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 12:17 pm

1. Orly is NOT the only person working on this case……..

You are right, she has a ghost lawyer, or rather a ghost ex-lawyer. In violation of California Bar rules, she appears to be working with a disbarred and convicted felon.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 12:22 pm

Well, since you've proven time and time again that you don't know or understand the constitution, Empathetic, I don't think any dems care what you think. In fact, the republicans don't even care what you think, even going so far as calling you “CRAZY”. And, the courts just throw you out on your heads, since they require things like evidence and proof. So, you've got a clean sweep of nothingness, except you delusions.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 12:41 pm

I only have a few questions: why can't birfers show any evidence that anything they say is true? Don't birfers know that, to meet their burden of proof, that they have to have some actual evidence of what they claim? Millions of lawyers in courtrooms across the county meet the burden of proof every single day, so what can't the birfers?

Why are you birfers so afraid of evidence? What is it about valid, admissible evidence that makes the birfers collectively shit themselves in fear?


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:44 pm

I’ve already proven my point with facts, you have presented nothing of substance.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 12:47 pm

Orly is too stupid NOT to do this. She is a birfer, after all.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 1:18 pm

Nobody cares but you wingnuts. Americans have their answer. Obama is president and there is NO WAY you will ever get him removed over this issue. If your really believe that I feel very sorry for you and recommend counseling. As to McCain he was no true American hero. He finished 895 out of a class of 899 and crashed four planes before he was ever shot down.
While a prisoner of war, McCain was treated as a “special prisoner,” with privileges including being given his own private and affectionate nurse.

McCain's treatment as a “special prisoner” is a contradiction to his much publicized image of a great war hero who was severely tortured and kept in solitary confinement for long periods of time because he refused to break during interrogation.

Ted Guy, a former Air Force Colonel held 5 1/2 years by the Vietnamese and McCain's senior ranking officer (SRO) in the POW camp, told the U.S. Veteran Dispatch he cannot remember the communists ever laying a hand on McCain.

Other sources have told the U.S. Veteran Dispatch that the Vietnamese are holding as much as fifty hours of film footage secretly taken of McCain during the time his KGB-trained handlers had him isolated from other U.S. prisoners of war.

Some of the film, according to the sources, is of McCain receiving special privileges during the time he claims he was being tortured and held in long-term solitary confinement.

The sources say interrogators have candid camera footage of McCain with the nurse, who allegedly supplied him with more than just medical attention during those lonely days and nights in so-called solitary confinement.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 1:31 pm

Since Red is so obsessed with birth certificates, I have an assignment for you, Red. Disprove the following:

The former President's father, George H.W. Bush, the 41st President, wasn't born in America. George H.W. Bush is really an SS Nazi spy named George H. Scherff Jr. the son of Dr. Nikola Tesla's illegal immigrant German born accountant George H. Scherff Sr. He was adopted by Prescott Bush, Richard Nixon's mentor, who was proven to be a Nazi traitor during WWII.

He tried to organize the assassination of FDR and the overthrow of the American government. Only the heroic efforts of Gen. Smedley Butler, a Congressional Medal of Honor winner, prevented it from happening.

Hitler used stolen advanced American made Tesla technology and stolen holocaust money as leverage to merge his entire SS Gestapo with the American OSS after WWII to form the CIA! Can you name one “good” thing the CIA has ever done for America?

George HW Bush was the head of the Florida CIA and the boss of the tramps arrested on the Grassy Knoll, two of whom were E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, both later arrested as Nixon's Watergate burglars. Small world.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 1:57 pm

To all Birther Wingnuts.

Here's your first clue to the true identity of Papa Bush. Enjoy:

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

Show the letter.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

You must be delusional to think that Orly would have time to roam the internet just to argue with you.


TRUTH
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 2:41 pm

The Honorable Pastor Manning is correct. The time is fast approaching – EVERYONE is fed-up : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hFiab7fjak&feat…


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 2:42 pm

Are you talking about the same guy who was shut down by Japanese in WW2 in the Pacific and rescued by a US submarine?
When did Obama sacrificed anything for USA?
Please spend the same amount of time researching Obama's past and report to us about his family, will you?


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

So, now we've got a mail-order pastor, a mail-order lawyer, and a message-board nut. Sounds like the 'Three Stooges' to me. Congrats, truthless, you still got nothing.


WOW
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 2:54 pm

What has ACTUALLY “changed” since Obama took office? – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxCqJImpOAE&feat…


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

Where is the secret footage? You accuse “birthers” of being nuts and then proceed with wild speculation about McCain.
It would be much easier to document the Obama's Hawaiian birth than prove anything you said about McCain. Obama's long form birth certificate is still hidden from US public.
You are right, McCain finished the academy as fifth from the bottom of his class. At least there is enough information about him that we can make INFORMED judgment about his character, accomplishments and shortcomings.
Did Obama give us opportunity to see his college transcripts? No. If he was that exceptional as MSM would want us to believe – he would have been proud to show his college accomplishments. Why is Obama afraid of US public?

Just for the record, I do not think that McCain is Constitutionally eligible to be the president of the USA (being born in a foreign country).


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:00 pm

Jim the “message board nut” – That's an amazing revelation. It's big of you to admit you are “…a message-board nut.”. No one believed you were capable of admitting your insanity. Everyone knows you are crazy as a loon, but for you to come forward and publicly ADMIT it is a real shocker!


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

DOUBLE ALLEGIANCE TO THE NATION :
This is what the framers required for the Commander In Chief. Any child of immigrants from any nation could become President – as long as his parents became naturalized US citizens before that child was born on US soil. In their wisdom, the framers sought two generations of US citizenship. This discriminates against no race at all.
To be an American has nothing to do with race. It has to do with being a person cloaked in liberty – free from monarchy, free of repression, free forever. It makes all the sense in the world that the person who holds the keys to the massive nuclear arsenal in our possession should be born on US soil to parents who were citizens. If Obama is eligible to be President, then the sons of every despicable despot are also eligible.
It’s not like North Korea, Saudi Arabia or Iran are going to let the sons of US citizens lead their countries anytime soon. Are we really going to allow their sons to lead our nation? The framers would never have allowed such a horrific situation to exist. With the natural born citizen clause they protected us against this very scenario. We must protect the protection.
A legal fraud is being perpetrated upon this nation through ridicule and straight up major media propaganda. The great weight of authority indicates Obama is not eligible to be President. Whether you agree or disagree, the foregoing are legally established facts.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

Could you post a link to substantiate your claim that the original blog reported Hawaii certifications for Gore and Kerry.
Those documents need to be compared with the one sent in 2008 to make informed judgment.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

If Attorney Collins – esteemed lawyer, Secretary of the Bar Association and nationally known legal journalist – had thought his current President at the time this article was published – Chester Arthur – was a British subject at birth, then the article would have required a discussion of that point.
But the article does not mention President Chester Arthur because Chester Arthur managed – through blatant deceit – to cover that issue up. He successfully concealed his British birth from the American people. This law review article is proof of that conclusion. MYTH #2: Lynch v. Clark ( a New York State case, not federal) is legal precedent for Obama to be considered a natural born citizen.
Despite the fact that state court cases have absolutely no legal weight of authority in federal court, Obama eligibility supporters cite this case often. Attorney Collins tears the decision to shreds and exposes its faulty conclusions. MYTH #3: Common law states that being born on the soil – Jus Soli – makes one a “natural born subject” and therefore every person born on US soil is a “natural born citizen”.
Attorney Collins takes this on directly and establishes clearly that there is no common law in the United States. He also explains that natural born citizens are in no way, shape or form, the same as natural born subjects. MYTH #4: Vattell’s definition of a natural born citizen was not considered by the framers.
Attorney Collins discusses Vattel in great detail. And Collins agrees that to be a natural born citizen one must be born on the soil of parents who were themselves citizens. Collins quotes Vattell.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:03 pm

MYTH #1: Chester Arthur’s British birth was known and accepted by the American people.
This article was written in Summer 1884, while Chester Arthur was still President. Since The American Law Review was such an esteemed legal publication, old Chester must have been somewhat intimidated by the report of Mr. Collins. This is because the article makes perfectly clear that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born to a US citizen father.
Chester’s father William was not naturalized until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. This meant that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and was therefore not eligible to be President.
It has been argued that Chester Arthur’s occupation of the White House set a legal precedent for Obama since both Chester and Barack were born of British fathers. But the public – at the time Chester was running for VP and later when he became POTUS – never knew that Chester Arthur was a British subject since he successfully lied to the public about his parental heritage.
The law review article goes into great detail concerning the issue of who exactly rises to the level of natural born citizen. It discusses law cases and legal precedent in its analysis, but it does not even mention the current President – Chester Arthur – even though Attorney Collins steadfastly denies that a person born on US soil to an alien father could be a natural born citizen.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:03 pm

How do you feel about Kim Jong Il fathering a child with an American woman who gives birth on US soil? Should that child be eligible to be Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces? The same goes for children of Osama bin Laden. Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point. But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times. A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN. They call themselves UNDEAD REVOLUTION. The article I am about to show you was published in
The American Law Review, written by George D. Collins, Esq. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review.
The article I am excited to bring you is titled:
ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?
The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.
The article is written in a clear and concise manner, easily understood by lawyers and lay persons alike. I will now introduce each relevant issue confronted in this article and then present the article in full for your review. OBAMA POTUS ELIGIBILITY MYTHS DESTROYED BY MR. GEORGE COLLINS :


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

The Obama eligibility pundits demand that all citizens born on US soil – despite whether they be born of alien parentage – have a Constitutional right to be President in that it would be a deprivation of their civil rights if natural born citizen status is not granted to them.
This is the mantra of those who support that Obama is a natural born citizen even though Obama admits he was a British citizen at birth via his father who was never a US citizen.
But the status of “natural born citizen” is not a right owed to native born US citizens. In fact, it’s not a right owed to any US citizen because nbc status is simply not in any way, shape or form a “right” at all.
QUESTION: If natural born citizen status is not a right then what is it?
ANSWER: It’s a description of a certain path to citizenship.
There are various paths to citizenship:
- naturalized citizen
- 14th Amendment native born citizen
- statutory citizen
- natural born citizen


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:05 pm

The Founders allowed one to be President at age 35. Not only has Obama had multiple citizenships and allegiance for his whole life, but has had them during his formative years (British from birth to 21 and which continues to date and Kenyan from 2 to 21). Additionally, using 35 as a benchmark, that would make Obama a British citizen for his whole life as he is still today (35 out of 35) and a Kenyan citizen for 54 percent of a 35-year life (19 out of 35).
In the eyes of our Founders, can their “natural born Citizen” clause include someone of Obama’s citizenship and allegiance background? The Founders would not have allowed such a person who was not born with sole allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the United States and who has had multiple citizenships and allegiances for most of his life to be President and most importantly, Commander in Chief of the Military. RECAP OF RECENT MEDIA BIAS :
Let’s stop here for a second and consider all of the recent media ridicule and propaganda which has attempted to paint the natural born citizen POTUS eligibility issue in discriminatory tones. Obama pundits argue that all “native born” citizens have the right to be President and that we shouldn’t discriminate based on parental heritage as that would deprive civil rights.
The problem with their analysis is that there is no “right” to be president. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees.
And that’s what I’ve been saying all along. POTUS eligibility being limited to natural born citizens is not a an issue of civil rights, it’s an issue of national security.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:05 pm

We need to hear from President Obama.
Since the President has admitted to being a British citizen at birth, and we know he became a citizen of Kenya in 1963, he needs to tell the American people whether he retains any foreign nationalities. We have never heard from the President on these complex issues.
Hearing from bloggers who do not have any legal authority to speak for him settles nothing. It simply causes confusion and that very confusion testifies to the desperate need for clarity and guidance by the President. Is he going to be a transparent leader, or will he continue to make believe we have no right to know?
If the President is confused and unsure of his legal status, then he ought to say so.
If he is not confused, he ought to explain. This is because the average citizen can't comprehend legalese and the myriad of complex possibilities these foreign statutes generate. Let us not lose sight of common sense:
Obama was born with multiple allegiances (at birth both U.S., if born in the U.S., and British, and also acquired Kenyan citizenship at age 2). In other words, Obama has been a life-long British citizen to the present and a Kenyan citizen from age 2 to 21. It should also be noted that Obama did not lose his Kenyan citizenship because he renounced it but only because the Kenyan Constitution caused him to lose it. This is important given that with citizenship and allegiance, affirmative acts and results should count more than those to which we default. Also, Obama’s political acts in Kenya as a U.S. Senator and the title and picture on the cover of his book, Dreams from My Father, show something about where his heart is.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:06 pm

However, adding Kenya to the list in (3) may well have granted him “Commonwealth citizenship“. (One may argue the equivalence of the two, but I prefer to keep the terms separate.) I have reservations about this because the Kenyan Constitution does not permit dual citizenship for adults which would seem a contradiction for someone like Barack Obama Sr. The above expresses “reservations” as to whether President Obama became a Commonwealth Citizen in 1963 when Kenyan citizenship was bestowed upon him by virtue of an implication that the Kenyan Constitution would not permit Obama from obtaining Commonwealth citizenship.
That is absurd.
All they needed to check was Section 95(1) of the Kenyan Constitution:
95. (1) Every person who, under this Constitution or an Act of Parliament, is a citizen of Kenya… shall, by virtue of that citizenship, have the status of a Commonwealth citizen.
“Reservations”… are not possible.
Factcheck.org has endorsed an opinion which argues the Kenyan constitution prevents Commonwealth citizenship while it specifically provides for it. THE US NEEDS TO HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESIDENT –
There exist multiple legal mechanisms which have the potential to establish that President Obama is a citizen of Kenya, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Commonwealth of Nations and the Republic of Indonesia. Unfortunately, information available in the public domain cannot answer these questions.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

To Delusional Lawrence:

Reference is made to the 'Law of Nations, Vattel 1798. This was a book written by a citizen of Switzerland. This book had nothing to do with the common-law of England, which were the principles of law that guided the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution.

Under the English common law at the time that our Constitution was ordained and established, a 'natural born' subject was a person who was born on English soil, and under the jurisdiction of the king. Even a child born to an alien was considered a natural born subject as long as they were born under the jurisdiction of the king. The principle, Jus soli (right of the soil) was most likely brought to England by William the Conqueror after his conquest of the Britons in 1066. Jus soli had long been the rule that determined whether a person was considered ‘natural born’ by the French, and the Normans.

The competing principle discusses in Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ was based on another rule that the Germanic peoples adhered to, the rule of Jus sanguinis (right of the blood). Under this principle, a persons ‘natural born’ citizenship was determined by the citizenship of his parents, or more specifically, the father.

Any interpretation of the true meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’, as it is meant in the context of a person’s Constitutional eligibility for the office of President of the United States, must be viewed in the light of the English common law, NOT on the words that were authored by a citizen from a country with a different common law view as the Birthers claim.

The courts of the United States are required, by previous decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, to view those words in light of their meaning under English common law at the time that the Constitution was ordained and established. That meaning has already been provided in the Wong Kim Ark case of 1898. A person who is born in the United States and under the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen of the United States, at birth, even if both parents were aliens.

To modify the meaning of our Constitution by using definitions that were not germane to the principles and laws that our Constitution was based on is not a true conservative principle. It is, in fact, a position that would only be taken by a radical activist. Are you Birthers radical activists or just dummies?


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

Natualizedboob: “Just for the record, I do not think that McCain is Constitutionally eligible to be the president of the USA (being born in a foreign country).”

And, again, you show front and center why you know nothing. You have decided that all citizens working overseas, in business, the military, for our government, can't have kids be american citizens. You, a single person, decide who is/isn't citizens. Well, I've said it once, I'll say it again. Nobody gave you that authority and you have no rights to it.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

Since Obama admits he was a dual citizen governed by British law at birth, how can he be considered a natural born citizen of the US?
As to this question, FactCheck.org alleges a conspiracy theory. But where is the conspiracy? If taking a position thereto is a conspiracy theory, then their position must be the opposite conspiracy theory. FactCheck.org was publicly humbled by the complexity of the statute they misconstrued, and so they should be referencing attorneys who will stake their public reputation upon interpretation of these laws. If not, then how can Factcheck.org be a genuine “factchecking” resource? BOGUS “LEGAL REPORTING” ENDORSED BY FACTCHECK.ORG :
The legal analysis provided via proxy to their readers is juvenile, uneducated and wrong. For example:
Because KIA 1963 removed citizenship of the UK and Colonies to the new Kenyan citizens, 1.—(1) above does not apply, and Barack Obama did not become a “British Subject” under this clause.
This is word hopscotch. Read the codes for yourselves. All UKC citizens who became Kenyan citizens under the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 (KIA) simultaneously lost their UKC citizen status AND simultaneously gained the status of British subject under “2.-(1)(a)” of the KIA which states:
2.-(1) On and after the appointed day, the British NationalityActs 1948 and 1958 shall have effect as if-
(a) in section 1(3) of the said Act of 1948 (which provides for persons to be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens by virtue of citizenship of certain countries) there were added at the end the words ” and Kenya ” ; That’s the KIA talking, not simply my opinion. The FactCheck.org endorsed analysis continues:


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

“In their wisdom, the framers sought two generations of US citizenship”

Quit making shit up


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:08 pm

Things change. The framers claimed that black people were 3/5 of a human being. Do you subscribe to that philosophy as well?


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:08 pm

Maloney = Baloney.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

The United States of America does not recognize “common law”, thus yours is an absurd and juvenile statement.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:11 pm

“How do you feel about Kim Jong Il fathering a child with an American woman who gives birth on US soil? Should that child be eligible to be Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces? The same goes for children of Osama bin Laden. “

Congratulations, that is the same vile, repellant, racist argument that lost in the Wong Kim Ark case.

It's good of you to throw back to the dark days of the Chinese Exclusion Laws.

Next, you are going to want to reinstate the Dred Scott decision.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:12 pm

“Dr” Maloney – It is patently obvious from reading your silly posts that you have never practiced law. Go away, liar.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:13 pm

“George D. Collins, Esq. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review”

the same George D. Collins who later went to prison for bigamy and perjury???


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:13 pm

Maloney Baloney – Why do you insist on publicly making a fool of yourself?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

try again, read some SCOTUS decisions


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

Well, Lawrence, let's see what the SCOTUS has to say about that…

First.-On her birth in New York, the plaintiff became a citizen of the United States. Civil Rights Act of 1866, [307 U.S. 325, 329] 14 Stat. 27; Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, U.S.C.A.Const.; United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 , 18 S.Ct. 456. In a comprehensive review of the principles and authorities governing the decision in that case-that a child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States-the Court adverted to the 'inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.' United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, 169 U.S. page 668, 18 S.Ct. page 164. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, it follows that persons may have a dual nationality. 1 And the mere fact that the plaintiff may have acquired Swedish citizenship by virtue of the operation of Swedish law, on the resumption of that citizenship by her parents, does not compel the conclusion that she has lost her own citizenship acquired under our law. As at birth she became a citizen of the United States, at citizenship must be deemed to continue unless she has been deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by her voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles.

PERKINS v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Well, what do you know. SCOTUS says other countries laws have no effect on American citizenship. Says you can even be a dual citizen.

“'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”

And even for you, Lawrence, says a native-born American can become president. There, now don't you feel better. SCOTUS has said Dual, native-born, and any other thing you want to make up can become president, I'll believe them a lot more than a blower. Hope that makes you fell better now.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:15 pm

Antibirther – How long have you practiced law? You are the one who is “…making shit up”. Try learning the laws that apply in this particular case, mister illiterate fool.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:15 pm

Answer the question, jackass. I am talking about Papa Bush, a Nazi whose father tried to ovrthrow the government, and who was the CIA director in Florida who participated in the assassination of JFK. You know, Ronald Reagan's VP who traded guns and cocaine to the Contras.

Former US president and CIA chief George H. Bush, the father of George W. Bush, has been accused throughout his life of being involved either with terrorism, the Mafia, and drug trafficking, either during his time as CIA director (1976-1977) or his term as Vice President (1980-1988) or President (1989-1992). Apart from his alleged involvement in the CIA during the Kennedy assassination, he is also said to have carried out violations of the Geneva Convention as a US fighter pilot during the war. He was alleged to have killed Japanese trawler men in a lifeboat whilst a fighter-pilot during the second world war. Bush had found Japanese trawler men in a lifeboat, who all had their hands up, but Bush shot them anyway. According to The Observer, Bush has always refused to respond to accusations that he killed Japanese trawler men whose ship he sunk in 1944.

In early 1997, Bush was further indicted as a alleged war criminal by the Japanese government. This was in response to the US decision to bar 16 Japanese citizens from the USA for alleged war crimes committed during the second world war. A Japanese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hiroshi Hashimoto announced that 10 Americans would be barred from Japan for their “war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of human rights”. Top of the list was George Bush for “the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, including thousands of children, in attacks on Iraq and Panama” in 1990 and 1988.

And you are concerned about Obama's citizenship which has been LEGALLY CONFIRMED AND PROVEN.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

Atibirther – If you actually understood the cases you cite, you would know that neither is relevant to this discussion. As you said “Quit making shit up”.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

Why do you cling to a failed, racist argument that was rejected by the Supreme Court over 100 years ago?


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:20 pm

GEORGE D. COLLINS was born in San Francisco, Independence day, July 4, 1864. Our subject graduated in the law department of the State University, at the head of his class, in May, 1885, opened an office and since then has successfully practiced his profession throughout the United States. He is a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, and has been prominent in cases of Federal cognizance. His State practice has been principally before the Supreme Court. He has an excellent reputation as a profound lawyer, and is an able and eloquent advocate. Mr. Collins's success is due entirely to his own efforts. He is an earnest Republican, and, is showing his interest in public affairs, when only 21 years of age he has was placed in nomination for Judge of Superior Court, and defeated the only four votes. In 1890, the Bar of San Francisco, irrespective of party, presented a memorial to the Republican State Convention, recommending his nomination to the office of Attorney General, but he withdrew his name. He has been Secretary of the Bar Association, and has become widely known by reasons of his articles on constitutional law, which have appeared at various times in the American Law Review, the leading law periodical of the United States.

Source: “The Bay of San Francisco” (and Its Cities And Their Suburbs) Vol 1. Lewis Publishing Company 1892. Page 456-457.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:21 pm

Oh, wait, let me guess, you are lawyer practicing in California? Is that you Orly?


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

Well, thank you Larry, an insult from a blower is like a complement from the majority. I feel like celebrating another blower beatdown. Have you got any evidence that Obama isn't our legally elected President? Or, are you another of those blowers who just throw stuff out with nothing to back it up? Do you know and understand our laws and the constitution or are you another that just makes it up to fit your needs. Please tell me you have more than a Frenchman's writing that means nothing to our laws and made up fantasies. Please be more than just a blower.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:24 pm

Jim – The decision in “Perkins v Elg” does not mention, nor does it address “natural born citizen” status in any way, shape, or form. Stop your outright lying and quit attempting to misdirect people. Either you know nothing of the law, or you are a paid pathological liar. Now which is it?


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:24 pm

Makes sense, a loser citing a loser to show how much of a loser his ideas are. Thanks, Loopy, appreciate the history lesson.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

The United States Constitution is very specific in its wording. Only a “natural born citizen” can legally become president. A “native born citizen” cannot become president. Like it or not, that is a fact that is clearly laid out in the Constitution. Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, Clause 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; 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.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:30 pm

It does mention legal reasons for citizenship, effects of other countries laws on citizenship, and that a native-born citizen can become President. It also mentions that you are allowed to have dual citizenship. What's the problem? Just because it says the opposite of what you said, we're suppose to believe you over SCOTUS? Or, are you just calling the SCOTUS a liar because you know you're so wrong it's pathetic? And you wonder why I call you blowers.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:32 pm

Lawrence,

It is patently obvious from the inanity of your posts that if you ever were involved with the law it was just practicing. You have no clue as to the legal issues and are making an absolute fool of yourself.

By the way, your hero Mario Apuzzo just exposed another birther fantasy. It seems that Hawaii responded to his request for “amended docs” and it was merely the wedding announcement of his mother and father in Hawaii.

When Apuzzo also requested information on Obama's sister who was born in Indonesia, expressly a COLB that all the wingnut websites claim she has, he was informed that no such record exists in Hawaii. Another one bites the dust.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:33 pm

Well, what do you know Larry, SCOTUS saw you coming…

From Unitied States v. Wong Kim Ark:
———————————————————

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.”

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects.

The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.

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

————————————

Well? it seems pretty clear that the court was saying that if you were born in this country, no matter who your parents are, then you are a natural born citizen


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

Jim, all the lying and misdirection in the world will not change the status of Obama. He is admittedly not a “natural born citizen” of the United States of America, thus he is not eligible to hold the office of president. As already stated, Obama has admitted he was not a “natural born citizen” of the United States at birth, therefore it is impossible for him to ever change his status. Direct quote from “Fight the Smears” and “FactCheck.org” – “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:40 pm

Everything you just quoted is a juvenile attempt at misdirection and obfuscation. See my other posts. You are very wrong on every point and it is easy to see you are also a liar.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

Hey, here's another one that's good for a laugh.

In Orly's “Motion to Recuse the Honorable Clay D. Land,” written by disbarred lawyer and convicted felon Charles Edward Lincoln III and filed last night, the first paragraph says that “there is some circumstantial evidence that Judge Clay D. Land may have had extrajudicial and ex-parte contacts with the Obama administration, in particular from Attorney General Eric Holder (See Affidavit, Exhibit A).”

The affidavit, signed by Robert D. Douglas, says: “On the day of the hearing for Major Stephan Cook … I had entered the little coffee shop directly across from the Court House … and immediately recognized an individual entering … I knew instantly it was non other than Eric Holder, the current Attorney General of the United States.”

And this is Orly's Page 1 evidence that the Attorney General was having improper contact with the judge in Orly's case.

Unfortunately, there's plenty of documentation — including contemporaneous news photos — showing that Holder was in California that day.

That affidavit is typical of the kind of rubbish that Orly and her followers claim as evidence.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:42 pm

So, loonylarry, now you're calling SCOTUS liars?

From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
———————————————————

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

Since you don't believe in our laws or constitution, why do you even care whether Obama is legal or not? Well, that leads to only one conclusion…you're a bigot.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:44 pm

Nowhere in the ruling is the status of “natural born citizen” addressed. Try to get your “facts” straight. It has never been stated in any ruling by any court that a “native born citizen” is eligible to be president. What you have stated is totally false and intended to mislead.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:44 pm

LOL, Lawrence, you're a tough talker, aren't you!

Why don't you name a single reputable living legal authority who agrees with you?


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:46 pm

So because I know the laws better than you could ever hope to, I'm a “bigot”? How silly.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:46 pm

What misdirection? The SCOTUS disagreeing with your made-up BS? I think the citizens of this great country would take SCOTUS over the ramblings of an anonymous message board poster any day of the week, twice on Sundays. I just post the truth…I have yet to see anything you've written change that. Just another blower fantasy, hohum, I do wish they would come up with something worthwhile.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

I suppose you foolishly believe the courts agree with your position. They do not now, nor have they ever.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:48 pm

No, you're a bigot because you have NO understanding of the laws and only want to remove a sitting President because he's a Black man.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:50 pm

Nope. A “native born citizen” cannot qualify to become president and no court has ever published a ruling stating they can. Read the Constitution.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:51 pm

Actually, we're just laughing at your juvenile attempts. They've agreed with my position every step of the way, you're like 0-38 in trying to get this even close to in front of a jury because you have so little of nothing you're getting laughed out of court every step of the way. Besides, whenever I cite SCOTUS opinions that directly contradict you, you have no answer because you know the courts know a heck of a lot more than you…thereby making you an official blower.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

From United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
———————————————————

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

And, since Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a NBC. Isn't this fun? Shooting you down at every point. Blowers are so stupid!


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

SCOTUS has never published a ruling stating a “native born citizen” is eligible to the presidency. If you have evidence to the contrary, provide the title of the case and the court in which it was decided, then kindly cite the exact page number, the paragraph number, and the sentence from the published ruling you wish to cite. Nonspecific, out of context information is irrelevant and constitutes gossip, not legal fact.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:57 pm

“….juvenile attempts.”??? – SCOTUS has never published a ruling stating a “native born citizen” is eligible to the presidency. If you have evidence to the contrary, provide the title of the case and the court in which it was decided, then kindly cite the exact page number, the paragraph number, and the sentence from the published ruling you wish to cite. Nonspecific, out of context information is irrelevant and constitutes gossip, not legal fact.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:58 pm

“natural born citizen” status requires that both parents be citizens of the U.S. at the time a child is born, plus it requires a child be born on U.S. soil.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

Actually, they have state it.

“'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”

What do you know…the SCOTUS says a native-born American citizen CAN become President. Isn't that nice. Now you can sleep better at night knowing Obama's our legal President.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

Tell us again where you practice law, you silly child.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:02 pm

Sure Larryloco, just as soon as you provide your proof. I've been citing SCOTUS, you've had nothing but your own opinion. So you must have something to prove your point.

PERKINS v. ELG, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

“'Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;”

What do you know…the SCOTUS says a native-born American citizen CAN become President. Isn't that nice. Now you can sleep better at night knowing Obama's our legal President.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

Dr Baloney – Please stay on topic, I have never stated Maya has a “COLB”, therefore your argument rings hollow. The simple fact that Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen proves Obama is not a “natural born citizen”. Don't attempt to connect me with anyone else. You've proved beyond all doubt you are nothing but a cheap liar.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

Nice try, but you didn't come close to answering my question.

I said, “Why don't you name a single reputable living legal authority who agrees with you?”

You can't, can you?


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:06 pm

Ignoring SCOTUS doesn't make them go away…Larrylostlip, and you stating it doesn't change the law of the land. You got something better, present it. Otherwise Obama will still be President long after you blowers are just a footnote.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:08 pm

That quote is not part of a published ruling, it is only DISCUSSION, which proves you do not understand that only a published ruling is relevant. Discussion is simply idle talk, it cannot be cited as case law in other cases. How positively amateurish of you.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:14 pm

WOW, you mean that for over 200 years lawyers across the countries have been using parts of SCOTUS opinions in courts to prove their cases and it can't be used? Well, Larrylittlebrain, I think SCOTUS and people who practice the law would be very surprised they have been doing it wrong all these years. You do realize you're a joke and everyone reading is laughing their asses off at you, don't you?


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

SCOTUS has never published a ruling that states what you are attempting to introduce as “evidence”. You do not even begin to understand the law, therefore you foolishly quote error upon error. Obama will be gone within a year. Count on it, the law is not on his side. The alls are cracking, the facts are being exposed, Obama's presidency is not in conformance with Constitutional mandates. This situation has created a Constitutional crisis in the nation, the Constitution is far more important than Obama or your wishful thinking and repeated lies.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

Show me where any part of a published SCOTUS ruling supports your position, just one.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:18 pm

Oh, Lawrence –

“Why don't you name a single reputable living legal authority who agrees with you?”


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

HoHum, realizing his arguments are now as worthless as he is, Larrylowbrow falls back on the blower style of just screaming absolute nothings to prove how delusional he is. It is a shame, I was hoping we had a blower with some sense to make a decent case, and we still get more of the same BS.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:23 pm

Everyone realizes you are a paid liar, you've been here for days spouting lies on behalf of Obama and I do not need to “prove it”, you already have. No person who works a regular job has so much free time, thus you have self-proved what a low-life liar you are. How does it feel to work a job that proves you're lower than a welfare cheat, mister liar?


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:27 pm

Why haven't you shown a single SCOTUS ruling that supports your position larryloudfarts? Let me be so kind and save you the BS, there isn't one.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:27 pm

No, SCOTUS never made such a statement in a PUBLISHED DECISION. That's one reason you cannot provide the requested case informational cites. The other is that you simply do not know how to locate the PUBLISHED DECISION, therefore you know nothing regarding law.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:29 pm

Anything that arises during discussion of a case is nothing more than idle gossip. Only a PUBLISHED DECISION carries ANY weight.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:30 pm

So now you're saying KWA and ERG are not published? I'll tell you, SCOTUS has to be wondering what they've been doing for over 200 years. LarryBSartist knows so much more than them. LOL


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

I'm being PAID!!! WOW, when's the check arrive? Or maybe, I get email alerts and tie right back to your idiotic statements and disprove them in under a minute…being that your arguments have no basis in law or the constitution. But, I guess the workings of a computer might be a little tough for a blower to understand, Larrylowbrow.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

Jim – Wrong. You've once again proved beyond any and all reasonable doubt you are a complete idiot. “Racist”, “racism”, “bigot”, and “homophobic” are totally meaningless “politically correct” terms employed solely by those of extremely low intellectual capacity, who can nether face facts, nor confront reality. Said terms were designed to prevent or stop any meaningful, honest, and open discussion regarding race or homosexuality. Congratulations, loser.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

Well, thank you Larrylostinfog, I appreciate that coming from someone who ignores SCOTUS, the constitution, and laws of our country. It shows exactly what I've been saying, you got nothing. And that self-description of yourself is absolutely priceless, can we all use it when describing you? I sat here and gave you every chance to have an open discussion, but you don't like the truth. So, all I'm left is the fact that it comes down to a single reason you don't want Obama as President. And, that is all blowers have had for over a year.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:51 pm

Ooooh, more name-calling! And it's getting nastier! You must be pretty desperate!

And, by the way —

“Why don't you name a single reputable living legal authority who agrees with you?”


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:55 pm

Doubtful – Please don't keep telling lies or I'll call Mister Lincoln and advise him of your statements, then you'll be spending big money trying to defend yourself in court. Mister Lincoln is currently practicing law, therefore he cannot currently be “disbarred”. Orly Taitz is one hell of a lot better at practicing law than Obama is at being president, that's for sure. A.G. Eric Holder is a half wit who is not competent to practice law at any level. Holder couldn't even qualify as a legal assistant in most states.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 9:56 pm

“Where is the secret footage? You accuse “birthers” of being nuts and then
proceed with wild speculation about McCain.”

You are not only stupid, but irony impaired as well.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 4:57 pm

Judge Clay Land has violated his oath of office, therefore he has permanently stained the robes he wears. What a sorry disgrace to the bar and the bench


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 9:59 pm

Lawrence, you, like all birthers, are apparently willing to rewrite the
Constitution, history, and reality in you effort to overturn a lawful
Presidential election and the will of the American people. That makes you a
petty kind of traitor. Luckily you are impotent little traitors since you
have no hope of achieving your nefarious goals.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

Judge Land follows the law. Orly follows the crap running out my bathroom pipes. To have someone like you who knows so little calling him a disgrace is like a complement. So, on behalf of Judge Land…he thanks you.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

You've never read the PUBLISHED DECISIONS in any of the cases you continue to ramble on about, you have only repeated lies that you have found on lay websites. Take an opinion from a lay website into court and see what happens. Anything not contained within a PUBLISHED DECISION amounts to gossip, not legal precedent or case law, you fool. Let me make it simple enough so even you can understand. DISCUSSION = GOSSIP. PUBLISHED DECISION = CASE LAW.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

BWAHAHAHAHAHA…a blower complaining about lies! Isn't that rich! Please, do call, make sure to give your complete name, address, phone, ss number, etc. so you can be called as a witness. I'd LOVE to see you on a witness stand. Too bad your delusions never get that far. Another lost cause for Larrytheloser.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 10:07 pm

Lawrence, that article by Collins wasn’t about what the requirements were to
be a “natural born citizen” it was about what (in his opinion) the
requirements were to be a citizen at all. He wasn’t (as birthers are)
inventing whole new kinds of citizenship, he was arguing that you had to
have a citizen parent to be a citizen at birth PERIOD.

He was wrong. That is well established.

And Arthur never lied about his fathers citizenship. It was never even
questioned. Even Collins only claimed you needed one citizen parent and in
Arthurs case his mother (like in Obama’s case) was a citizen.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

Charles Lincoln III, crook and shyster. Both Bars of California and Florida disbarred him. He resigned his law license one step ahead of disbarment by the Texas Bar. But the US District Court for the Western District in Texas took the action of disbarring him, anyway, from practice in that federal district’s courts; which coincidentally is where Capt. Rhodes’s case was denied as Rhodes v. Gates, before heading to Georgia as Rhodes v. MacDonald.

Lincoln has more credibility than Laurence who was NEVER an attorney, only a wannabe.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

No, actually found them on the SCOTUS website. Why, are they publishing non opinions now? BWAHAHAHAHA, you are so full of it! And you wonder why I call you BLOWERS?


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

He admits it, fool, because as a former Professor of Constitutional Law he KNOWS he is a natural born citizen under prevailing law. You, however, are an ostrich.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:12 pm

Lawrence, I'm afraid you're the one who's lying. There's plenty of publicly available information on Lincoln's disbarment — here's just one example:

“Charles Edward Lincoln – #171793
Current Status: Disbarred

This member is prohibited from practicing law in California by order of the California Supreme Court.”

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_deta…

You know what? I think you are Charles Edward Lincoln!


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:13 pm

Jim – You do nothing but childishly repeat lie upon lie like a brain damaged parrot, therefore nothing you post carries any weight whatsoever. Continue lying, fool. Everyone can see exactly what your motives are. You're a very cheap, very ignorant, and very obvious paid “Obamawhore”. Too bad Burger King wouldn't hire you for the janitorial position, but even they realize that crazies like you do nothing but ruin business.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

Hi, Lawrence, remember me?

“Why don't you name a single reputable living legal authority who agrees with you?”


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

Gotcha. Now you're just calling out names and acting like a spoiled child. You ARE Lincoln, the discredited, disbarred right wing idiot. Jim's posts carry a lot of weight since he quotes the LAW. Tell me how many of your published legal opinions have done anything in court. You birthers are an embarrassment to America and the human race.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

Jim – I've shown you the applicable laws, but because you are so ignorant of the law, you cannot comprehend how stupid your posts prove you are.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 10:17 pm

The liar and obfuscator accusing others of doing what you are doing. You are
the one attempting to create a whole new class of citizenship out of thin
air. Even Collins and Vattel only spoke of two kinds of citizenship–Vattel
called them “natives” and “naturalized,” Collins said, “natural born” and
“naturalized.” In either case it was their opinion that to be a citizen at
birth (natural born citizen) it was required that ONE parent be a citizen
(according to Vattel it had to be the father).

But neither of them claimed an entirely new kind of citizenship be invented.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

And you can't prove it's a lie. That's why you only left with rantings, Larrydickhead. But, as I always say, an insult from a blower is like a complement from the majority. So thanks, and enjoy Obama as our President for the foreseeable future.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:23 pm

Really, I've yet to see an applicable law from you. All I've seen is some Frenchman quotes that carry no weight and a lot of statements by you with no legal backing. I pulled up direct opinions from the SCOTUS. You ignore them like they never happened. I guess it's up to the readers to decide, but you'll get no satisfaction from them…with the exception of other blowers who don't know anything.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:26 pm

Dr Baloney – I'm not Lincoln, but with every post, you're sounding more and more like Karl Marx. Jim has yet to post any legal facts from a PUBLISHED DECISION, therefore Jim is a miserably failed liar and misdirection artist and you are his lowly assistant. If Lincoln was currently disbarred, he could not practice. You've made a complete fool of yourself – again. Obama is holding office in violation of the Constitution, which presents a threat to national security and he has created a Constitutional crisis, that's something you seriously need to ponder – unless you are a sworn enemy of the United States.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 10:31 pm

“”natural born citizen” status requires that both parents be citizens of the
U.S. at the time a child is born, plus it requires a child be born on U.S.
soil.”

You birthers lie and invent new definitions then self-righteously wonder why
the rest of us mock you.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:34 pm

“If Lincoln was currently disbarred, he could not practice.”

Well, he certainly could not practice legally in the jurisdictions in which he is currently disbarred.

But of course he is also a convicted felon, so I wouldn't expect you — I mean, him — to follow the law.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:35 pm

You've stated no legal facts, therefore my assessment of the situation does not need to be defended. Obama's ratings are falling faster than a stone through air. All people who possess a little thing known as “discernment” already know Obama has lied about everything. At this point in time, are you crazy enough to believe ANYTHING Obama says?! You've proven yourself to be a liar, I do not need to point to specifics, it's all so very obvious to everyone – except you. Why can't you provide those case cites I asked for? BECAUSE THEY DO NOT EXIST and YOU KNOW IT.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

Doubtful – The courts check an attorney's credentials before cases are heard, stop lying. Many persons who practice law are convicted felons, including several members of Obama's staff, you blind hypocrite.


mosyslak
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:40 pm

Hey Lawrence (or should I say disbarred lawyer Charles Edward Lincoln III ha ha ha – BUSTED)

Where I practice law, any moron who introduces a pleading “Plaintiff suspects and submits…” is telegraphing to the Judge that what follows is nothing but horsemanure and speculation to be ignored.

You didn't even file your made up Affidavit. You are a sad, sad piece of work.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:40 pm

Orly, why do you keep posting under different screen names? No matter what you call yourself we know it's you, and no matter how many frivolous lawsuits you file we know that you will lose them all (just like you've lost every case thus far). The only people stupid enough to fall for your bullshit are other birfers. Get back on the short bus and call it a day.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:43 pm

You haven't found any PUBLISHED DECISION in support of your claims on the SCOTUS website, if you had, you would have been able to provide the case title, the page number, the paragraph number, and the exact sentence that I requested. Once again, as always, the voices in your head do not constitute a binding SCOTUS decision.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:44 pm

Oh, Lawrence, who do you think you're kidding?

You probably would not be so foolish as to list yourself as an attorney of record in a jurisdiction in which you've been disbarred.

But working as an attorney's “clerk,” transacting case business with judges and clients, and similar activities are also prohibited.

And what's your point anyway — are you denying that the California bar currently lists you as disbarred?


Anonymous
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

He never knew his father, thus the title of the book.

Bizarre of you to try to make more of it than that, but silly arguments like that are all you barfers have. I suppose you have to play the hand you were dealt.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

Well then, “Lawrence” –

“Why don't you name a single reputable living legal authority who agrees with you?”

Cause I really doubt that there is one. I think you're just jumping up and down and yelling real loud hoping to impress somebody.

Maybe you'll get a chance to impress Judge Carter on Monday, huh?


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:01 pm

mosyslak – In which mental health clinic do you try your imaginary cases? My name is not Lincoln, fool. It's pretty obvious Taitz is getting very close to having Obama removed, otherwise her website would not be under constant malicious attacks. Are you part of the team of amoral anti-American hackers/crackers that have been sabotaging websites that question Obama's eligibility? After witnessing your low class behavior and constant lying, I no longer have any respect for any of the lying Obamawhores, you're quite simply 100% scummy trash. Judge Carter is not going to put up with Obama's tricks, Judge Carter is a former Marine and he will hear the case on its merits and absent the judicial bias you folks so desperately need to keep Obama in office. Too bad for you, Obama's fraud is rapidly coming unraveled from both ends and the middle. The desperation of his followers is very evident on this blog.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

The great majority of legal scholars (of which you are not) agree that Obama is not a “natural born citizen”. Keep lying, it does a lot to help my cause and it has already destroyed your credibility.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

Actually you are the desperate one. You spend half your life trying to defend ignorance. Last time I looked Obama was president and there is NO CHANCE of any of these lawsuits changing that situation — EVER. Get a life, fool. The one you have is obviously unrewarding. You seem to be suffering from delusions of adequacy.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:06 pm

Try looking up “Rule 11″. Judge Land has made a complete mockery of the judiciary.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:06 pm

Name them.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

LOL!! “The great majority”??

As I said, name one, “a single reputable living legal authority who agrees with you.”

Take your pick from among that “great majority.”


Doubtful
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

Lawrence, I think we've got an opportunity for a wager here!

Care to predict what Judge Carter is going to do?


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:12 pm

Dr Baloney – Maybe I have spent a little of my free time attempting to educate illiterate fools like you, but it has not helped. Obama is finished, get that through your skull. Have you ever heard of a president by the name of Richard Nixon? It took over two years of constant investigative and legal work to remove his sorry, lying, criminal ass from office. Judging by the way things are going, exposing, prosecuting, and removing Obama will not require nearly that long. As the Boy Scouts say, “Be Prepared”.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:14 pm

The numbers of attorneys who do not believe Obama is a “natural born citizen” is absolutely staggering. You wouldn't know, you're not an Attorney at Law.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:15 pm

LOL, it's the same empty huffing and puffing!

How about the question you were going to answer — you know,

“Why don't you name a single reputable living legal authority who agrees with you?”

Pretending there's a “great majority” without naming any is not going to impress anyone around here.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

OK, Attorney at Law, educate me!

“Why don't you name a single reputable living legal authority who agrees with you?”

I mean, come on, it's gone from “great majority” to “absolutely staggering” without a single one being named.

You really can't, can you? Are you really that pathetic?


mosyslak
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:21 pm

Oh a jurisdiction where honesty and ethical pleading is the norm and where murmuring judges is a serious offence.

Tick tock tick tock your time is coming.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:22 pm

Riiiiiiight. Just keep telling yourself that any day now the scary angry black mooslim president will be forced to give up his office because a bunch of people too stupid to figure out where the sun goes at night suddenly found a way to get judges to ignore the Constitution, the FRCP, the FREv, and every ethical obligation that they have to do their jobs.

Don't forget to meet that burden of proof while you're at it.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

Dr Baloney – I'll explain how even you can determine how many attorneys do not believe Obama is a “natural born citizen”. Locate a business telephone directory. Turn to “Attorneys”. Now count the pages of listings under that heading. Remove 1/4 of those pages. The remaining pages will represent 3/4, or a minimum of 75% of the attorneys in this country do not believe Obama is Constitutionally qualified to hold office. If you don't believe my estimates, go to your local courthouse and ask the attorneys waiting to have cases heard. They'll also help to educate you as to the actual law, not the heavily biased lies the Obamawhores are flinging.


mosyslak
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

I'll take some of that action too, disbarred lawyer Charles Edward Lincoln III, if your willing to put up some of Orly's paypal proceeds


ArthurB.
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:27 pm

HAHAHA! That's what you call “naming them”?

Name just one! You can't, can you? You're just full of crap! What an incredible loser you are!


mosyslak
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:29 pm

Oh go disbarred lawyer Charles Edward Lincoln III* just name one, pretty please?

*that just never gets old does it? :-)


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:30 pm

Call Roy Black in Miami and ask him, you blind fool. There are only a handful of attorneys in the world who can even begin to compare. Go to your local law school and inquire, most are using the eligibility cases as research projects in Constitutional law classes. The professors, the lawyers, and most judges know Obama is not qualified. It is only the general public that has been cleverly deceived by illiterate paid liars like you. Name a great attorney who agrees with you – there are none.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

Name one top attorney who says Obama is a “natural born citizen”. There are “0″.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:33 pm

Call Roy Black in Miami and ask him to explain things for you. Maybe Roy will even send you a large box of crayons so mommy can have her computer back for a few hours.


mosyslak
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:35 pm

but but disbarred lawyer Charles Edward Lincoln III, what if I tore out the “wrong”? Could you help is the attorneys who have, according to you, got it wrong in the “A – F” the “R – Z ” section. It would be a real public service if you could let us know which alphabetical section not to instruct.

What a maroon!


BigGuy
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:37 pm

LOL, no way are you squirming out of it like that!

You've been asked many, many times, and have repeatedly danced around the issue. You have not mentioned a single name.

You can't, can you? You're just going to keep trying to find ways to duck the question.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:38 pm

- Admission #1. The following statement was published by Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children…”
“The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that person’s allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.“ (Emphasis added.)
That’s how you separate the issue and set it forth to stand or fall on its own merit.
Obama can’t provide any document which makes him eligible under the legal theory that a person such as him – a dual citizen owing allegiance to the very monarchy our founding fathers shed their blood to rid themselves of – was not at birth, and therefore can never be – a natural born citizen of the U.S.
His birth certificate won’t establish eligibility under that legal theory so why lump this issue in with the Birth Certificate issue? Make the BC issue separate and set your allegations out thereto in separate numbered counts.
Why make it seem as if it’s possible for Obama to produce a document which makes him eligible?
If you fail to point out admissions against interest by the defendant, than you’re not really giving your client the best chance of victory.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:43 pm

OK, good, a name! And why do you think that Roy Black agrees with you?


Steve_X
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

I'm not sure which one of Orly's split personalities you are, but Judge Land looked up Rule 11 when he sanctioned you $10,000 for being stupid enough to file a lawsuit without presenting any kind of evidence whatsoever. Don't you remember that? I know you don't remember to sign your documents before you submit them to the court, but I thought that you would at least remember the epic smackdown he gave in his order a few weeks back.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

You still pointing out non-facts there, Larrylostinorlyland? Or you just ignoring the SCOTUS again? Oh well, keep proving your idiocracy, it is funnier than s**t!


gentrfam
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:52 pm

Have you read Rule 11 recently? “Any improper purpose, such as…” it doesn't say, as Orly believes “these specific three improper purposes…”

You could also read Saltany v. Reagan, 886 F.2d 438, 440 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (holding that Libyans’ suit against President Reagan for damages from air strikes brought for improper purpose of making a political statement).


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

What non-facts? He plainly explained to you the conflict that all dual citizens have. They owe allegiance to both countries.
Are you going to tell us that Obama has renounced foreign (British) citizenship?
I have read stories of people being denied security clearance because they had dual citizenship. Why should the US Presidency require lower threshold when it comes to eligibility?


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

And I clearly showed in SCOTUS opinion where dual citizenship has no effect on american citizenship. And, judging by your postings Naturaldickhead, I wouldn't believe anything you've read since they all come from WND and the sister blower sites.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:01 pm

Hey L-orly-ance, I liked the way you complained that people call you “batshit crazy” in your motion to recuse.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20550230/RHODES-v-Mac…

I bet Judge Land cracked up over that one.


mosyslak
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

source for disbarred lawyer Charles Edward Lincoln III's ridiculous claim is here

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/09/anot…
post 127
“Michael Hogwash” and “DingbatJackass” – All true top legal scholars are laughing hysterically at both of you every time you post another comment. Roy Black (of Miami) just called and said “I KNOW THAT'S YOU, I KNOW IT, LOL, LOL, LOL! You're arguing with frigging IDIOTS! LOL, LOL, LOL!”. 'Nuff said.”

debunked just below.

WHAT A MAROON


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:03 pm

What's with this new page format?

Am I the only one who can't scroll back more than 75 of the past posts.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:04 pm

Thank you to Obama's “MINISTRY of PROPAGANDA” for proving beyond all doubt they cannot face-up to the legal facts of the eligibility question and they dare not publicly speak the truth. Their behavior has proven beyond all reasonable doubt just how low they will stoop to destroy the USA. Special thanks to “Jim”, “BigGuy”, “Doubtful”, “mosyslak”, and “Dr. Baloney”. Ohhhh, “Steve_X” is here! How predictable! It's shift change time at Obama's “MINISTRY of PROPAGANDA” offices! LOL at you low-life minimum wage tools! Spreading very obvious scripted propaganda 24/7 does not help your cause, it only makes that many more people question what you say, investigate the facts, learn the truth, then turn on Obama. Thank you for your assistance regarding this very important matter! GOD BLESS AMERICA!


BigGuy
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:05 pm

We're blocked.


Lawrence
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:10 pm

Within a year, Obama's will be impeached, he'll become a nasty footnote in history, and the self-created scandal that is now taking him down will be remembered ten times longer than “Watergate”.


Empirical
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:16 pm

Let's talk reality………..

Can the Obama internet thugs explain “why” the following is true??? The following was provided by a legal office which has three cases now in the courts. Trying to find a judge who is not afraid of the thugs…….??? Not afraid of reality………

How would such information be treated if it were true of ANYONE ELSE but Obama??? …… Even Bill Clinton or Joe Biden would not be able to “hide” so easily……. Why can Obama??? Why is he different??? He — himself — preaches that “no man is above the law.” …… Where is the press? The TV? The editorial writers who question everybody else??? (That kind of 'questioning' is a strength of our system, in my opinion, when it is vigorously pursued.) But that kind of 'transparency' is so far totally lacking where Obama is concerned……!!! Why?????????? (Obama — the man who so self righteously promised “transparency” when campaigning against the Bush record…….. Compared to Bush — Obama is OPAQUE………)

Perhaps the veil of silence surrounding Obama explains why so many people turn to his “race” as the only explanation………..??? What is YOUR explanation………???

???????????????????THE VEIL OF SECRECY???????????????????????

All, yes ALL of Obama’s records are “SEALED” – why ?

Birth records;

School records – “SEALED” because they will probably show that Obama applied for and recived “foreign aid” indicating he was from Kenya or Indonesia where he was “adopted”;

Occidental College;

Columbia University;

Harvard Law School;

State Senate Records from Illinois;

Passport records; (And Selective Service)

Hospital records from Kenya and two [2] hospitals in Hawaii;

???????????????????THE VEIL OF SECRECY??????????????????????


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

Let's talk reality then…you aren't entitled to any of it. There, that was easy wasn't it? The rest is the usual rantings of a 2-year old child who can't get his way. Apologies to all 2-year olds for bringing them down to Empathetic's level.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:23 pm

Hey L-Orly-nce,

From the State Bar of California:

(In presenting a matter to a tribunal, a member) Shall not intentionally misquote to a tribunal the language of a book, statute, or decision;

Be careful how you misquote Wong Kim Ark.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:23 pm

My guess is they had to switch over to a different server. Maybe doing backups or maintenance. Not unusual for a weekend.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

First there was “Lawrence,” now “Empirical” is back.

I wonder which of Orly's split personalities we'll see next?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

When I go down to the bottom and hit Show more comments, it adds about half of them, then the bottom of the page is totally black.

Am I the only one this is happening to?


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

Yeah I am sure Roy Black talks to idiots like you. Dream on. Ever wonder why the birfers have low life and incompetent attorneys?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

Nope, in a year, people will be going, “Hey do you remember that batshit crazy lawyer who tried to sue the President over a fake Kenyan birth certificate? What was her name again?”


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

Oooh an admission that a disbarred lawyer is practicing law! Good one Charles E. Lincoln III.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

At birth, Obama was a dual citizen. He himself admitted it.
Is he still a dual citizen?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

BTW, the lawyer who argued for the United States in the Wong Kim Ark case was a Mr. George D. Collins of San Francisco. L-Orly_nce, mentioned him in a couple of his/her posts.

Here is a bit more on the sad, sordid tale of Mr. Collins and how he spent his final days in prison working in the jute mill.

http://books.google.com/books?id=pkQ37-_VMpQC&p…

L-Orly's hero. LOL


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:34 pm

Nope


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:36 pm

Any proof?


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:38 pm

Why?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

How can a dual citizen at birth be a natural born citizen of USA?

Because the laws of the U.S. take precidence over the laws of a foreign country.

Natural born citizenship is controlled by the laws of this country, those laws have precedence.

Having a dual citizenship under the laws of another country does not diminish the laws of this country.

You must not be a real American if you want the U.S. to bow down before the laws of every other country.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

Commander in chief owes his allegiance to the USA only, not to any foreign country.
For all we know he could still be a dual citizen.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

Hs book was not tittled “Dreams frommy Mother” the title was “Dreams from my Father”.
Is Kenya closer to his heart than USA?


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

Any proof?


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:47 pm

Nope.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

“murmuring judges” More of a British term, but I like it.


mosyslak
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

Aww come on disbarred lawyer Charles Edward Lincoln III, I'll give you odds!?

Should be easy money for you. After all ex-marine Judge Carter couldn't possibly fail to be swayed by your pleadings?

Could he?….


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

L-Orly-nce, Do you seriously think that Judge Land should recuse himself because he owns shares in Microsoft and Comcast?????

LOL


O_RLY
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

there once was a lawyer named orly
who practiced her legal skills poorly.
her clients all lost.
the cases got tossed.
the birthers, they all took it sorely.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

ROFLMAO!!!!!


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

You needed to get some more in there…like all her clients having to pay the losers, the smackdowns by the Judges, her meltdowns…you've got so much more material, O_RLY, use it!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:13 pm

“….Natural born citizenship is controlled by the laws of this country, those laws have precedence…”
——————————————————————————
Where is the definition of the natural born citizen in US constitution?

Natural born citizen = no need to look into laws of ANY country. There is only one country that can claim this person. “US born of citizen parents” is the only definition that does not require any debate about eligibility for US presidency.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:14 pm

He said it in the title of the book.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

SCOTUS: KWA…

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


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:16 pm

Your point?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

They are talking about CITIZENSHIP. Reread the last sentence of your post.
They are saying that people born in the country are citizens – nothing else.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

Say, I bet I know — our friend CEL III is under the impression that Roy Black is going to be taking on Cook v. Simtech, and therefore he must believe that Obama is not an NBC!

Quite a stretch, Charlie! I'll believe that one when I see it!


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

Fail reading comprehension did you naturaldumbass? Read the whole thing. Natural Born, citizenship, all tied together in a neat little bow.


conductorjoe
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:22 pm

The Crazy Train doesn't stop here, Lawrence. Everybody else, tickets please.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:27 pm

You are cherry picking parts of WKA decision. It also mentions that they did not have to go into determination what the natural born status means.
Again, there is no definition of the “natural born citizen” in the US Constitution.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:30 pm

Your right about it not being defined in the constitution. So, SCOTUS defined it for you.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

Oh, we have another NEA sponsored poet in the house.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

Why are you keep repeating “citizenship”? Trying to confuse people?
Natural born citizen is requirement for presidency – not mere citizenship.
You have ignored my question of Obama renouncing his dual citizenship. It would not change his status at birth, but, at least, it would tell us that as an adult he pledged allegiance to only one country – USA.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

It did not. WKA case was about child born in the USA to foreign born residents of USA – whether the child was citizen or not.
The child was not a candidate for presidency – the court did not determine what the “natural born citizen” is.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

LOL!


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 8:54 pm

Really? How many types of citizen are in the constitution? Can you name them?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 9:21 pm

“It did not. WKA case was about child born in the USA to foreign born residents of USA – whether the child was citizen or not.”

Funy that's not what the losing side argued.

From the pen of George D. Collins, the attorney for the side that lost WKA:

“Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”

It sounds like he is conceding the very fact that you argue against.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 9:29 pm

Shhhhhhh, antibirther…he's about to hang himself. I've got him up to trying to show the different types of citizens in the constitution. Once he comes up with the native-born, I hit him with SCOTUS again. Really, it is too easy. Trying to make our constitution into a class system like in 1700's England where there were different classes of citizens. I thought that's why we fought the revolution, to get rid of the class system.


Super_Sekret
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 10:24 pm

How would such information be treated if it were true of ANYONE ELSE but Obama??? …… Even Bill Clinton or Joe Biden would not be able to “hide” so easily……. Why can Obama???
Umm, I'd like to see evidence of people demanding Clinton's, Reagan's, Bush's (either) Passport records, let alone the Hospital Records from where they were born,t alone their kindergarten (yes, that's a birfer demand too) records. So what is it about Obama that makes certain idiots think they are entitled to irrelevant personal information like that? Why is Obama so different Empirical?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 10:24 pm

” Why are you keep repeating “citizenship”? Trying to confuse people?”

You funny. There are only two kinds of citizenship. You are either born a
citizen (natural born) or made a citizen later in life (naturalized.) Those
are the only kinds of citizenship mentioned, even by such worthies as Vattel
and Collins. Vattel and Collins felt that to be a citizen at birth required
a citizen parent. The U.S. Constitution says different.


Jim
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 10:28 pm

Empathetic is just trying to get at the root of the problem. He's one of the blowers that want to see if Obama's been circumcised. This is his round-about way of asking.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 10:49 pm

Ya kinda gotta feel for Republicans like Franks. On the one hand a significant portion of his constituents are nutjobs and he needs those nutjob votes. On the other hand he needs to walk a fine line and get those votes without appearing to be a nutjob himself.

Thank the Lord I'm not a politician. Thank him double I'm not a Republican politician in the age of the birthers.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 11:02 pm

Yeah, Collins also acknowledged in that article barfers keep crowing about that “natural born citizen” means the same as “citizen at birth.” It's funny how they can't even understand the stuff they think is supporting their case actually destroys their case.

If they want to go with Collins and Vattel they would have to argue that the citizenship of the father (not both parents) is the only thing that counts for conferring citizenship at birth.

Instead they take sentences out of context and attempt to pull an entirely new kind of citizenship out of their backsides, which neither Vattel nor Collins ever mentioned.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 3, 2009 @ 11:55 pm

That's the kind of thing that happens when we assume that birfers are literate…we set ourselves up for continuing disappointment. On the other hand, it's fun to make fun of people so stupid that they think Orly Failz is a real lawyer.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 12:01 am

I just like to rely on the fact that they only get their information from WND and it's sister sites. That means they have no understanding of what laws and precedence really say, just the misstated and misquoted crap that's on those sites. Notice that today they weren't trying to hawk their sites? Guess I finally got through to everybody that they needed those clicks, and now they're no longer getting them it frustrates them to no end.


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 2:32 am

AXJ has published recent documentation which show otherwise. 30,000 posts cannot be wrong. http://www.axjus.com No marriage certificate. No birth certificate and the numbers clearly do not correspond to August 4, 1964. The Attorney General has not denied that is Obama's foot print on the document presented as the true 1961 birth certificate in Kenya. No Birth Certificate was presented in the 1964 divorce proceedings. All very interesting documentation. Worth a look.


ArthurB.
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 2:36 am

Nope. Total garbage. Worth no looks.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 2:36 am

“30,000 posts cannot be wrong.”

Now there's some typical birther logic for you.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 2:39 am

Hey, by that sort of twisted birther logic I'll merely point out that 70 MILLION American voters can't be wrong….


Steve_X
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 2:56 am

The Attorney General has not denied that is Obama's foot print on the document presented as the true 1961 birth certificate in Kenya.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 2:59 am

Assuming that your quote is accurate: What does an attorney's opinion have to do with the Constitution? It is just one man's opinion.

I would rather look into historical documents for reasons why the phrase “natural born citizen” was inserted into Constitution. It would be interesting to find what the founding Fathers had in mind when making that decision.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 3:04 am

Here's a wonderful historical document from 1898…

SCOTUS: KWA…

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

defines it pretty well…”the place of birth”


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 3:33 am

Let's assume that you were right when it comes to the law.
Why would Obama go to such great length to DISMISS eligibility lawsuits? He could win his case in court on merits, instead of relying on the “standing” technicality.
After all, he is a Constitutional law professor (as somebody pointed out), a scholar who is familiar with WKA and other cases. There is no doubt in his mind and of his advisers that the law in on his side, right?
Your claims and Obama's behavior do not go hand-in-hand.
If I had been challenged in court about something related to my line of work and I knew that I was 100% correct and the law was on my side – there is no way I would spend money on army of lawyers fighting multiple eligibility cases. I would pick one case and go forward with the facts.
He is hiding his personal biographical data from public – there must be a good reason for such behavior. If his eligibility was a “slam dunk” – his behavior would have been different.
That is the reason it got my attention.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 3:39 am

Is there a document or a quote from the Founding Fathers about circumstances related to the formulation of the eligibility requirements for US presidency?
With your knowledge of the law – you are in better position than a lay person to point us out in right direction.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 3:39 am

If he is a Constitutional law professor, why not follow the constitution and laws? Why let one small part of the population make up laws to fit their needs? Should not the President defend the laws and Constitution? Is not exactly what he's doing?


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 3:43 am

Read KWA…as I keep pointing out. It says that nowhere does the founding fathers define nbc. So, they defined it. What's the problem?


ArthurB.
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 3:44 am

The Constitution limits the courts. They can only resolve “cases and controversies,” and that phrase has a long history of judicial interpretation.

“Standing” is absolutely not a technicality. If a suit is brought by a part that has no standing, the court is not permitted to hear it. That would violate the Constitution.

Nevertheless, this is not the big deal you claim it is. If there were a serious Constitutional question concerning his citizenship and presidential eligibility, you can be sure we'd be hearing about it from real constitutional experts instead of just extreme fringe elements.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 3:51 am

It is not a small minority of people who believe that Obama did not prove the eligibility.
I have asked before and have to ask again – what is it in the long form birth certificate that requires “privacy protection”? It is a ridiculous claim.
An interesting thing about Obama is the title of Constitutional Law Professor. Technically he did not have a tenure – rather a senior lecturer status. That is a minor detail – what bothers me more is the fact that a person could even become a senior lecturer at prestigiuous university without having a single law paper published. Not one paper, anywhere.
Could you or anybody else provide a link to any of his published work (excluding the memoirs)?
Yet there are claims of him being a scholar. How many other lies are there in his biography?


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 3:57 am

And the answer will always be the same, you have no right to it. And making up things will never change that amazingly wonderful fact.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 3:59 am

You are sidestepping my question. There must have been some paper trail by the framers of the US constitution when they debated over what to include in the Constitution. I cannot imagine that they would put the “natural born phrase” into the Constitution haphazardly, without providing any clues to the reasoning behind such decision.
I guess I'll have to dig that one by myself.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:05 am

Why am I sidestepping? Every time you asked for something I gave it to you. Why is it so hard for you to accept what you specifically asked for? Are you so difficult to please that no one can satisfy your questions until they say what you want them to say? Man this guy is really losing it!


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:08 am

Yup, looks like he was adopted. Judge Carter will grant immediate discovery on October 5, 2009. It is written in the stars. Obama, Pelosi and Hillary will all have to go to prison for conspiracy against the American People. Things are going to change quickly in the US.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:10 am

No right to what? The name of the hospital or the attending physician? Although we were able to see both in Nordyke twins published documents.
If public did not have the right to know – should somebody be prosecuting Honolulu Advertiser for publishing the “private” data?

Second, you did not address the scholar without published papers question. It shows to us that his biography is full of holes and exaggerations. It shows the pattern of his behavior – why should the eligibility issue be any different?


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:10 am

You've already tried that AXJ, we've seen it thrown out too many times to even consider your Orly cheerleading. Give it a break.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:13 am

Theories get you nowhere. Made up rights do not exist. Hawaii says he was born there. BS just gets you laughed at.


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:14 am

Wrong Jim. I am paying his salary and I have all the right in the world to see his documentation. Judge Carter will order immediate discovery and we will. Judge Carter is a Marine above all else. Doesn't that tell you anything? Sempre Fidelis


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:16 am

No Hawaii is not saying that. Only that he was registered there. He was adopted and everyone knows it. Now Orly is working on proving it.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:18 am

I appreciate you giving the info on WKA. I have specifically asked the question on documents preceding the WKA, documents written by those who wrote the Constitution. If you do not have this info off top of your head it is OK to say so – there is no need to drag this thread further.
I will search for this information myself.


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:18 am

which ones, the ones that voted against him? Especially after finding out who he really is?


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:18 am

Boring AXJ, how many million citizens could say that at any time. Government would come to a standstill. That's why you have no standing, that's why Orly will be thrown out again. But, I will give you this, I think Judge Carter will try to outdo Judge Land in calling Orly crazy.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:21 am

You asked for information on what the forefathers meant with NBC. I gave you the absolute best legal minds in our country who investigated and found no definition for NBC. They then gave what was the overriding opinion in the time of our forefathers and came up with the best definition. What more do you want?


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:24 am

Re: “It would be interesting to find what the founding Fathers had in mind when making that decision”

They were thinking of the English common law and the laws in the colonies at the time of the Revolution, which held that a Natural Born subject was simply someone who had been born in a colony regardless of the number of parents who were already subjects. Natural Born meant “born in” or “native born.” In fact the words Native Born were very rarely used at the time, and Natural Born was commonly used.

James Wilson, who served in both the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, wrote in 1774

“Natural born subjects have a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born in the king’s ligeance, and can never forfeit by any distance of place or time, but only by their own misbehaviour; the explanation of which rights is the principal subject of the law. 1. Bl. Com. 371.”

It is clear in this that the meaning of Natural Born comes from “being born in the king's ligeance.” It does not require two parents, and it does not bar someone who was a dual national.

If the writers of the Constitution had really worried that the children of foreigners would be disloyal, they could have said “only a person with two US parents” or “no person whose parents were not US citizens,” or “no dual nationals.” But they didn't.


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:24 am

Anti-birthers are scared, paralized that Judge Carter has admitted Orly's case and is giving her clients (US Military) standing and he has already told the Attorney General that in his Court he has competent jurisdiction and will order expedited discovery since January is around the corner. Obama will have to resign before then, everybody knows it. If Orly can prove Hillary and Pelosi knew about it as well Orly can get them for conspiracy against the American People. Too bad Orly is not a natural born citizen. I think should could become Governor like Shwartzy.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:25 am

According to the Hawaii laws (UIPA) public has the right to see the index data about vital statistic documents maintained by the DoH.
On Leo Donofrio's blog there is an interesting story about lies and manipulation by state officials who are not doing their job to provide the information that they must provide according to the law. Why is it that the law is not followed in this case? Let's just follow the law, right?
You can read details here:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10…

There are no commercial advertisements on this blog. (none).


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:27 am

I love debating with anti-birthers. Just love having them tap dance around Obama's first Executive Order the day he was supposedly sworn in signing to have all his documents sealed. And he really thinks the American People won't publish them? Just wonder if Roberts was in on it to. Time to do some house cleaning in Washington. Put a few in jail and things will change…


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:27 am

Links please.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:31 am

Back at it with the site…no thanks. You've already proven there's nothing there but wild theories and forged documents. All the same BS as WND and its sister sites. Knock yourself out with that index, might as well give you something to look forward to.


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:32 am

It will when they match Obama's foot print with the one on that document.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:33 am

I am curious about the source – not just somebody's interpretation. My last post on this thread :-)


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:35 am

No, you just don't want to believe the truth when it slaps you in the face. Why is that NC?


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:40 am

Wilson appears at: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com…

It is from his book Considerations On the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament, 1774.

Another use of Natural Born is that of Alexander Hamilton, who uses natural born to mean native born (indeed, at the time only Natural Born was used, “native born” was rare). he wrote: “The position is founded on that clause of the British act of navigation, which forbids any but a natural-born or naturalized subject to exercise the occupation of a merchant or factor, in any of the British dominions in Asia, Africa, and America.'

As you can see, there were only two options, natural born or naturalized, everyone else was a foreigner. (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com…)


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:43 am

It is the conduct of state officials who are supposed to follow the law and not mislead people looking for the legitimate information.
In their response yesterday, State officials mentioned that there is no index for Maya Soetoro on record. This could help your case when arguing with “birthers” – there are speculations out there that Obama's COLB was a forged copy of Maya's COLB.
Leo's investigation could help you.He shares your belief that Obama was born in Hawaii. He wants to clear the “birthers” issue and move the focus to the natural born issue.
I do not share his belief in Obama's birthplace, yet I am curious to find out about latest investigation. He posts emails from State officials on his blog.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:48 am

Well, then you're interested in following an ambulance chaser. He's another one who'll say anything without proof. Why do you think more of questionable attorneys than state officials?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:48 am

Wasn't the first executive order related to the release of presidential documents, (those which would be generated in his administration), not the documents from his past?


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:53 am

NOTE TO ALL: It's fine to argue with the blowers, I can promise you it's funny. Just do NOT click on any of their sites. They are trying to pawn off old worn-out forgeries and fake unprovable theories. The only thing is they are being paid by the visit, so the best way to shut them up is to not give them that money they need so desperately to keep their delusions going. That is why they keep bringing up the same tired arguments and hope they can get the next reader to click on their so-called “proof”. If they had any real proof, it wouldn't be on this board, it would be front and center on Fox News. I guess WND has a warehouse full of Anti-Obama junk to get rid of and hired these folks to get more traffic. If you like that sort of thing, I recommend going to WND and buying direct…it is still a free country, despite what these blowers say.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:53 am

Oh, and I just found this:

“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

That is from St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings [1803]

That is at: http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com…


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:59 am

Great lengths? Lol! Filing a motion to dismiss is not “great lengths.” In
fact it's pretty much the standard thing all lawyers do first in any law
suit.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:00 am

Wow. You…you really believe that, don't you?

I'm gonna add you to my list of people that are literally too stupid to be insulted. Strangely enough, that list consists solely of birfers.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:01 am

Thanks. Those two quotes clarify the British law at the time.
Are there any letters between the writers of the US Constitution about the rules for eligibility?


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:05 am

Same shit. Anything to hide his true intentions. Jim, give it up, Americans are taking back their country and their government whether you like it or not. If we can get Obama, Pelosi and Hillary on lying, coverup and conspiracy all the better. Why in earth would a President sign an Executive Order to seal all his docs…want to do some more tap dancing for the audience? AXJ is nobodys and everybodys…it is a free and open forum.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:06 am

” Are there any letters between the writers of the US Constitution about the
rules for eligibility?”

No. However it was well understood, so not necessary. Later the 14th
amendment officially clarified it.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:06 am

Of all the idiot birfers that post on this website, AJX is by far the stupidest. He is literally insult-proof. Anything I say about how dumb he is would actually be a compliment. They don't make buses short enough for some people…


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:07 am

You must be on Obama's payroll, anything to deviate attention…funny thing is Carter is not stupid and not listening…

He will order immediate discovery…just 48 hours away…getting nervous?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:09 am

You realize that executive order simply restored things to the way they were
prior to Bush? Bush made things even more secretive, and Obama put it back
to the more traditional rules. It made things MORE transparent, not less.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:11 am

AXJ doesn't even try to pretend to be honest.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:26 am

nope…why?


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:31 am

Why should I? Our Chapter in Hawaii has the evidence. Page 11 of the 1964 divorce filing is all it took. Ask Orly. She will present it to Judge Carter tomorrow and he will have to admit it as evidence.


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:33 am

Ya right, Bush never sealed his documents that I know of. You probably made a lot of money with Bush didn't you.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:34 am

And this is important, why?


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:36 am

Sorry, no clicks until you tell us why this is so important.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:45 am

The executive order you were referring to overturned Bush's executive order
13,233. That was the whole point. Obama put the rules back to the way Reagan
had it. The fact you don't know that is typical. No one ever claimed
birthers were anything other than ignorant morons.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:46 am

” Sorry, no clicks until you tell us why this is so important.”

Don't hold your breath.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:54 am

Here nitwit–

This is how Reagan had it–
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12667.html

This what Bush did to it–
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2001/11/eo-pra.html

And this is Obama putting it back to how Reagan had it–
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Exec…

Notice how Bush was allowing MUCH less transparency?

But you are probably too stupid to understand it and too dishonest to admit it even if you did understand.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 6:16 am

Given the recent history – I would not be so sure about what judge Carter will do.
To be honest, I wish that there is a discovery – there is no reason not to verify the ordinary biographical facts about Obama. It should have been done a year ago after the Dem party convention.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 6:40 am

Thanks.
In that paragraph Tucker describes the debate whether individual states may have different laws when it comes to naturalization.
The quote from your post actually comes from the letter written by the Nicholas George Esq.

Footnote says
[52] See letter of George Nicholas, Esq. on the Alien and Sedition laws


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 7:26 am

To all WKA experts:
Hawaii UIPA law (Open Records Law) is being used to obtain Obama's biographical information:
http://www.state.hi.us/oip/UIPA%20Manual%205aug…

If Obama has nothing to worry, why is it that state officials are dragging their feet and intentionally misleading or lying in their responses to UIPA requests?


Empirical
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 8:59 am

A question has been asked:

“Umm, I'd like to see evidence of people demanding Clinton's, Reagan's, Bush's (either) Passport records, let alone the Hospital Records from where they were born,t alone their kindergarten (yes, that's a birfer demand too) records. So what is it about Obama that makes certain idiots think they are entitled to irrelevant personal information like that? Why is Obama so different Empirical? “

Answer: It is NOT that Obama is “different”……… It is that he is “NOT” Different!!!

ANY MAN OR WOMAN SEEKING THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT MUST SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY……….

THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS UPON WHOMEVER SEEKS THE OFFICE.

OBAMA IS REFUSING TO OFFER SUCH PROOF……. HE IS EVEN CONDUCTING AN EXPENSIVE AND EVASIVE LEGAL CAMPAIGN TO AVOID DOING SO…….

IN SUBMITTING HIS NOMINATION, THE DNC SUBMITTED A “CERTIFICATION” WHICH (deliberately?) IGNORED THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT.

The questioner says: The information being sought by Obama's challengers is “irrelevant.” …. That is for a court to decide…….

Again — Obama is not simply refusing to supply a valid birth certificate. He is refusing even to appear in court and answer questions under oath??? Questions about his legitimacy which are being raised by his own conduct…… What do you expect the average citizen to conclude from that??? Is it your contention that the American voters are not entitled to some valid proof of his qualification???

You may say: “Oh, but Obama HAS provided a birth certificate…….” That is not a fact. Where is it??? Who — in a court or anywhere else, the “press” for example — has examined it…..??? The so-called “birth certificate” which Obama posted on the internet is legitimately under challenge. Then when the challenges arose, Obama (or one of his internet thugs) promptly removed it…….

Much of the “fog” of uncertainty about Obama's legitimacy is a product of his own behavior…… (And his internet thugs……….)

You contend: that Clinton, or Biden, or Reagan, or Bush did not have to respond to such questions……. Do you believe that if there had been any doubt about THEIR citizenship status — about THEIR CONSITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION — that they would not have been subjected to the same questions??? The same insistence by patriotic (NON racist Americans) that … our President must PROVE his legitimacy…….??? It is the SAME for Obama.
HE MUST PROVE HIS LEGITIMATE CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS……..

Any person seeking the office must do so when confronted by a valid challenge.

And if the internet thugs want to rant and rave about the challenges to Obama not being “valid.” Let them do so…… It is their right……

But millions of Americans now BELIEVE that the challenges — the EVIDENCE which has been publicized — are valid……..!!!

After all — the statement by Obama's grandmother is rather convincing to many an average (non racist) citizen……. It has not been denied or even contested.
I, myself, am very much inclined to believe a proud grandma who says she was present at his birth……..

The thugs would do better to address their commentary to those millions of Americans — rather than to each other……. Most of the commentary on this subject I read here … sounds like it is “feel good” back and forth to Obama's “true believers.”……. That is not what Obama needs.

Grow up…….. Deal with the growing perception In America that Obama is, indeed, a phony…….. Deal with the fact that Obama, himself, is fueling that 'growing perception.'

Those who doubt Obama's legitimacy are not racists. They are being perfectly logical, given Obama's conduct……..


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 9:16 am

….Idiot…..with……all…………………your…………………….dotdotdots…………………

He has shown proof. And now he's the President. Too bad, so sad, for you. If
you want that to change the burden of proof is on YOU.
All…………….the dotdotdots…………….in
the……………..world………………won't………………change………………….that……………………..


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 9:18 am

” I, myself, am very much inclined to believe a proud grandma who says she
was present at his birth……..”

Are you? Because she didn't say that at all. She said he was born in HI. Are
you still inclined to believe her? Or are you only inclined to believe her
when you thought she said what you want to hear?


ArthurB.
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 2:42 pm

“what is it in the long form birth certificate that requires “privacy protection”? It is a ridiculous claim.”

No, it’s a ridiculous question. Contrary to what some of you birfers are saying, the privacy of personal data is not something that was invented by Obama or by Linda Lingle for Obama’s protection.

It is governed by very general laws, both federal and state. It applies to all of us. If you think the law is ridiculous, campaign to have it changed. Of course, you’ll be sacrificing your own privacy at the same time, but that’s up to you.

But stop pretending that Obama is getting special treatment in the privacy area.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:37 pm

The “ambulance chaser” is the one posting copies of emails between people asking information under the UIPA law. He also posts the response from DoH. Who else is doing the research?

Instead of labeling Donofrio – you could use his service and read the information not available on the main stream media.
We are all hiding behind aliases when posting our opinion. – he has his name and credibility on the line.
If you think that he is doing a bad job – you could write your own blog as a response. I would be interested in reading it.


Super_Sekret
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 1:17 pm

I don't see how Clinton, Reagan, Bush, etc satisfied the constitutional requirement to any greater degree than Obama. Reagan's BC even was signed years after he was born. GASP… do you think he could have been a commie plant? Heck we've had Presidents who were descendants from Huguenots, and thus were technically French citizens from birth and thus guilty of dual allegiances and thus GASP USURPERS. We've had Chester A. Arthur, who despite his grant sinister and evil scheme to destroy America, is still acknowledged as a President and subsequent congresses have done nothing to undo the illegality of his regime, such as the tyrannical oppression of Standard Time.

So yeah, my comment still stands… Why is Obama different?

As an aside, perhaps you should consider the ramifications of what you are saying. You propose that the burden of proof should lie on Obama to disprove any ridiculous theory you guys come up with. (This is not, btw, how the legal system works). Would you like that same burden of proof on a candidate of your preference? I hate to break it to you, but there are millions of American who might “have questions” about your ideal candidate. Should I have access to Sarah Pailin's kindergarten records just because I think she may have been adopted around that time by Osama Bin Laden's father? Should I be given detailed medical information about Bobby Jindal because I think he really is a clone. I can prove neither assertion, but What IF EITHER were true? If they aren't guilty of anything, they should have nothing to hide!


Empirical
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 2:02 pm

MSG for Super_Sekret:

Deal with the Constitution……….!!!

That's all you (and Obama) have to do……..!!!

Either deal with it … or change it………

A page full of faulty history and rationale is not going to help……..

It is most unlikely that (even a rock star) will be allowed to ignore it………

OR, OF COURSE, HE CAN RESIGN…….. Not such a bad bet……..!!!

Cheerio…….


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 2:05 pm

“Do you believe that if there had been any doubt about THEIR citizenship status — about THEIR CONSITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION — that they would not have been subjected to the same questions???”

The ONLY reason there's “doubt” in the minds of some about Obama is he's black. There's certainly no greater RATIONAL reason to doubt his eligibility than with any prior President. You can claim he's being subjected to questions not because of racism, but because there's doubt, but pointing to doubt as an excuse for him being subjected to questions is a circular argument.

You give a great example of the dishonesty of the birthers by claiming his Grandmother said she was there at his birth, when what really happened was she answered “yes” (one syllable) to a question she didn't understand, then immediately corrected it when she did understand. You claim you are inclined to believe her, yet you cling to believing the one syllable answer over her repeated and clear statements that he was born in HI, thus making yourself a liar.

So why do you believe the one syllable when she didn't understand the question over her repeated and clear statements he was born in HI?

The answer is you are a racist, just as all birthers are, and you filter everything through the filter of racism. Why else would you be holding Obama to such a higher standard than any previous President in history when it comes to proving the circumstances of his birth, while simultaneously using such a low standard for any evidence to the contrary?


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 2:05 pm

Great, empiricrass, Obama and the courts have been following the constitution. It shows him to be the legally elected POTUS. So, no resignation necessary. Past that you have nothing but rantings and the attitude of a 2-year old. But, when all you've got is nothing, all you get is nothing.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 7:37 pm

It is true that Tucker quoted that letter.

So this is both Tucker’s and the letter writer’s opinion.

The most important thing is that this is not an opinion. It is the way that
lawyers and common citizens used the phrase Natural Born Citizen at the
time.

From the context, the way that the phrase was used meant that Natural Born
was a synonym for Native Born. Since then there may have been some
extensions to Natural Born, adding the children of two parents even if they were
born overseas. But in 1803, the minimum definition was that Natural Born was
someone who was born in an American colony or in a US state. And it meant
that everyone born in that way, except for the children of foreign
diplomats. Blacks and Indians did not qualify as Natural Born Citizens, but that was
because they were not considered citizens. They were considered Natural
Born, because that meant born in a state.

Natural Born did not mean that a person had to have two US parents.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 3:49 pm

Empirical, what's your point? The birfers have taken their cases to court and have lost all the ones that have been decided so far. Maybe they'll win one in the future, but I seriously doubt it.

And that's the way our legal system works. If you can't make a case that convinces a judge, then you lose. No hard feelings — the same laws apply to everybody.

As they say –

Deal with the Constitution……….!!!


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

His grandma in Kenya said she was present at her son's birth, not her grandson. In fact, if you listen to the tape, she says “He was born in Hawaii”.

When his stepfather registered him for school in Indonesia, the place of birth is listed as “Honolulu, Hawaii”.

The COLB which you wingnuts dispute is the ONLY LEGAL FORM OF BIRTH IDENTIFICATION available in Hawaii since 2000. It is fully legal.

You wingnuts can cry all you want about the constitution, natural born citizen, etc., but you have NOTHING. You have no chance of ever removing him from office. Keep up the mental masturbation — you may even go blind.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

State official responded. The COLB that the wingnuts insist his sister, Maya, who was born in Indonesia supposedly possessed, DOES NOT EXIST. No records of Maya in Hawaii. Another Birther urban legend bites the dust.

The amended part that the Birthers were so orgasmic about was simply the wedding announcement of Obama's mama and his daddy. Hilarious!


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:30 pm

The birthers have just begun and the more Courts that refuse to hear this case the more pissed off the American People will get. More demonstrations in Washington until all of OBAMA's documents are published. Why prolong this ordeal. Judge Carter will grant discovery in 24 hours and OBAMA will have to resign for hiding his true background from the American People. No big deal. He may serve jail time, no big deal. Now that Pelosi y Hillary were in on it? That is very grave. That constitutes a conspiracy and Orly knows it. Notice how the press and mainstream media have stopped covering her? Why? Because she is not so crazy after all. She has a foot print and if it matches OBAMA must resign. Plain and simple. After I read the post on AXJ about the adoption papers and saw the evidence it is all very clear.


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:30 pm

The birthers have just begun and the more Courts that refuse to hear this case the more pissed off the American People will get. More demonstrations in Washington until all of OBAMA's documents are published. Why prolong this ordeal. Judge Carter will grant discovery in 24 hours and OBAMA will have to resign for hiding his true background from the American People. No big deal. He may serve jail time, no big deal. Now that Pelosi y Hillary were in on it? That is very grave. That constitutes a conspiracy and Orly knows it. Notice how the press and mainstream media have stopped covering her? Why? Because she is not so crazy after all. She has a foot print and if it matches OBAMA must resign. Plain and simple. After I read the post on AXJ about the adoption papers and saw the evidence it is all very clear.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:33 pm

Re: “Obama is not simply refusing to supply a valid birth certificate.'

Obama has supplied a valid birth certificate, the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii.

As the Wall Street Journal commented: ““Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement.”

The facts on the official birth certificate were confirmed twice by the authorities in Hawaii, and the notices in the newspapers, which were sent out by the government of Hawaii for births in Hawaii (and not for births outside of Hawaii) also confirms.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

Re: “the statement by Obama's grandmother is rather convincing.”

Good. Obama's Kenyan grandmother said that he was born IN HAWAII.

She did not say that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii. This can be clearly heard if you listen to the complete recording of the tape, which is on Berg’s site. The complete recording includes a question asking “Whereabouts was he born?” And her answer was: “America, Hawaii.”

Here is the complete recording on Berg’s site. Be sure to listen for at least five minutes until the question is asked. (http://obamacrimes.com/Telephone_Interview_with…)

If it is too difficult to listen to the complete tape, here is a transcript (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploa…).


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

Why would a Kenyan ambassador in US confirm Kenya as Obama's birthplace? He did it in an interview with a Detroit radio station on November 5, 2008. It is posted on the You Tube. You can hear it and judge whether he understood the question or not.
Later on, the admission was retracted – once they realized what it meant.


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

Because it proves he was adopted. Plain and simple.


AXJ
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:43 pm

AXJ is not a person but an international organization and I am just a member. Wait till you see the documents. Then what are you going to say? Oh, Obama just forgot to tell us he was actually born in Kenya and adopted by Stanley Ann? Not going to fly my friend.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 4:46 pm

Excellent, why is it that Dems oppose such legislation?

Posting a COPY of a COLB document on a friendly web site is not an official proof of anything. For all we know it could be another fake document.

Where is the proof that newspaper announcements were sent only for births in Hawaii?


Doubtful
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

Oh, silly, you're making this all up.

What happens when Judge Carter does not grant discovery — are you going to come back in 24 hours and admit you were wrong?

And what is the craziness about the footprint? That Birth Certificate is an obvious fake; and, in any case, do you know anything about the likelihood of identifying a 48-year-old man from an infant's footprint?

This is pure batshit insanity, and your bumbling nonsense is funny to watch.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:08 pm

That's a bogus argument. No one's claiming that the posting of the COLB is proof of anything.

The COLB itself is proof. It is prima facie evidence, which means it is vaild unless proven otherwise.

You can raise all the doubts and questions you want about its validity. But legally it is valid unless and until it is proven to be invalid. That's what prima facie means.

Similarly with the newspaper announcements. You don't have to accept them as legal proof of anything. But anyone with any sense sees them as a strong indication that the attempt to prove Obama was born anywhere else is very likely to fail.

As it has failed, over and over and over.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

You are repeating the information about Maya I had already posted in another comment.
This is our government at work: State Official response you mentioned:
(copied from Donofrio's blog)
—————————————————————————————-
From: Okubo, Janice S.
To: [email redacted]
Cc: Onaka, Alvin T.
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Request for information

Aloha..,

Index data referred to in HRS 338-18 from vital records in the State of Hawaii is available for inspection at the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu . The Director in accordance with 338-18 (d) has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public.

In response to your request the following index data is being provided:

BIRTH INDEX
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING

CHILD
OBAMA II, BARACK HUSSEIN
GENDER
M

MARRIAGE INDEX
SORTED BY BRIDE
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING

GROOM
OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN

BRIDE
DUNHAN, STANLEY ANN

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…
————————————————————————

She provided information about “bride” and “groom” when nobody asked for it? The original request was for index data for pres. Obama not his parents.
She later apologized and clarified that the “bride” and “groom” information came from index records of respected individuals NOT from pres. Obama's index record.
So much for your conclusion that this is the amended information about pres. Obama's record. It is not.
Read the complete correspondence at Donofrio's blog:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:48 pm

Lucas Smith has signed an affidavit that the birth certificate in Orly's case is the original Obama birth certificate.
Is there a person who under the penalty of perjury has made such claim for the COLB posted on the factcheck.org?
The existence of a document that could be a fake (a Photoshop job) is not a proof of anything.
Who has verified it – names please?

My understanding of the registration of birth in Hawaii (in 1961) is that a birth could have been registered using an affidavit from a relative. Once this was on file with the DoH, an automatic release to the newspapers followed. Therefore, it would not be possible to tell (from the newspaper announcement itself) whether someone was actually born in Hawaii. You could only conclude that a person was registered as born in Hawaii.
I would be interested if anyone has a link to the source that explains this process differently from what I just described.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

The COLB docment posted on factcheck.org could be a forgery as well. How do we know otherwise? Just because factcheck.org says so?

There is no need to remove him from office.
As long as the public is informed about the truth I have no probem with Obama occupying the White House, even if it is proven that he was not born in Hawaii.
Good luck to Dems on any future elections with a tainted president in the White House. There would be no need for formal removal from office. His fellow Dems would pressure him to resign.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

Are you really interested in learning something? Let's see.

1) Lucas Smith has multiple felony convictions, including forgery. The fact that he has signed an affidavit means absolutely nothing.

2) The COLB is backed up by much more than a signed affidavit. It bears the official seal of the State of Hawaii, which makes it prima facie evidence. If you don't understand that, look it up; but legally, that has far more weight than a signed affidavit.

3) As I said, if you don't find the newspaper announcements convincing, that's fine. But not only does the official COLB say he was born in Honolulu, a senior Hawaiian official has issued a formal statement saying that he was born in Hawaii.

4) Finally, and most important, the burden of proof is on you. There is overwhelming evidence that you have to overcome, and simply offering speculation is not going to do it. If there is truly convincing evidence that he was born somewhere else, show it.

You know, it's not like you've got real evidence and someone is preventing you from showing it. There's a lot of freedom in this country, and you can show whatever you want.

Problem is, all the evidence you've shown has turned out to be bogus. It hasn't convinced anyone except those who were hoping to be convinced.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

Nat, are you dumb? Do you know what prima facie means? Look it up and stop making a fool of yourself.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

Have you heard of Photoshop?
If I create a document that resembles a COLB and post it on the web, how would you go about determining its authenticity?


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 11:17 pm

What’s worse is he’s got split personality…likes to post under many names and claim he’s international. Like an anonymous message board poster is going to impress anybody. Let’s see now, so far I’ve had an international organization, someone claiming to be worth $50 million, another listing Who’s Who in America, and some other BS. I’m still waiting for one of you clowns to claim to be “THOR, GOD OF THUNDER”! LOL!


Doubtful
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 6:25 pm

I, as a private citizen, would be unable to determine its authenticity.

Instead, I would rely on the fact that there is very unlikely to be a huge conspiracy concealing Obama's fraud. That means that some prosecutor in Hawaii would have brought charges against him for using a fake document, and the director of the Department of Health would not have stated that he was born in Hawaii.

Obama has plenty of political enemies, and there are lots of people who would just love to show that he became president illegitimately.

But the fact is that no one reputable has done that. (I know you think Lucas Smith is reputable, but I think we've covered that one.)

Nevertheless, as I have said elsewhere, if you've got evidence that the COLB is a photoshop fake, you are free to notify the Hawaii Attorney General and ask that fraud charges be brought. You know, the Governor of Hawaii is a Republican who supported McCain. Would she just let a major crime like that slip by?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 7:09 pm

We can only speculate that the COLB document is authentic. Neither of use has seen it.
Even if it is authentic – it will look the same for somebody actually born in Hawaii as for the person whose Hawaiian birth was registered via affidavit.
Obama said that he had been born in the Kapiolani Hospital.
That is why the long form birth certificate is important.
If you or any other Obama supporters were 100% sure that he is telling the truth you would not be hiding behind the COLB document.

We are talking about the highest office of the land. The burden of proof should be on candidate not on the public. As I mentioned already COLB document does not contain information about birthplace. Obama's own campaign web site had two hospitals as his place of birth. Which one is it? It is a shame that Obama chose to play this as a game rather than making sure that there is NO DOUBT about his eligibility.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

LOL, you're going around in circles. You're right, we can only speculate, and speculation does not affect the fact that an official state document is prima facie evidence. You can wave your hands all you like, but that's the law.

If someone speculates that an official document is valid, and another speculates that it is not, the document wins. That's what prima facie means — from a legal point of view, the document is assumed to be valid.

Once more, if you've got evidence, show it. If you can prove it's a fake, good for you. Otherwise it is accepted as fact by any court in the land.

No matter how many times you try to spin it, that's the law.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

The problem is when people raised the issue with courts asking for eligibility verification – Obama asked for case dismissal for the lack of standing!?
Without standing, eligibility cases did not go into discovery where the relevant evidence could be officially verified.
Does anybody have a standing to verify that the presidential candidate is qualified under the Constitution?


Doubtful
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

It may be that one of the candidates would have had standing if the issue had been raised earlier. But Hillary Clinton and John McCain were smart enough to realize there was no real issue here. Otherwise you can be sure they would have said and done something

But, remember, if the COLB is a fraud, fraud is a crime. Imagine that you saw someone robbing a bank and you wanted him to get punished for it, so you sued him.

That wouldn't work; you'd be told you didn't have standing to sue some guy for bank robbery. And that's the way it should be — even if you had money in that bank.

What you would do instead is take your evidence to the proper law enforcement authorities. They are the proper ones for handling crimes, not law suits by individuals who don't have standing.

And that's what I'm suggesting you do concerning Obama. If you really think you have evidence of a crime, take it to a prosecutor.

Why aren't you pursuing that course?


Anonymous
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:38 am

“Obama’s campaign web site listed two different hospitals as place of his
birth. First it was Queens Hospital then Kapiolani. Why? Another honest
mistake?”

No. Just yet another birther lie. His campaign website never listed any
hospital at all.

” Same with the Kenyan ambassador. He misspoke.”

Try listening to what he actually said. He never said Obama was born in
Kenya. Dishonest birthers interpreted it that way in their desperate
attempts to come up with something resembling evidence.

Funny too how inconsistent you are with the standards of evidence you
accept. A Kenyan ambassador mumbles some stuff about an “assumption” and
“his paternal grandmother is still alive” and you interpret that as evidence
he was born in Kenya. But a state certified birth certificate, multiple
confirmations from the HI DOH, and 47 year old birth announcements in
newspapers aren’t good enough for you?

Bizarrely different standards depending on whether the “evidence” says what
you want to hear, or says what you don’t want to hear.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

And that affects his citizenship how?


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

Well, your argument lost steam…now you'll lose in court again. Now, why is it so important that Obama was adopted?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 7:47 pm

You're going to be sooooo disappointed. But you must be used to that by now.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

“Why would a Kenyan ambassador in US confirm Kenya as Obama's birthplace?”

He didn't. Listen to that tape–he obviously didn't know what the hell those
two clowns were even talking about and just mumbles about an “assumption”
and “his grandmother is still alive” etc..

But that's a perfect example of the hypocritical standards birthers use when
assessing evidence. His state certified BC, multiple confirmations from the
HI DOH, and 47 year old announcements in the newspapers are dismissed as not
proof, but a couple jackass DJ's ask a Kenyan ambassador, who has nothing to
do with obama, a trick question and he mumbles an answer that doesn't even
make sense, and suddenly THAT'S valid evidence.

It's called hypocrisy.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 1:32 am

I have heard it and he OBVIOUSLY didn’t understand the question. You can tell that because HE DIDN’T ANSWER IT!! He muttered some stuff about an “assumption” and Obama’s grandmother, and so forth. He was clearly confused by the question, and ANY honest person listening to that answer would NOT conclude he “admitted” Obama was born in Kenya. You REALLY have to be desperately dishonest to conclude he said anything of the sort.

This is no different from the tape of his grandmother.

It really is a perfect illustration of how desperate birthers are to find ANY supporting evidence, that you are clinging to that tape. If you had any kind of real evidence you wouldn’t be forced to desperately cling to the confused answer of a Kenyan ambassador who couldn’t be expected to have any kind of special knowledge about Obama’s birth anyway.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

The only point Empirical has is the one on his head. Even worse, it's a saggy, floppy point that won't even stand up straight.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 8:53 pm

“Where is the proof that newspaper announcements were sent only for births in Hawaii?”

Do you even comprehend how bizarre that question is? Are you suggesting the HI DOH was sending birth announcements to the HI newspapers for births in Muldavia?


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 1:58 am

IMO, doubtful, somehow they’ve got it in their tiny little brains that the court prefers unprovable theories with evidence. They know a prosecutor would laugh them out of the office.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 9:38 pm

MSG is not good for you.
Also your obsession with undermining the legitimacy of the duly elected POTUS is a sick and pathetic game, and most of us are just sitting around watching you immolate yourself because it's hard to look away. Every time another Republican distances himself from you (Sen Graham called you “CRAZY” last week), you simply dismiss them as 'in on the conspiracy'. I really do have more respect for street corner crazies wearing tinfoil hats because by contrast, you blogosphere ranters are cowards, too embarrassed by your birther heritage to be anything but anonymous.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 10:33 pm

It is not bizarre. Hawaiian residents could register births using an affidavit only. If Obama was born outside the Hawaii, and a relative sent an affidavit that he was born in Hawaii, the mere fact that the document was filed with the registrar would have generated the newspaper announcement.There was no mechanism to really determine whether a person was born in Hawaii or not.
Therefre, cannot use the newspaper announcement as a proof of Hawaiian birth.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 10:39 pm

Adoption seals the original birth certificate. How convenient – if Obama was born outside the country.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 10:43 pm

Well, no problem then. He's shown his BC and Hawaii affirms he was born there. Add to that 2 newspaper announcements and a witness and that pretty well ends that. You, on the other hand, only have an if. Not enough to get any kind of discovery. So, now you can sleep better tonight knowing that Obama is our legally elected President.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 10:47 pm

Proof? Otherwise you're spitting into the wind again NC. Of course, then you'd have to show the affidavit. You can't say there was one without proving it. Then you need to prove that's what was used in Obama's case. You ready to prove all that, or is this another of your unsubstantiated theories with no basis in fact?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 10:55 pm

Your assumption is that COLB was issued as an official state document. I am not willing to accept that assumption, yet.

Nothing is proved by the existence of an image (.jpg file) posted on the web. It is not an oficial document or proof of anything.

If a physical COLB document (NOT an electronic copy) is submitted to the court – than it is a different story.

At this point we are speculating about a photo image of an alleged COLB.
Who has seen the actual physical document?


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 10:59 pm

Officials at the State of Hawaii are the ones who've said Obama was born there. Are you calling them liars NC? Why is it you believe anonymous message board crap over state officials willing to stand up and state that fact? They aren't hiding, they've stood front and center and said he was born there. BTW, do you know what a BC is? Can you define it?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 11:16 pm

He understood the question very well. I did – and I am not a native English speaker either.
You can dismiss circumstantial evidence all you want. There are too many of those just to be a mere coincidence. What happened to the college records?

The simplest way to prove Obama's birtplace on US oil would be a release of a certified copy of his long form birth certificate, indicating that he was born in the Kapiolani hospital.
When it is so simple to resolve the issue, why would Obama go to such great lengths to prevent the discovery? Why spend big bucks on lawyers, a simple request from the President to Hawaii DoH would be enough to authorize them to issue this document.
His unwillingness to go this route indicates that something is not quite right with this document – does it exist?


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 11:23 pm

The problem is that there is VERY little circustantial evidence. All you've shown are guesses, nothing to back them up. A lot of if's but nothing to show your conclusions are any good. You could make up any theory, but without any proof all of your theories are worth less than useless. Your imagination is worthless in a court of law. No one in a free society like ours should ever be open to having their lives torn apart because of empty rhetoric. You've proven nothing, you get nothing…as per the constitution and laws of this country.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

I was merely saying that it is not possible to claim with 100% certainty that newspaper announcements truly mean that Obama was born in Hawaii.

The other scenario is plausible – we cannot prove it because documents are hidden from public.

Similarly, you cannot prove that Obama was born in Hawaii without seeing the original long form birth certificate.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 11:31 pm

Nope, you just don't want to believe evidence. You've not offered anything close to those 2 newspaper announcements. NOTHING. And yet, a lot of if's and maybe's carry a ton of weight in your mind. That just proves you've pre-judged and executed without worrying about proof. All you've shown is you aren't really an american citizen, just a scared rabbit hiding in a hole.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 11:34 pm

Yes.
Dr. Fukino is a liar, so is her PR person Janice Okubo.That is my conclusion after reading their correspondence with people asking for information under the Hawaiian UIPA laws. It is obvious that they are not doing an honest job of complying with that law.
Do not trust my word, you can read it yourself – emails are posted on Donofrio's web blog.


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 11:37 pm

And no government official has ever disagreed with a private citizen about what a law states? Happens all the time all across the country. That's why we have the courts, to sort it out equitably and evenly and follow the law. Just because they disagree with your interpretation, doesn't automatically make someone a liar, does it NC. Or are you somehow more privileged?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 11:41 pm

Read emails between people asking for DoH information and DoH officials Dr. Fukino and Janice Okubo.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10…

We cannot take everything public officials say at face value. Their claims must be verified.
Few years ago many high ranking government officials claimed (“it is a slam dunk case”) that Iraq had WMDs?
Fortunately in this case we do not have to invade a foreign country to come up with a conclusive evidence whether Obama is an eligible for US presidency or not.


right-wing hysteria du jour « ATLmalcontent
Pingback posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:51 am

[...] congressman Trent Franks, a birther, called Obama “an enemy of humanity.” His spokesperson later clarified: Franks meant [...]


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 11:51 pm

I wish that your “evidence” is presented in a court of law. What are you and other Obama supporters afraid of? If his story is true, the court will verify it in no time. Send an attorney armed with court order to examine Obama's birth records with DoH and let the court decide whether he was indeed born in Hawaii.

Why are Dems against the law to require official verification of eligibility, starting with 2012 elections?


Jim
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 11:55 pm

We're afraid of the laws of our country? You want to break laws to remove the President who swore to uphold the laws? On your sayso of something is amiss because you have no proof, just because you think so? Who the hell made you king almighty?


Anonymous
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 4:56 am

US public must be sure that the person sitting in the White House is 100% eligible for the office.
It is a matter of national security.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 4, 2009 @ 11:56 pm

Read their emails. There is a factual error regarding divorce records on file with DoH.
It has come to the point where you need to parse their carefully worded statements in the same spirit of the famous one: “it depends on what your definition of is is” It is a shame that long form birth certificate is hidden from public and people have to resort to UIPA laws to pry the information from public officials.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:00 am

That's simply not true that a relative could register his birth. The HI law
says it has to be either the parent or the person themselves (as an adult.)

Besides that, don't you see how desperately you are striving to create a
scenario where there are these imaginary “could have's” and “might have's”
when in fact there's no reason for you to believe any of it? Why are all
these speculative scenarios suddenly being applied to Obama when they've
never applied to any other President in the past? (most of whom never showed
a birth certificate at all)

Think maybe it has something to do with the color of his skin? Maybe that
explains the weird double standard being applied to him? Maybe?


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:01 am

It's a shame your delusional…but entertaining. All you've been is a blowhard. No evidence, then “show me the long form!”


mystylplx
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:04 am

” Why are Dems against the law to require official verification of
eligibility, starting with 2012 elections?”

Personally I have no problem with that proposal, though I'm just wondering
if you realize if that passes Obama would just show his BC that he's already
shown and the law would be satisfied.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:10 am

You would be a good advocate for Scott Peterson and similar criminals where there was no “smoking gun” evidence.
“nobody saw him doing it – Peterson just went fishing”

Obama's campaign web site listed two different hospitals as place of his birth. First it was Queens Hospital then Kapiolani. Why? Another honest mistake?
Same with the Kenyan ambassador. He misspoke.
College records – sealed; cannot verify whether he registered as a US citizen or foreigner.
Passport used to travel to Pakistan – information sealed.

There is no need for my imagination in the court of law. All we need is an attorney armed with court order to examine Obama's records on file with DoH. Why would you be against such thing. After all you could conclusively prove his case, without need for any speculation.


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:14 am

My right to privacy. If you can do this to the President with nothing by wild speculation, forged documents, and unprovable theories, what next? No, I prefer our laws over your imagination…any day of the week.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:18 am

Obama did not show BC. We have an electronic file (*.jpg) posted on a friendly web site as a “proof”.
Why is he not sending the physical copy of the COLB document to the court?
If the law requires that you have to show the long form birth certificate, the COLB would not be sufficient. That is the reason why Dems are against it.


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:24 am

The best answer in the world…NO COURT HAS ASKED FOR IT! And, calling Hawaii officials stating he was born there liars is very disingenuous.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:26 am

Which laws did I advocate to be broken?
I do not want to remove the president – I want to confirm his eligibility. We as voters have the right to know whether people on the ballot are eligible or not.


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:30 am

Well, that's great! I'm glad to see you're finally coming around. We had a wonderful preliminary bout in both the Republican and Democratic party. Then, we had an election. In all that time, it was accepted Obama was an NBC. Now he's sworn in an our legal President. Nice and neat, no dumb theories or half-assed lies. Now, I recommend you work for 2012 and try to get someone else elected if you don't want him there again.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:32 am

What is delusional in the simple request for the long form birth certificate?
Read emails from DoH and tell me if they are being honest or trying to confuse and mislead the public?


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:34 am

Why do you need to see it?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:42 am

Indeed why is there a double standard?
Other presidents and presidential candidates released much more biographical information than Obama. Why? Is he using a color of his skin to avoid public scrutiny?

Do you think that Bush was thrilled that a pictures of him as a cheerleader at Yale were posted on the web. He looked like a clown. His grades were not stellar – yet we could see them and make out own judgment.
McCain was fifth from the bottom of his class. He had a lot of negative publicity about his personal life (divorce and new marriage),…

And you are complaining about request for Obama's long form birth certificate.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:46 am

Read DoH emails on Donofrio's web site and then complain about my qualification. They lied about material facts related to the UIPA request for information.


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:46 am

NO, I'm complaining about you thinking you're somehow special and entitled to it. If you think you can do that to the President, when will some kook use those same arguments to come after me. Why should I give up my privacy for your delusions? Why don't you like our laws and constitution?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:49 am

“Other presidents and presidential candidates released much more
biographical information than Obama. Why? Is he using a color of his skin to
avoid public scrutiny?”

I'm sorry, but you are so full of crap we could build a methane plant around
you and solve the worlds energy problems.

Obama has released far more biographical information than nearly any prior
President. That includes TWO biographical books, AND (importantly for this
discussion) he has released his birth certificate (unlike the majority of
former Presidents.)

So I ask again, why the weird lies (on your part) and double standard?


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:50 am

Again, that's your OPINION. Calling them liars is not the same as misstating laws.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:54 am

Are you serious?
First eligibility lawsuit was raised several months before the elections. Not everyone was drinking Obama Kool Aid.
There was also a breach of procedure when the electoral collage votes were called.
VP Chenney was supposed to call for objections but he did not. This procedure was mentioned by the DoJ lawyers in their motion to dismiss
Orly's case in front of judge Carter.
According to DoJ lawyers this was the proper venue to challenge Obama's eligibility.


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:59 am

BWAHAHAHAHA, A blower asking me if I'M kidding!!! Lot's of luck on getting thrown out by Carter. I'm going to enjoy reading another “Blower Beatdown”!


Anonymous
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 6:00 am

The following link contains a snapshot I was talking about.
http://www.theobamafile.com/_eligibility/IssueHospitals.htm

You need to scroll down, it is posted under title “Barack Obama’s Website Claims Queen’s Hospital”


Anonymous
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 6:08 am

Are you serious?!?!?

That’s some random blogger from Obama’s site. He set his site up as a
personal networking site and let anyone sign up and post blog posts. I had
an account myself, though I never blogged there.

OK, I suppose technically it did say that on his site, but that’s not the
same as if he said it himself, or as if the site officially said it.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 7:21 am

If this was a lone example of the Queens hospital listed as a place of birth, I could agree with you that it was a mistake that some blogger made.
When you see it in multiple sources, it is a different scenario. Obama claimed in his book that he had his original birth certificate, so how could this mistake be made? For some reason the story changed and I have no explanation.
This is another reason why I think that the long form birth certificate is needed to remove any doubts and clear previous erroneous claims.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 2:57 am

So, Obama planned his own adoption because he knew that, not only would he run for president in 2008, but that there would be birfers as well.

I swear…sometimes it's like you insult yourself so the rest of us don't have to.


thesheriffsani
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 3:22 am

921 comments now, and the uppity negro is still the President of our United States of America.


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 3:29 am

I don't know, but I'd say they're trying to get in their final shots before the beatdowns this week. Last dying breath, maybe?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 4:12 am

Hey! That's MR. Uppity Negro to you, bub…;)


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 4:21 am

Who controlled the content of those books? He is only 47 and already wrote two books about himself? Was he stitching the biography so that others would not be digging into his past?
Where is the supporting evidence that independent researchers (historians) could use to verify claims from his books? Hidden from public!
Where are the pictures of Obama during his college days? How come that the media is not using the same scrutiny that other presidential candidates have been exposed to? Is it the color of his skin that gets him pass with the MSM? Do they still feel tingling in their legs when Obama reads the teleprompter?
How did Obama become a “constitutional law scholar” without publishing a SINGLE law paper? Let me help you with an answer – affirmative action.

I am not complaining about media scrutiny applied to GOP candidates. Lets use the same rules of engagement when dealing with Democrats.


borderraven
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 4:21 am

There is an ongoing effort to verify President Obama’s claim of a birth in Hawaii. You will want to go to http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ and scroll to the beginning to see the process.

Now you may have seen a document displayed at FactCheck.org, claiming it is a “CERTIFICATE”. Birth certificates are, or in 1961 where, the first and original form document used to record a live birth. FactCheck.org, is displaying a “CERTIFICATION”, that contains sparse data which has been transcribed from the original certificate. BTW — The CERTIFICATION displayed on FactCheck, may be on file with the Registrar, but it has NOT been ACCEPTED BY THE REGISTRAR, because it is being AMENDED.

The “half-truth” is that FactCheck.org, did in fact handle a real and genuine document called a certification, but the other half of the truth is they never saw nor touched a birth certificate.

See
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09…

The fact that this swindle or theft of the voter’s minds affected millions of gullible fools, has put the USA, into a perilous position. But, fortunately for Obama, is the adoration his voters have for him.

OBTW—How did Obama’s name get on the ballot? Well, thank Nancy Pelosi, for individually signing and sending two different versions of the “certificate of nomination” to the 50 states, but only the document sent to Hawaii, declared the candidates met constitutional qualifications for POTUS.

But wait, what about the Electoral College vote held in January 2009? Well per 3USC15, the President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, was supposed to call for objections, but he failed to do so.

So, the good news is that We the People, now have standing in the Federal courts to challenge all of the government failures which allowed Obama to be POTUS.


A pivotal day will be Monday October 5, 2009, in Santa Ana, CA, as Federal Court, Judge David O. Carter, decides to either dismiss KEYES v OBAMA, or proceed on the merits and grant We the People of the USA with discovery. Word of decision expected before 12 Noon PST. MSM is not expected to attend or report, but the blogs will.

http://bit.ly/sl8pW

Should Judge Carter deny motion to dismiss, expect defense to appeal.

IMPORTANT – Donofrio – Terri Tickly Reveal New HI COLB Information
http://bit.ly/IfSka
http://misstickly.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/our-…


October 3, 2009 at 7:01 PM

MP3: Leo Donofrio on The Liberty Pole with Ken Dunbar 2009-10-02

– is here: http://sovereign-economist.com/

Faster backup link: http://tinyurl.com/yeagdga (The link will expire in 7 days.)

2h:53m, 25MB
>>>>Now archived at: http://sovereign-economist.com/


Obots will be dancing in the streets tomorrow….


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 4:43 am

This is not about me or any other ordinary US citizen. Those seeking the highest office in the USA should be willing to provide the evidence of eligibility.
Media gave no privacy to Joe the Plumber when they published his tax records.
How come that they do not respect the privacy of ordinary citizens – yet a presidential candidate can hide the original birth certificate and the MSM is not calling him on that?
Obama talked about being born in the Kapiolani Hospital, even sent a letter to them confirming it – how would his right to privacy be violated if the long form birth certificate is released? It would only confirm what Obama publicly and voluntarily disclosed himself. I think that this has been affirmed in many judicial rulings.
Why is Obama held to a lower standard?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 5:52 am

What is the name of Obama's birth hospital? There are two candidates. Queeens hospital and Kapiolani
Internet has been scrubbed of a lot of things that have been posted in the past. Some data has been saved: Queens Hospital reported as birthplace:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaQueens…
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaBornQu…
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/SnopesSaysQ…
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/UPIFirstSai…

After Obama sent letter to Kapiolani in January 2009:
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/ObamaHospit…

http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/SnopesNowSa…

Isn't it odd that there is a confusion about the birth hospital particularly when person wrote two books about his life. And they could not get the story straight.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 6:04 am

Some news sources got the hospital wrong early on. So what's your point? You
had been dishonestly claiming he himself had said it on his web site. (And
no, the UPI article doesn't quote him as saying it–they added that part
in.)

And nope. There's nothing odd at all about there being confusion on some
peoples part (early on) about what hospital he was born in. He doesn't write
about that in his books because… guess what? He was a baby and doesn't
remember.

Other than that you are still just playing the speculation game. You seem
constitutionally unable to understand the difference between facts, reality,
and your own speculations. This is a common trait among birthers.
Ironically, if you were to display the same kind of confusion between
speculation and truth in other areas of life you'd probably be diagnosed a
schizophrenic and institutionalized, but for some reason people are given a
pass if politics is involved.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 11:18 am

A news source got it wrong. Another news source and a blogger copied the
first news source. If that’s the best you can do (and it is) then you should
be asking yourself what the hell you are doing. Desperately clinging to
stuff like that just shows that you aren’t interested in the truth, facts,
or reality. You are trying WAY too hard to invent an issue that doesn’t
exist.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 6:19 am

Obama's tax records have also been published.

And you still don't get it. Obama could care less if his long form comes
out. He's not even thinking about it–larger issues on his plate. The
privacy issue is for all Americans–that's why HI can't, by law, release the
certificate. My guess is Obama could get them to do it if he bothered, but
like I said, he's got other things on his mind.

Plus it would be a bad idea to be seen capitulating to nutjobs throwing
tantrums. He's the President. He's got to deal with terrorists and
such–imagine how that would play for the world to see that a few nutcases
throwing a group tantrum can get him to do what they want.

So if it comes out some other way then it's all good. Personally I hope
Carter does order discovery. I think it's unlikely, but I hope he does. Not
that it would shut up the birthers, but it would shut up some of them,
anyway.

Most birthers will, of course, just claim the long form is a forgery too.


AXJ
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 6:54 am

* Expand ?
* Guest
* blogblog

Lawyer 4 days ago
It is extremely clear to the great majority of persons in this nation and the world that neither the Obama administration, nor the State of Hawai’i, are even attempting to be trustworthy or honest in their dealings. I’ve never in all my long life witnessed such an obvious group of amateur deception artists working in any state’s government as “The Three Hawai’ian Stooges”, Fukino, Okubo, and Lingle. Many millions of Americans know full well that everyone involved in this massive deception, fraud, and sham will eventually be duly exposed, removed from their positions, prosecuted, and imprisoned. “It can’t happen”, you say? Be patient, justice, like a house fire, usually begins with a spark, then, before anyone realizes it, quickly achieves an unstoppable momentum. Very soon, the events of the Watergate scandal will seem miniscule by comparison. Barack “Pinocchio” Obama and his gang are foolishly attempting to hide his entire background from the Citizens of these United States – it will not work – we will not stop making inquiries and conducting investigations until we know every factual detail! As dripping water wears away stone, so shall we the people dissolve Obama’s facade. I predict that after every scintilla of hidden information has been publicly exposed and the evil doers are finally placed on trial, all those involved in the great Obama deception will suddenly develop horrible cases of Tourette’s syndrome, loud outbursts of profanity will accompany each and every breath they take. The first rat to jump ship, go to the authorities, and confess the whole truth will be given immunity, the remainder will rightfully be carted away to prison in government issued orange garments and silver accessories. GOD BLESS AMERICA!


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:00 pm

And, other than a few individuals with an agenda, the public is satisfied. So, thanks for agreeing that Obama is our legal President.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 7:11 am

The second link is a snapshot of an article published in 2004. What is your definition of “early on”?

He claimed in the “Dreams from my Father” that he had the original birth certificate in his hands. That document should have contained the name of the hospital, if his story of Kapiolani birth is to be believed. He was not a baby at that time.

Long form birth certificate, where is it?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 11:14 am

2004 would certainly fit my definition of “early on” in this context. And
please at least TRY to be real. He found his BC when he was MUCH younger.
Why would you assume he would remember the name of the hospital?

Besides, he's never said it was anything other than Kiapolani. So where is
your issue?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 11:14 am

Idiots quoting morons. What is the world coming to?


thesheriffsani
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 11:28 am

Personally, I call him Sheriff Bart. ;)


thesheriffsani
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 11:28 am

Pfft. As if getting shot down for the 13,347th time is going to stop them.


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 11:48 am

Now, borderraven, didn't you shoot yourself down a couple of days ago in this thread? Did you not show Obama is our legal president? Now you want to hawk some wild theory again? No clicks on wild blower delusions, you don't have anything…as always.


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 11:52 am

I like how overnight the blowers have been busy trying to get someone to click on their useless links. They have no evidence, so they now have to hide to try and get anyone to believe their BS. Do not bother clicking on their links, just wild theories and forged documents…if they really had anything it'd be on FOX. Hohum, blowers only have each other to impress now with their lack of knowledge.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:30 pm

AXJ (channeling Orly): “and the evil doers are finally placed on trial”

Mermaid Man: EVIL, EEEVIILLL! ! !


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 12:33 pm

BTW, Border, I'm still waiting for you to show the in the law, the constitution, or SCOTUS opinions where it is required that NBC be born of 2 citizens. Unless, of course, you've come to the realization that you were just making it up. I assume that since you've shown up again, you've got more than BS…but I also know that would assume you've got a brain to realize when you're wrong.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

Thanks for illuminating your motives; You’re right, Bush & McCain were to all outward appearances clowns & losers and now it’s time for someone to redress the imbalance in perception. Finally your imperative to undermine POTUS makes a little sense…


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 5:57 pm

Judge Carter to Orly about Obama testifying…”He doesn't remember being born”.

On break now…can't wait to get the whole transcript.


Empirical
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

-Form Birth Certificate
Jim
Today, 01:57 PM
Judge Carter to Orly about Obama testifying…”He doesn't remember being born”.

On break now…can't wait to get the whole transcript. Read more…

______________________________

OF COURSE he doesn't remember being born………!!! That's not news……!!!

He can still be made to testify about the many relevant records which he is hiding from the court……….


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 6:44 pm

Except, you have to prove he's hiding something. Not just theories and wild accusations, some proof would be nice. And, since we've seen all you have to offer, that's not going to happen.


Empirical
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 6:52 pm

The fact that his records have ALL been sealed raises a basis for the court to seek out an explanation………. That's all the court needs…… (At this time.) There is likely to be much more 'exploration' an that later……..


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 7:04 pm

Nope, they need proof of wrongdoing, not proof of wrongheadedness by empirical.


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 7:07 pm

11:43 am Pst The ruling- Motion to Dismiss will undergo further review by Justice Carter. No order for discovery.

ALL RIGHT!!! That means he'll give a written decision. This will be fun.


Empirical
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 7:27 pm

I have not seen the briefs … nor was I present in Court to hear the argument,,,,,,,

But, “Jim” (in his line of discussion previous) is contending that the “proof” must be presented at this point in time — before the case has even been tried……….

NOT SO……….. The allegations must merely be sufficiently supported to the
satisfaction of the judge … to justify further litigation…….. The “judgement” does not occur before the litigation has been given a chance to reach a fair verdict or “settlement.”

Let's all try to pursue facts, data and justice … while we put an end to the hyperbole of ACORN propaganda……… “Jim” may not think that there is any 'proof' to be offered to the court, but his rush to judgement before 'even discovery' as been allowed … is ACORN style law — not Constitutional law…….


RedGraham
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

Find the latest on today's hearing!
http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.com/2009/10/k…


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 7:51 pm

There is no case to be tried you incredible idiot. You have to have something to even get the ball rolling to even start the preliminary before you even get to the case. You, again, show you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about Empirinut, and I appreciate your efforts every time you add to your stupidity. Now, Judge Carter has done just what I wanted him to do. Instead of going ahead and ruling that there is no standing and it is thrown out, he is waiting to give a written response. It lets you blowers get all excited and think you've finally got something, and gives us a couple more days of watching you fall all over yourselves proving your delusional stupidity. Win-win for all the rest of us.


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

Page not found
Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog Give Us Liberty does not exist


chrisjay
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

Gosh, when Obama is frogmarched out of the oval office and deported to Kenya, I guess Senator Lindsey Graham is going to have to apologize for calling you Birfers “CRAZY” last week in comments to the assembled media. Will you accept his apology? Maybe you should file briefs to pursue HIS longform BC! I mean, it's gonna pretty anti-climactic when you've dispensed of POTUS—I bet you haven't given much thought to where you're gonna go from there…You'll certainly have some leverage in congress after your victory; I can see it now Senator McCarthy:”I have in my hand a list of politicians and military officers who are actually NOT citizens…” Rock on Birfers!!


chrisjay
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 8:08 pm

All Birfers please visit this website:

http://www.lickmytaintz.com


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

His records have not been sealed. His records are private, just like everyone's records are private. There has been no special act of sealing the records. Obama has posted and shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it have been confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 8:14 pm

Obama has always said that he was born at Kapiolani. Only one news agency got the facts wrong, and it has since corrected the story. Obama was born at Kapiolani.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 8:16 pm

He lost it. So he asked Hawaii for a copy. Hawaii send out the only birth certificate that it sends out these days, the Certification of Live Birth. That is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it have been confirmed twice by the authorities in Hawaii.


Empirical
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 8:19 pm

GOOD…….. If they are not sealed, they can be subpoenaed…!!!

Cheerio……. (Nevertheless, I believe it is a fact that some have been sealed……..)


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

But, first, you have to prove you have some sort of rights to them. Which, you never will. Without proof of any wrongdoing, you'll be spitting into the wind…again. But, I must warn you, Orly's running out of money very quickly and may not be able to keep up your fight. I recommend that you rush right over to her site and donate $10,000 so she can keep this up for you. Wait, better make that $20,000…she needs to pay the court in Georgia, needs a couple of new wigs, some makeup, and a couple of real nice outfits for court.


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

Here you go, try this one instead…

http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/05…

“Gary Kreep, who along with Mission Viejo’s Orly Taitz is representing the plaintiffs, said the nature of Carter’s questions to attorneys on both sides lessened his confidence that the judge would allow the case to go to trial.”

See, a real lawyer on your side can see the writing on the wall, but the rest of you blowers will continue your dog and pony show and keep us entertained.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 8:36 pm

Even if they were sealed they could be subpoenaed. You will have to
subpoena them from Hawaii, of course, because that is where they are. And, when
you get them, they will show that Obama was born in Hawaii, as the official
birth certificate shows, as the two officials of Hawaii confirm, as the
birth notices in the newspaper confirm.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 10:28 pm

You've posted a lot of incorrect ramblings on this board, but this is by far the most incorrect of them all. You have absolutely no knowledge of the court system and when you post, the only thing you do is show your constant ignorance.

It seems like birfers get more and more stupid every day.


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 10:33 pm

Steve_X, wait a minute. Some of his/her others have been pretty bad. I mean, when you have absolutely zero understanding of the law, constitution, or separation of powers, you've pretty completely missed the boat. We should switch around and start praising him when he gets something right. I realize that may be only one statement out of 1000, but what the heck, he doesn't care about anything other than his delusion…might as well encourage him to learn something rather than be a pawn.


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 10:39 pm

3 to 1 odds, AXJ is on here tonight claiming that Judge Carter will grant discovery sometime tomorrow.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

“The fact that his records have ALL been sealed raises a basis for the court
to seek out an explanation………. “

The fact you keep claiming his records have been sealed raises a basis for
sane people to question your honesty. Nothings been specially sealed for him
that isn't sealed for all Americans.


Empirical
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 11:32 pm

Now … you may think the story I forward below is unrelated to the subject we are discussing……… But … I submit it is “on point” as a description of the kind of (ACORN-like??) commentary we are getting — repeated over and over again, like a broken record — in this space……… The dialogue is closed minded and bureaucratic and knee jerk … like the story below…………

The Indian Weather Bureau

It's late fall and the Indians on a remote reservation in South Dakota asked their new chief if the coming winter was going to be cold or mild.

Since he was a chief in a modern society, he had never been taught the old secrets. When he looked at the sky, he couldn't tell what the winter was going to be like.

Nevertheless, to be on the safe side, he told his tribe that the winter was indeed going to be cold and that the members of the village should collect firewood to be prepared.

But, being a practical leader, after several days, he got an idea. He went to the phone booth, called the National Weather Service and asked, 'Is the coming winter going to be cold ?'

'It looks like this winter is going to be quite cold,' the meteorologist at the weather service responded.

So the chief went back to his people and told them to collect even more firewood in order to be prepared

A week later, he called the National Weather Service again. 'Does it still look like it is going to be a very cold winter?'

'Yes,' the man at National Weather Service again replied, 'it's going to be a very cold winter.'

The chief again went back to his people and ordered them to collect every scrap of firewood they could find.

Two weeks later, the chief called the National Weather Service again. 'Are you absolutely sure that the winter is going to be very cold.'

'Absolutely,' the man replied. 'It's looking more and more like it is going to be one of the coldest winters we've ever seen.'

'How can you be so sure? What signs tell you that?' the chief asked.

The weatherman replied, 'The Indians are collecting firewood like crazy..

Like the indians: some of you on this list just keep repeating the same misinformation, gathering the same firewood and talking to the same weather bureau…….. You are sooooo confident that ALL the judges will behave like the weather bureau bureaucrat in the story above……. BUT…….

There will come one judge who will not be a weather bureau bureaucrat……. He will look for the 'empirical' evidence — rather than the evidence provided by Obama's thugs, the firewood collectors……. A judge who will question…… A judge who will examine a President that is determined NOT to be examined, empirically….

Why???? That judge will ask … is it so difficult for the President (AND THE DNC) TO GO ON THE RECORD — UNDER OATH — AND 'PROVE' (“CERTIFY,” WHICH THE DNC WOULD NOT DO????) THAT OBAMA IS CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED…………?????

Clearly, that is what was intended by the founding fathers…….!!!


AXJ
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 11:35 pm

According to AXJ looks like Judge Carter has granted discovery…Obama packing for Kenya… http://www.axjus.com


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 11:48 pm

Well, looks like I won that bet folks. Not exactly, of course, but I did say he would claim Judge Carter would grant discovery. Thanks for being so predictable, AXJ. LOL


Jim
Comment posted October 5, 2009 @ 11:57 pm

Nice story, not like I read it though. As you slowly fade away to exactly where you belong…nowheresville. Judges should follow the laws and not your delusions…exactly as they've been doing. Clearly, the founding fathers saw idiots like you coming 200+ years away, and they wrote the constitution to prevent a small class of delusionists the forum to air their rantings. For that, we have the web. Thanks for playing.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:16 am

Thanks for the story Empirical. It's a perfectly on point description of
birther arguments. When asked why such a higher standard of proof is being
asked of Obama, birthers reply, “No other President has had such doubts
about his eligibility.” When asked why the doubts? birthers reply, “Because
so many people are questioning it!”

So birthers doubt his eligibility because so many are questioning it, and
question it because they doubt his eligibility. And around and round we
go…

Why do you think we keep asking you for facts and evidence besides the
continual circular argument that people question it because there are
doubts, and doubt it because there are questions?


Empirical
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:17 am

Re: Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should Release Long-Form Birth Certificate
AXJ
Today, 07:35 PM
According to AXJ looks like Judge Carter has granted discovery…Obama packing for Kenya… http://www.axjus.com Read more

Now all of you (ACORN) folks……… Don't take it so hard……….

JOE BIDEN WILL MAKE A GREAT PRESIDENT……….

Cheerio………..


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:22 am

As I predicted he would say over an hour ago. Even though the Judge ruled no such thing. AXJ and Empirimess are now heading toward the desperate train, trying anything they can to feel better about themselves…because the sane world knows they make up stuff.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:37 am

You called it. But then that's a bit like “calling it” that the sun will
come up in the morning.

Reminds of the old Sparks song–

You're gonna take a walk in the rain
And you're gonna get wet
(I predict)

You're gonna eat a bowl of chow mein
And be hungry real soon
(I predict)


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:40 am

LOL thanks mysty, that puts it into perspective. Besides, anti-birthers are too darn smart…didn't get a bit of action.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:43 am

Birthers are nothing if not predictable. ;)


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:51 am

Hey, I got $100 says when Carter dismisses the case AXJ and Empirical will
start claiming someone got to him, he was pressured into it, or paid off.
Any takers?


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 1:14 am

Re: “Clearly, that is what was intended by the founding fathers…….!!!'

That would indicate that all the previous presidents, all 43, had not done something that the “founding fathers” wanted them to do. Did you see proof that Hoover was constitutionally qualified, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, etc, etc?

In fact, Obama HAS proved it. He was the first and so far the only President to have proved that he was born in America. He did it by posting and showing the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, which was confirmed by the two officials in Hawaii.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 6:13 am

A sitting president cannot obtain the long form birth certificate?
Are you kidding me? He can sign orders to send troops to war, yet Hawaiian DoH is off the limits to him?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 6:17 am

What is your definition of a “natural born citizen”?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 6:37 am

” A sitting president cannot obtain the long form birth certificate?”

I'm sure he could if he were willing to sidestep the rules, and if he was
even paying attention to this nonsense.

A better question would be, why should he? He's already proven his
eligibility more than any prior President in history, and capitulating to
nutjobs is not a good idea for a sitting President. He's got to deal with
potential terrorists and things like suicide bombers… what kind of message
would it send if he bends over for some tantrum throwing whackjobs?


bumpskier
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 6:53 am

The requirements to be President are:

1. At least 35 years old.
2. Resided in the United States for at lest 14 years.
3. Be a natural-born U.S. citizen.

Obama qualifies for the first two… but the 3rd one… now there seems to be some doubt.

Read on:

I am wondering… since, let's say a registered nurse applies for a new job, he or she must some documentation proving that he or she is eligible. Same for a truck driver or any driver for that matter… we all have to show ID, licenses, permits, etc. from time to because laws and rules say so. I am just wondering if Obama has provided his “actual birth certificate” to the right personnel and who would that be? You know for the best country in the world we can be quite lame sometimes. If Obama would just assert himself and show his birth certificate, then that would make many skeptics or 'birthers' go away. Has he done that yet? I mean rules are rules…

I am not saying he was born outside the United States… I'm just saying there appears to be some doubt as to weather Obama has provided his actual birth certificate to the appropriate people.

Patriotically, J. Kramer

P.S. Allegedly, Obama has shown or allowed his birth certificate to be in the hands of the folks at FactCheck.org – but is that the way all presidents or presidential candidates should do it? Is FactCheck the governing body that accepts or rejects such documents? Is Obama refusing to be forthright on such a matter?


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

Same as the legal definition…born a citizen. Why? You got something different than the SCOTUS?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 7:25 am

“I am not saying he was born outside the United States… I'm just saying
there appears to be some doubt as to weather Obama has provided his actual
birth certificate to the appropriate people.”

There is only doubt among morons. And as I said in an earlier post, the
excuse they give for this doubt is that there are questions among the
morons. The reason there are questions is there appears to be some doubt.

It's all very circular and meaningless. Take away the circular meaningless
opinions of morons and we are left with a President who has objectively
proven his eligibility more than any prior President in the history of this
country. But the morons will continue to doubt, and use the doubt as an
excuse to question, and the questions as an excuse to doubt….


bumpskier
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 8:05 am

From Disqus Tue Oct 6 07:25:23 2009
X-Apparently-To: skitahoe93@yahoo.com via 68.180.197.173; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:25:26 -0700
Return-Path: <>
X-YMailISG: dMASrlUWLDuEUgUr_21wB.aTpD40HhOi6SDXe3naWO_NxPlhSYt2sTUqPSqYfugvPM1_KJ_4cDya3vdjLjX2rwvQc41wYlNrudrrRKSwA1uEd2f2B8.71ZnPJ.nJBxU1Seu7ajuZfEWBMRu6s7b1vGPfwtwRXAZmYGQTOi_MXQcXDhs2U.GCrVSMiVSJrecqp6v5sC20PgNPv9U6M.kK.iCNj0DOITTKH9Yn1sa566v3gzUB_78UIetBhtpxeVpUjTG2vkz3TLcipmY4M2UGFdeq75.GKom45F2dylVL4Nj3oWFL.DrFEPjxcRtOfazv1SsF7qSBYzdYOAjLxmpT7Ts4RYDKEicz6lBhncM.yHOPlGL8tGkp6xIzqjo7B5PuLbh4T086P6OAPiajqtcu5hYe.0OJQ_yeBQ9tGQ–
X-Originating-IP: [67.228.244.115]
Authentication-Results: mta1003.mail.sp2.yahoo.com from=disqus.net; domainkeys=pass (ok); from=disqus.net; dkim=pass (ok)
Received: from 127.0.0.1 (EHLO disqus.net) (67.228.244.115)
by mta1003.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:25:26 -0700
Received: from disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F323870173F
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 07:25:23 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id; s=notif; bh=xh4eYndF4dkNWDqmj0N0UOMsiV0=; b=sPV0ZZQ
50p85F4DQKiJokhYYjeZVYoigwPAe/aa+z6+jqGRxxaAS2+ulU3lU3++5tabDLfW
iMkORjvU6tu5wujtL1yjnF2kGNSfisUp+vYjHmbmHpowGkgybDkwVtPzIkqTBIel
bRsdUtLW31rXzaN9aG0TGAfQxaA1ZmAI6wfA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id; q=dns; s=notif; b=mAaCho+hHuUK4rX7PsVJXnQhb9Qxgt5n/
6ph1+0nqyXJ4uEQ9joSpF93u9k+hv9yzHLzhR/cgKLhC1mzi6HR+Ognnaex7AtNh
P/e1COnklfpQ55ciezE5LqD+tqQur67TsFuaTAPFOt1839o+hrYveIy6WgHRCUbx
Wps4Qwnl78=
Received: from rope.disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F252C70173D
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 07:25:23 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [washingtonindependent] Re: Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should Release
Long-Form Birth Certificate


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 9:53 am

Can't argue with that.

(Uh, obviously you tried to do the email reply thing and something went screwy. Don't know if you care, but just a heads up if you do–your email addy is in there.)


bumpskier
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 10:55 am

From Disqus Tue Oct 6 09:53:53 2009
X-Apparently-To: skitahoe93@yahoo.com via 68.180.197.92; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:53:54 -0700
Return-Path: <>
X-YMailISG: WwK.wL8WLDtU87O6tu9yw037V_ewa9ZXh1TiP969xvErIXy7umNHDCX_gTtdPDNLyAfwQJo15fy2Ayv_lrGUli7Qpvqrk1TgejhqW9U3d3gWtAks8GZRSdaIB8xfFAwAhsu2DW0oMUCOKr0ag9KR4hRSAmbgEw0nBjaC7Hl_Sy4m8c4xukDVlQHnXpTQ_WUsu1tsP6SlKy5AwXcSHZ53pLuTclXzNqs463PeAAupelbNvWGzcFJBIKmb9Cu5JJ004rLi_p9isNzuxM0sRsX6acux74H_p8.6pRKMp5GFfj5pJXA_CCiswrR.ZpOiUkNDo9HoeU6kohaQpWG_ljIILMq6bdxJAi.C.JHWPfHOTcOQofQcVKnSIm2zouQVY7qthFp7YEzAjO8D6jvaJKA.MqrPo2rO1Qy4_2cYQA–
X-Originating-IP: [67.228.244.115]
Authentication-Results: mta185.mail.re3.yahoo.com from=disqus.net; domainkeys=pass (ok); from=disqus.net; dkim=pass (ok)
Received: from 67.228.244.115 (EHLO disqus.net) (67.228.244.115)
by mta185.mail.re3.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:53:54 -0700
Received: from disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF91E70175D
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:53:53 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id:references; s=notif; bh=mI0+1ZKrH1K6fHIq9kvCx3L7WE8=; b=
Bp9W2mVT4ukYCW7+C9LmkePxIklXPaviTfEa4ZlNeg44/rJ4mjlVx+qiOIS5nV67
7ipXkUBysANKdeqQqMkE0xQ/Ol4UyAJQjjvsZWks7lL4o6rl7Y2bmAi+j7Mpq+mj
WOBerV35bq4WdNGVr7SUXd6lvlVR6W4pAzMe6HJWMng=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id:references; q=dns; s=notif; b=m0treulBauECo9+9/iQeKC
110Ur/7J+qwS6dwEZOuWCMFM9NWG3RaQ+WOqEN4pU0ia13GtTW8szNs2rgkve7ch
d1W/iSI31gfXAoGtgT+kEdqEd2SwP7JsCrXXUPZjxlYQ/FPOkadnn7SWpskF0hYO
HgtiUzOr8OtxZ/Y9I0bKI=
Received: from rope.disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED17E70175B
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:53:53 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [washingtonindependent] Re: Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should Release
Long-Form Birth Certificate


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:16 pm

The above is what happens when you tell a birther that Obama's long form is hidden in the corner in the Oval Office.

(Pssst… hey birthers… that's where it really is! Big sloppy kiss from Orly for whoever finds it first!)


Antibirther
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:33 pm

Yawn. . . .

Can't you come up with something else? How about another fake Kenyan birth certificate?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

I predict that someone will come forward saying that they saw Judge Carter getting a cheesburger at In-and-Out with Bill Ayers.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

I vote for another fake Kenyan birth certificate. If they do just a few more it will be worthwhile to gather them up, frame them, and call it an art exhibit. It will be very Andy Warhol. I'll make a fortune. You'll see.


bumpskier
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:58 pm

From Disqus Tue Oct 6 12:16:33 2009
X-Apparently-To: skitahoe93@yahoo.com via 68.180.197.155; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:16:33 -0700
Return-Path: <>
X-YMailISG: Zbkgo1IWLDslZznrnCPlKj90cAyIBK1aRIyeOHCzbqgmV3i9n1EzvD_W3I3lWVV3RNMXZSzcARlffWOHrKno4VuFheFGM1cAbQGxPpo3vuuTM7TVrhRXowB5KXn24r3vusxa725FWIg_qW_YW1qi4W_ZYVC1hUbwvH95IWbjB.xkR7qnHC1kQi_6iEkUJbChHcztWtb3Q_DhoEVedEIe41acI69b5IUeHz8PVnBcfOrCk8WbAKkRvfiSacn1I8aogNWLPBc5k4iDS_DXo_8MXxgRTXBys0.LfbMDmj8IDElqcaLkXbmUA8wK.DiJAZnkbAzjYRi9F1zjT9PMEBctcnOnxCco1LVu4uMyu2gtnEUjEKl_MHzJadfVU3vKXCn2MQAjoq6FyqniOXIAUZycoM4YzljZWzM3EbBxJg–
X-Originating-IP: [67.228.244.115]
Authentication-Results: mta137.mail.re3.yahoo.com from=disqus.net; domainkeys=pass (ok); from=disqus.net; dkim=pass (ok)
Received: from 67.228.244.115 (EHLO disqus.net) (67.228.244.115)
by mta137.mail.re3.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:16:33 -0700
Received: from disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30CEA7017A7
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:16:33 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id:references; s=notif; bh=Iw8i33jd9Iipvj/z3iH6Ye7LJqI=; b=
hUqt45jJRxvht9Sk5NrNFo5XD3FQ1MxQ2O5qzYiJEoLKthzUDb2dHBS3Nbl8ZLUF
XIreAW/8z7MLRh+k8aiHGlOQ4JNoM1kfJWm+39+V76LJWiSnpHgbJfLXLhSC7tdG
CWUao4fCXgeBIZGWcSU3WEQmEYNPv6hauoSr1ZqciA8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id:references; q=dns; s=notif; b=ffl2XklZNJg5sBEZ9ltQNU
2XvEUqWSVIBMzWjH9y2mhiVnuzN7tYL+TAjvUK3OZL55G6Jileug0KsADfrdONlA
ds3W+Ci23J7gAv6fYuomwVGJtxwFh5kyF91sccVkAiLgx5kwzAhYdvTNKKhZ+zcQ
7jZZBg9TZZHcvHxtl5T0I=
Received: from rope.disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FF147017A0
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:16:33 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [washingtonindependent] Re: Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should Release
Long-Form Birth Certificate


bumpskier
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 12:58 pm

From Disqus Tue Oct 6 12:33:16 2009
X-Apparently-To: skitahoe93@yahoo.com via 68.180.197.83; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:33:17 -0700
Return-Path: <>
X-YMailISG: ZjkuNb0WLDthn14fQLJ22D0wE7boBud_LS0_6n.o9Yhtl.KYzxTr0XinC2pIvRLK95UPLKWC.8D9kGsVo0IWZ0jzOGy7Ndr48irnJsR__DzWjHMYsmpWYOmHpyN02prpyP6_w1Aq8Cv_t8oeu.BzjaAmeyxJi6buMn74mkLuHIRbwh3XPYrjr_ECo3d6WM0fg8xZYgUzr6YuTiyndRXIDYoyQVkLgokuR1Q6djpEUTXbJSnjn4HcoJB_KTH.wjF8GykbItWjbafTXQ_7DLhPf7iSN0aVY2Jt13qxspGvTpKFbxe5.jMylj_fnFKZXcVp88TtIxB1Q1nGId3wGxSfiRXstASpm2pX.Odw4J6ezNBjkOh6pWrKNTLXChmsn.C80rVZpjgixktnO0QLRjn23WhgIkEXun8glYq8hXkf.RWKCXkzfShNbO4A6T9oIXE-
X-Originating-IP: [67.228.244.115]
Authentication-Results: mta178.mail.re3.yahoo.com from=disqus.net; domainkeys=pass (ok); from=disqus.net; dkim=pass (ok)
Received: from 67.228.244.115 (EHLO disqus.net) (67.228.244.115)
by mta178.mail.re3.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 05:33:16 -0700
Received: from disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8517017BA
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:33:16 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id:references; s=notif; bh=qO7n3RRM1ITNAVFfRSxoLv1bfBE=; b=
R9BNQeW77mX4X8nPfGCypXtoMlyDgvF2JyDqD+SHcGWSh8hCFZYyQe3sYXZ1QweZ
mI4tKJetBb5/4n6DSduIMHEkvGxH0OESEmY3uxh+56rgQvh2pMyf84PKtLBoA1SV
Mojz/YcWYCP3kYChUpoRWuAjrHEEnoWMr5lHz36D7Kk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id:references; q=dns; s=notif; b=QM9PUZuvWfdJUIA31ZkIGn
c8RpjHrQMj7f4kAG4Dbx4e1LTb0bnW38kGecL3fwyNoXw29IhoyX2cn+N6Dhc+Zx
f9gDP9BFXAM+nfqajEEJwV8h7ILZDfGhl8D89WvesvmuRqBBC+6TVCchZUsDXigB
FfqDqfZEPbJvI17PeoJS4=
Received: from rope.disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAB6F7017AC
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 12:33:16 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [washingtonindependent] Re: Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should Release
Long-Form Birth Certificate


Anonymous
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 6:33 pm

The rest of us have not run for the US presidency.
How are voters supposed to make decisions if the documents are sealed and the MSM is in cohuts with Obama and protects his lies.
The MSM were quict to expose private data for “Joe the plumber” and his tax records – yet something benign as long form birth certificate is somehow protected.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

Obama did not have time for the General in charge of Afganistan was for almost two months, until the 25 minutes meeting in Copenhagen (while Obama was lobbying IOC on behalf of Chicago). What kind of message does it send to potential terrorists?

When an equivalent of Cindy Sheehan appears and asks the eligibility question will the media give her/him the same exposure?


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

Well, we had like 10 other people run in the same election and they weren’t asked for so much proof. In fact, I don’t remember a single one showing their BC. Why is Obama so special to you NC?


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

You are such an incredible idiot, NC. We have soldiers on the ground that can make immediate requests via satellite back to their home bases. You don’t think Obama has had more that one video conference call with the General in all that time? Man, you keep on showing how stupid you are every time you post!


Anonymous
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 7:03 pm

One candidate was thrown off the balots in New Jersey.
Why selective application of eligibility laws?


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 7:09 pm

Sounds like the system worked fine. Why selectively deciding that the made-up facts and questionable theories are more important in your mind than actual legal documents and hard evidence? Could it be you have a personal agenda that has nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility?


Steve_X
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 2:16 pm

“There is only doubt among morons.”

I may have to borrow that phrase in the future. It describes the birfer movement to a T.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

I have no idea what you are trying to post.
You posted gibberish.
Don't use the DISCUS e-mail reply feature. it doesn't work and it exposes you e-mail address.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

Let me try this.

DON'T USE THE DISCUS E_MAIL REPLY FEATURE.

It does not work. It just posts gibberish (but you e-mail adress is clearly visible in it.

DO NOT USE THIS FEATURE.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 7:23 pm

All I know is that general sent his request for additional troops two months ago and still there is no response.
If Obama was focused on that issue, like “mystylplx” claimed, he would have answered general’s question much earlier.
Obama seems to be interested more into a celebrity aspect of being a president – rather than making hard decisions.
If he thought that general’s request for additional troops should not be granted, the USA should withdraw all troops from Afghanistan. If we are not in that war to win, there is no reason to get US soldiers killed and resources wasted.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 2:29 pm

Whooo Hooo 1000 comments. LOL


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 7:34 pm

And how many requests for troops did Bush ignore? He’s taking an overall look at the situation and, working with the generals, he will come up with what he thinks the best solution will be. Much better than just continually throwing troops at a problem. Unless, of course, you want to go down the same road as the Soviets in Afghanistan. I think I prefer Obama’s way of looking at things rather than yours, NC. That’s why we elected him and not you.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

First you said, “Why does Hawaii DoH uses different phrases on the same type
of document (COLB)?”

Then you asked, “I have pointed out to you that DoH is using two different
status qualifications on COLB documents. Why is it that Obama’s COLB says it
was Filed and it does not say that it was Accepted?”

Why are you using two different wordings? First you said “phrases,” then you
said “status qualifications.” What are you hiding? Can you answer that?

You truly are a transparently desperate moron NC. You actually think there’s
some dark hidden meaning to the fact they used slightly different language
on documents issued 40 years apart. The very fact you cling to such pathetic
BS just shows you’ve got nothing valid to cling to, so you are forced to
cling to stuff like that.

And when you do cling to meaningless stuff like that it simply illustrates
to the whole world how bankrupt and devoid of substance birther arguments
are.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

Obama has provided the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it were confirmed twice by the authorities in Hawaii.

The Wall Street Journal commented: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.

The release of the obsolete birth certificate would not “resolve the issue” to those for whom it is not already resolved. They claim without basis that today’s birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday’s is as well.”


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 3:06 pm

WSJ just provided their OPINION. They were not present at his birth, nor did they see the original long form that would explicitly mention Kapiolani as birth hospital.

Obamas COLB says “Filed by Registrar”
Nordyke Twins copy says “Accepted by Registrar”.

Why is there a difference?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

The same Bill Ayers who was the ghost author of the “Dreams From My Father”?


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 3:12 pm

YOU weren't present at the birth. So, you make up BS like it's the most amazing thing in the world. So, think about it. Why would documents created over 40 years apart say that. It makes total sense, if you stop and think about it. Why don't you try using you head for something more than a balance ball on your neck?


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 3:15 pm

Because the registrar filed Obama's COLB and a physician or hospital employee filed the Nordyke COLB. It's not brain surgery. How desperate can you be?


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 3:16 pm

And, still no proof from the blowers that Obama is not our legally elected President. A lot of hot air to say absolutely nothing from them.


bumpskier
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

From Disqus Tue Oct 6 14:46:49 2009
X-Apparently-To: skitahoe93@yahoo.com via 68.180.197.182; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:46:51 -0700
Return-Path: <>
X-YMailISG: a76RfhYWLDv6_yqgxBY1uqmxP5HEdKEdL9ZG2U7c0SYsN8hIPBJOBSZ8BsItQYwc.STS7qn20zyfCPo4MgYiiJDL_sUp5MlbH7lB3X78VdKiR9ybdPZ5S4qzsNz_Ks8wDKRG.I8bVrxIt.ygiJKPQBl5NhQh5h.bfmEJiLwd3owykGQHvXYn8tltp0bJYd2gNA5xLweyRlF9zEwXGna89iND8EY6NXK1HaWK536X9m_msftLMIRcycs_QZsrKNVVslx1T2yKYVL3KnSom7.BGxx4jWmqEA7OrfYnTH2R5_DDPQ6NSfYkh5EbFQgITIep_C3C7U_jFZds5twrpMQ4heTWb1aOjioqzQN.QgZaD2J_2oRR0_EU6e3JdV4cjo2rEU6siHCnGavvtGfP87AS1CYEQb1jSFMxVgfTkFeEG.owzXwreiQ-
X-Originating-IP: [67.228.244.115]
Authentication-Results: mta333.mail.re4.yahoo.com from=disqus.net; domainkeys=pass (ok); from=disqus.net; dkim=pass (ok)
Received: from 67.228.244.115 (EHLO disqus.net) (67.228.244.115)
by mta333.mail.re4.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:46:50 -0700
Received: from disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E782F7012C9
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:46:49 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id:references; s=notif; bh=kkXYO989hfAeIUDsMQqhJECUa1k=; b=
WX4d2it6m7HKDuy9ndmaH8zFUR6paUqDDeX1EfiolTBAwPCO6MzQEDj0DqcwntFY
nujKotT16xg0/qffk57KSO80qB8XVBjEGm4MnMQg35FAIHcMBHMD4SY9vteO51af
Fodle+M29KpMRCBxZI4hCsGMmFTkt90io8cRNB2h7WQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id:references; q=dns; s=notif; b=r3eUu8R8lzb8nDyAEUsg4K
nXrCS6uUsIh9eFrc/s6ZErP/N5iggyooryOyGr3KQUTp+h3TGsBpX0XQitCS85Fs
E/0l5LKZTk4I4OYUYxh3JXvS1NELc4XWSzSS8s7AC0FirrI9KOlWHs1+hfMRGic8
8S1Ho7SD0epk1uuwYJXMk=
Received: from rope.disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C597012D4
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:46:49 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [washingtonindependent] Re: Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should Release
Long-Form Birth Certificate


Antibirther
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

From Disqus Tue Oct 6 14:46:49 2009
X-Apparently-To: skitahoe93@yahoo.com via 68.180.197.182; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:46:51 -0700
Return-Path: <>
X-YMailISG: a76RfhYWLDv6_yqgxBY1uqmxP5HEdKEdL9ZG2U7c0SYsN8hIPBJOBSZ8BsItQYwc.STS7qn20zyfCPo4MgYiiJDL_sUp5MlbH7lB3X78VdKiR9ybdPZ5S4qzsNz_Ks8wDKRG.I8bVrxIt.ygiJKPQBl5NhQh5h.bfmEJiLwd3owykGQHvXYn8tltp0bJYd2gNA5xLweyRlF9zEwXGna89iND8EY6NXK1HaWK536X9m_msftLMIRcycs_QZsrKNVVslx1T2yKYVL3KnSom7.BGxx4jWmqEA7OrfYnTH2R5_DDPQ6NSfYkh5EbFQgITIep_C3C7U_jFZds5twrpMQ4heTWb1aOjioqzQN.QgZaD2J_2oRR0_EU6e3JdV4cjo2rEU6siHCnGavvtGfP87AS1CYEQb1jSFMxVgfTkFeEG.owzXwreiQ-
X-Originating-IP: [67.228.244.115]
Authentication-Results: mta333.mail.re4.yahoo.com from=disqus.net; domainkeys=pass (ok); from=disqus.net; dkim=pass (ok)
Received: from 67.228.244.115 (EHLO disqus.net) (67.228.244.115)
by mta333.mail.re4.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:46:50 -0700
Received: from disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E782F7012C9
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:46:49 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id:references; s=notif; bh=kkXYO989hfAeIUDsMQqhJECUa1k=; b=
WX4d2it6m7HKDuy9ndmaH8zFUR6paUqDDeX1EfiolTBAwPCO6MzQEDj0DqcwntFY
nujKotT16xg0/qffk57KSO80qB8XVBjEGm4MnMQg35FAIHcMBHMD4SY9vteO51af
Fodle+M29KpMRCBxZI4hCsGMmFTkt90io8cRNB2h7WQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id:references; q=dns; s=notif; b=r3eUu8R8lzb8nDyAEUsg4K
nXrCS6uUsIh9eFrc/s6ZErP/N5iggyooryOyGr3KQUTp+h3TGsBpX0XQitCS85Fs
E/0l5LKZTk4I4OYUYxh3JXvS1NELc4XWSzSS8s7AC0FirrI9KOlWHs1+hfMRGic8
8S1Ho7SD0epk1uuwYJXMk=
Received: from rope.disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C597012D4
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:46:49 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [washingtonindependent] Re: Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should Release
Long-Form Birth Certificate


Antibirther
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

Hey Bumpskier, your e-mail address is:

skitahoe93@yahoo.com

Thanks, I'm sure the spam bots have picked it up already.

Your nigerian millions is on its way to your bank account right now.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 4:30 pm

Another idiot birfer. Sigh…

“I am not saying he was born outside the United States… I'm just saying there appears to be some doubt as to weather Obama has provided his actual birth certificate to the appropriate people.”

Wrong. The only ones that doubt the authenticity of the COLB are morons who know nothing about the law. Under Hawaii state law, the COLB is valid proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii. Under FREv 902(1), the COLB is presumed to be valid until birfers show otherwise.

Stop lying and spreading bullshit. Being a birfer means being a fool, but you should never be a bigger fool than the good lord made you.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 9:57 pm

I would take that bet if it weren’t a sure loser. This dismissal will only make the birfer conspiracy expand even further. Pretty soon it’ll include time travel and ninjitsu.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 5:43 pm

How do you explain COLBs (not the Nordyke twins' ones) issued by Hawaii DoH saying “Accepted by Registrar” and Obama's COLB says “Filed by Registrar”
What is the difference?
Why does Hawaii DoH uses different phrases on the same type of document (COLB)?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 5:48 pm

Are you saying that Obama was not born in a hospital?


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 5:49 pm

Well, let me ask you, who is the “Registrar”?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 5:53 pm

You are the legal expert. Remember WKA and other SCOTUS citations.
You ought to know simple legal jargon, right?


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

Correct, and you've proven not to have any knowledge of our laws, constitution and courts. So, in order to answer a question from someone of your limited intelligence, I need to know how much you know and understand so I can answer on your level. So far, I have you at a 2-year-old, I need to know if I can raise my expectations.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

You are getting off topic.
Why is there a different status mentioned on COLB documents?


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 6:41 pm

What are you talking about “off-topic”? All I asked was if you knew what a “registrar” was? Is that so difficult for you to answer? If so, no explanation will be any good because you have no understanding of how birth certificates work…you'll just twist words and talk in circles, again.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

Educate us Mr. legal expert. Do not shy away from a simple question. That's what you do all the time.

I have pointed out to you that DoH is using two different status qualifications on COLB documents. Why is it that Obama's COLB says it was Filed and it does not say that it was Accepted?


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

Wait a minute, why is it that your simple questions hold more sway than my simple questions? Why must you avoid or ignore my questions? Is it because you know that if you are forced to answer my questions you will inevitably be forced to admit in your own words that Obama is a NBC and therefore legally entitled to hold the office?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 7:11 pm

You do not know the answer to my question. It is that simple. You can debate nuances of WKA and cannot tell about the difference between two terms used by the DoH?
You do not want to guess and later on be proven wrong.
It would be much simpler if the long form birth certificate is released. All this silly debate would stop. The birth hospital would be shown and Obama could prove his birthplace.


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 7:15 pm

I know exactly what it means, same as you know what it means. You just need someone to answer so you can keep talking in circles and try making something out of nothing…same as you've always done. And then, you start begging for the long form, same as you've always done…even though you know he was born there and is a NBC.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

“It would be much simpler if the long form birth certificate is released.
All this silly debate would stop. The birth hospital would be shown and
Obama could prove his birthplace.”

Now you are just lying. Coming from a guy who clings to slightly different
wording on two certificates filed 40 years apart in a desperate effort to
pretend there's some hidden proof in that slightly different wording
(wording that means the same thing) your protestation that the silly debate
would stop is clearly false. Your silly debate won't stop until 2016 (if
then.) The long form won't prove anything any more than it's already been
proven, and there's not a chance in hell you will accept it even if he
showed it to you personally.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 7:41 pm

Making fun of birfers is like picking low-hanging fruit; it's just too good to pass up.

As of right now, I'm waiting to see how these idiots will try to spin Judge Carter's order if he decides to grant the motion to dismiss.


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

Come on Steve_X…IF he grants the motion to dismiss. I guess it's OK to give the blowers a little more time to think they've got something, but he WILL grant it.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 8:29 pm

You got me confused with Obama. He is the one who is lying.
It is not 40 years difference. Read posts in the thread and you will notice that I mentioned that there are COLBs that show different status from Obama's document.
Did you use WKA and other cases to lecture those questioning Obama's eligibility? You should be able to explain us the reason for the difference in language used on the same type of DoH issued COLB document?


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 8:34 pm

Again, NC, I'd be happy to explain it to you. It is really VERY simple, I just have to know how much you can grasp. I mean, I DID give you WKA and those other cases and you showed your lack of knowledge by claiming either they were just opinions and carried no weight (LOL) or you claimed they weren't published(BWHAHAHAHA). Now, how can I answer your question when you won't give me some point of reference for your stupidity?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

If you had a simple explanation there would be no need for rants. You would just explain the reason for using different language in hawaii COLBs.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

Since other anti-birthers were not able to, could you provide the explanation why the Hawaii DoH uses different language on their COLBs?
1. Filed by Registrar (Obama's case)
2. Accepted by Registrar


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 8:51 pm

Of course I have a simple explanation, you just wouldn't understand it. So, do you know what a registrar is?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 9:07 pm

You are desperately trying to create some sinister difference between
“filed” and “accepted.” It's almost funny. Actually it IS funny. Let me ask
you this, how could they file it if they didn't accept it first? If it
wasn't accepted it wouldn't be filed, and once they accept it the next thing
they do is file it… get it?

To put it even more clearly, if you're somehow thinking they filed it
without “accepting” it then what you're saying is they issued a state
certified birth certificate, with the registrars seal, based on information
they had filed without accepting?

Do you even comprehend how unbelievably stupid that is?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 9:11 pm

Who has verified the authenticity of the COLB posted on factcheck.org?
Name of the person please?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

“Since other anti-birthers were not able to, could you provide the
explanation why the Hawaii DoH uses different language on their COLBs?”

A better question is why you would even think they'd always use the exact
same language? Sometimes they change the language slightly. It means the
same thing. “Accepted by registrar” and “filed by registrar” are equivalent.
It's bizarre you are trying to make something of such nonsense. What it
proves is how desperate you are to come up with something–anything–to
cling to.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 9:15 pm

Do you know this for a fact or just assuming?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 9:24 pm

I'm not a moron. I know for a fact they don't issue state certified birth
certificates with the registrars seal and stamp on information they haven't
“accepted” and then change one word on the certificate to denote the
difference. Your whole theory is beyond idiotic. It's breathtakingly
moronic.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 9:36 pm

Since you didn't read what I just wrote:

“Under Hawaii state law, the COLB is valid proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii. Under FREv 902(1), the COLB is presumed to be valid until birfers show otherwise.”

Once again, that document is valid, and is acceptable as proof in any court of law. It's authenticity does not have to be “verified.” If you or the other birfers have a problem with that, then all you have to do is prove that the COLB is a fake.

Much like rules of evidence, the burfen of proof applies in all cases. Until birfers are able to prove that the COLB is fake (which they have never even come close to being able to do), the COLB is authentic. It is prima facie evidence of what is written on it.

In other words, Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, and there exists no evidence to indicate that he was born anywhere else.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

How can we check your “fact”?
Did you read the DoH guideline for filling out the COLB document?


Steve_X
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

Now you're just grasping at straws. Even if he wasn't, it wouldn't change his status as natural-born citizen. There is no legal requirement that a person must be born in a hospital to be a natural-born citizen.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 10:05 pm

No name, hugh?
factcheck.org – who is hiding behind the web site?
Orly Tatz is trying to get into discovery phase – if judge Carter agrees, it will be very simple to verify the COLB document.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 10:11 pm

Obama claimed to have been born in the Kapiolani hospital.
Dr. Maloney's argument contradicts Obama's claim.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

The COLB document issued by the Hawaii DoH is a computer generated printout.
As such, the document contains static and dynamic data. Dynamic data is stored in a database record for each individual.
Items “Filed by” and the “Accepted by” must be part of the dynamic data, otherwise this field in the document template would have to be typed every time a copy is to be printed and left to the discretion of the clerk. It would not be a computer generated printout, but an editied document.
This means that the two terms are NOT equivalent. The state treats them differently.

Obama's COLB shows that it was not accepted by the registrar. Any thoughts?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

“Items “Filed by” and the “Accepted by” must be part of the dynamic data,
otherwise this field in the document template would have to be typed every
time a copy is to be printed and left to the discretion of the clerk. It
would not be a computer generated printout, but an editied document.”

Wow. You not only don't understand the law, you also don't understand the
way computer generated documents are printed. No part of it is ever “typed.”
The template for the static data, however, is subject to change over the
years. Minor changes are just that–minor changes, and minor changes in
wording don't invalidate the registrars seal and stamp, nor do they issue
certified certificates for data they haven't accepted.

What's your theory here, brainiac? You think Obama's information was merely
filed but not “accepted,” but they still issued a state certified BC for it
anyway?

If you had a second brain it would die of loneliness.


Jim
Comment posted October 6, 2009 @ 10:59 pm

Other than you're reaching? Think about it and the light bulb will go off. Other than the differences in the forms, what other differences are there? Think about trying to compare a 40-year old document with a recently created one. What has happened in the meantime? Come on, you can do it and it will be self-explanatory.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 12:02 am

“No name, hugh?”

If you're referring to the Federal Rules of Evidence, then the only name I can give you is Congress, since they're the ones that make the laws. They exist no matter how deluded you are.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 12:03 am

I am not comparing documents generated 40 years apart.
There are Hawaii COLBs posted online (again, I am NOT talking about long form birth certificate for Nordyke twins) that show the status “Accepted by…”
These are COLB documents – the SAME type of computer generated document that Obama posted on the web.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 12:07 am

* yawn *

The hospital he was born in changes nothing.

Another desperate argument.

Since you don't have an evidence of anything you claim, we're done here.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 12:14 am

What is the name of the expert(s) used by factcheck.org used to verify the COLB document? They have been proven wrong by Donofrio several times when it comes to the facts about Obama's citizenship. A correction has been posted on their web site few weeks ago. It indicates a slopy research. Their verification means nothing.
As far as I know nobody else out there claimed that they had a physical copy of Obama's COLB in their hands.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 12:19 am

“They have been proven wrong by Donofrio several times when it comes to the
facts about Obama's citizenship.”

One time, not several. And Donofrio has been proven wrong too many times to
count. And when factcheck gets something wrong they post a correction–when
Donofrio gets something wrong he just continues getting it wrong. That's the
difference between birthers and honest intelligent humans.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 12:20 am

“There are Hawaii COLBs posted online (again, I am NOT talking about long
form birth certificate for Nordyke twins) that show the status “Accepted
by…”

And yes, they make minor changes (sometimes even major) in the text and
formatting of such documents as well. Duh.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 12:28 am

Here dimwit–

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploa…


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 12:31 am

There is no need for asumptions. The Kapiolani hospital could provide the index data confirming Obama's birth there. I am sure they have a log book on file where all births for August 4, 1961 were recorded.
They took the letter Obama sent to them in January 2009 (stating that he was born there) from the hospital web site. It was there for several monts, then promptly removed after journalists started to ask questions about its authenticity.
Are they not proud of the fact that the President of the USA was born there?
It is a bizzare behavior.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 12:47 am

The only thing bizarre is your increasingly strained attempts to make
something out of nothing. The letter was up around the time of their 100th
anniversary, since that was the subject, then they took it off their site.
Nothing strange about it. Why do think it's “bizarre” that they didn't leave
it up permanently?

Don't bother answering, I know the answer–you're an idiot who has no facts
or evidence to back up your conspiracy theory, so you cling to stupid things
like this in a desperate effort to hold onto your essentially faith based
belief in Obama's ineligibility.

Got anything that's not COMPLETELY pathetic?


Steve_X
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 12:52 am

“Reaching” is generous at best


mystylplx
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 12:56 am

If he bends over backwards any further his head is going to disappear up his
own ass.

Oops. Too late. Well, if he keeps shoving it further and further up there
eventually he'll disappear completely.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 12:59 am

I can tell by the way you wrote that post that you think you've discovered something really amazing. It would be sad, if it weren't so funny.

To say that you're stretching would be generous, and to say that you're reaching would be an understatement.

Your arguments are getting weaker, and your points are becoming more and more pointless.

We're done here.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 1:04 am

That's a birfer for you….they harp on minor points and make themselves look foolish in the process. Of course, it might help if they had some actual evidence but if they had evidence then they wouldn't be birfers.


RedGraham
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 4:04 am

Alan Keyes summed it up when he said we must remove the usurper Obama “or the United States will cease to exist.”


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 4:14 am

Yes. I think you are a certifiable nutcase. The COLB, for all its flaws is the ONLY LEGAL FORM OF BIRTH IDENTIFICATION available in Hawaii since 2000. These little tidbits are mere trivia and mean absolutely nothing. You really need to get a life.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 4:44 am

Where shell we put the plaque commemorating the birth of US president?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 4:59 am

The letter was used for fund raising purpose and it was posted for a several months.
They took the letter down after WND asked both Hospital and the White House (press secretary Gibbs) to confirm the suthenticity of the letter.
As soon as the inquiry started the letter was removed from the web.

At the same time of WND inquiry the “snopes.com” changed their web site (replaced Queens hospital with Kapiolani)
I know it is all just a coincidence.


bumpskier
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 5:10 am

From Disqus Tue Oct 6 16:30:25 2009
X-Apparently-To: skitahoe93@yahoo.com via 68.180.197.173; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:30:25 -0700
Return-Path: <>
X-YMailISG: sLVyQ5cWLDuhoigMwnLbWzilOytMbCXkCeQdNyNCtTT6L4f5f5D4TdVd1CHeMoZroj6K26AY1N1WXSpEkHonimZKtAqcWQy1fWo5PaA3FAgKRlqjxlraO2_HjxFaDyJoAyqPGYIrTHaVG4C5F.pSQdbLHKc3fXpyNsORO1lONNZA.Z1N9_6e03zZR55lv4Yp2hED98EEycD9T.h0rEIsKAX0_EAL3nkyjixFD9y7X_RgU2rIQNsx6.wduLV3hAJ4tLVwi_76zGaOckNpukqb0Zl7glYDADpQVc.BVZuDGe1EpIXN6dW.H_LOK6QjDEWdxT3lqhf.S86g6zjkns24F.kuCbiqPySiiara8vkY2oGJGvNoBAHniUVOf1nWh9IbpHcGeFJB3ZF7blZeI2VfPT4sG.qfBLXqxeIO4g–
X-Originating-IP: [67.228.244.115]
Authentication-Results: mta293.mail.re4.yahoo.com from=disqus.net; domainkeys=pass (ok); from=disqus.net; dkim=pass (ok)
Received: from 67.228.244.115 (EHLO disqus.net) (67.228.244.115)
by mta293.mail.re4.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 09:30:25 -0700
Received: from disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5015F70187F
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:30:25 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id:references; s=notif; bh=84wR1ptDGpkVSs2Z1QdhbTd1BNE=; b=
KMkvNFYdofvfI8yhimUS87NaFgus5aX+YydKzfHiBCHtfJasVgKGy/gJsjx/6H3C
r2ukmzKX0B3HhRUIWWNw3wLCk7ukUNdB/9X3pWfl2MnpxEAX+VB3zPDA/6ZKJ753
nVk8A2lKUdmUeiWM8t/NAHAgRnXX335KKYJB+RowUlY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=disqus.net; h=content-type
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:from:to:date
:message-id:references; q=dns; s=notif; b=egtEdAyaBm/vaION8BN9To
42vqOoN87hd8SKodP1MdNFRlG+tFuc+H5rWdr+CX5DO7mblqo1YcopY7WcZu0raZ
O6F4WiwnSR1e2en252nlt/GeIuHCRAVBGDCKK6ywMEDLE8dkGqf5zDR+SFoiSOsJ
pDnCCxsTXEXoLf8BIrXI0=
Received: from rope.disqus.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CB9A70187A
for <skitahoe93@yahoo.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:30:25 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [washingtonindependent] Re: Rep. Trent Franks: Obama Should Release
Long-Form Birth Certificate


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 5:13 am

Nutcase or not – you cannot provide a logical answer.
Why do COLBs contain different status phrases, Dr?

How do you KNOW that it is a meaningless trivia?
It is fine for you to speculate but those of us, who are asking questions about Obama's birthplace, are not allowed to do the same!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 5:24 am

What is your point?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 5:30 am

When did the DoH change their template? Aren't you just guessing here – where are your facts?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 5:41 am

I am just pointing out at the inconsistency in Obama's biography. Until January 2009, it was published that he was born in Queens hospital.
Now it is Kapiolani? Hospital administrators do not want to talk about it.
I cannot think of a logical reason why would they shy away from confirming his birth there – if it truly happened.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 5:58 am

YOU are asking where are my facts? That's a good one. Yes, I suppose in a
sense I'm guessing. You are also guessing. The difference is your guess
makes absolutely no sense whatsover, and my guess is perfectly logical and
reasonable. It's ABSURD to claim there's an important difference in meaning
from “accepted by registrar” and “filed by registrar.” It's even more absurd
to claim the later means the data wasn't “verified,” but yet they still
issued him a state certified birth certificate and indicated the information
wasn't verified by changing “accepted” to “filed.”

So on the one hand we have a perfectly reasonable rational guess that
actually makes sense, and on the other hand a ridiculously absurd guess that
makes no sense whatsoever.

Which is more believable? That they slightly changed the wording on the form
for some reason? Or that such a minor change in wording signifies the
difference between whether the state certified birth certificate is valid or
not valid?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 5:59 am

For all anti-birthers: A concise explanation of why Obama is not a natural born citizen:
http://thebirthers.org/misc/logic.htm


mystylplx
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 6:02 am

More like a concise illustration of the delusions, ignorance, and persistent
dishonesty of birthers. But we don't need an article to illustrate that–you
and other birthers do a fine job of illustrating it right here in these
comments.


AXJ
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 6:14 am

Thank you Birthers for telling the rest of America the truth which is found in the 1964 divorce documents and which AXJ-Hawaii has uncovered. In a few days we will know if Judge Carter has really sensed the magnitud of this deep deep problem and will order immediate discovery as soon as October 7, 2009. History repeats itself and soon everyone will know why dates are so important to mankind. http://www.axjus.com


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 6:44 am

Thank you for being honest and admitting that you are guessing. You are trying to use the logic to fill in the gaps for the information that you don't have readily available.
You could even be right. However, we cannot be 100% sure that you are correct in your assumption, unless we can find a manual from the DoH confirming it.

In the same fashion, I am using the assumption that Obama's COLB was not officially verified by anybody. Claims by factcheck.org are just their opinion – how do they know that the document given to them is not a forgery?
My assumption is that they did not verify whether the COLB document corresponds to DoH records on file. A simple way to confirm Obama's Hawaiian birth would be to examine the original long form birth certificate.
The anti-birthers jump on me immediately requiring the proof that Obama was born abroad.
Aren't you bothered by the possibility that a dual citizen at birth (fact), possibly born abroad (speculation) is occupying the White House?
If Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, there would be no harm to anyone if the original long form birth certificate is made public.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 7:18 am

Give them some credit – in one of the presented tables, they assume that Obama was born in Hawaii, a point that many people are not willing to concede without seeing the original long form birth certificate.


AXJ
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 7:22 am

PRESIDENT OBAMA CAUSES A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN THE USA

AXJ-INTERNATIONAL
7TH OF AUGUST OF 2009

Apparently Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, II is causing a constitutional crisis in the United States as a case about his true birth place and nationality is being studied by Judge David O. Carter of a small court in Santa Ana, CA. USA, who is deciding whether to admit a case to discovery and trial on the merits in January 2010, regarding the documentation provided by Mr. Obama to Congress to prove his eligibility to occupy the Office of the President of the United States Federal Government.

The problem has become very serious simply because since January of this year Mr. Obama has systematically refused to publish the long form of his supposed birth certificate proving he was in fact born in the State of Hawaii in the United States in 1961.

Many so called “Birthers” believe among other things that Stanley Ann Dunham was not actually Mr. Obama's biological mother, and that she was not physically in Hawaii in August of 1961. In fact to date no Doctor nor witness living in Hawaii in 1961 has come forth to prove that Mr. Obama was in fact born in any hospital in Hawaii and no birth record exists. (Source: AXJ-HAWAII)

To make things worth Mr. Obama has only supposedly published a so called Certificate of Live Birth with apparently is fraudulent, and yet no one has actually seen the real document. We must remind our members that a document published on a website on the internet is not a real document nor can it be used in a court of Law.

The only documents that mention Mr. Obama are divorce documents which supposedly Ms Stanley Ann Dunham presented in 1964 to divorce Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, I, but no marriage certificate has been found, nor was Mr. Obama Sr. ever served such documents, added to the fact that he could not legally marry any woman in the United States since he was already married to another woman in his native Kenya. (Source AXJ-KENYA).

AXJ-USA has published the following supposed photographs which simply do not seem real to many so-called “Birthers”.

The problem is not that Mr. Obama may have possibly been born in Kenya in 1961, the problem is that according to the US Constitution of 1787, ARTICLE II cleary states in paragraph “4. 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…”

Therefore, if Mr. Obama cannot prove to a Jury, (if the case goes to discovery and trial on the merits), that he was in fact born in the United States and is eligible to occupy the office of President, he must resign and all the laws, orders and agreements he has signed while in office will be null and void.

AXJ-INTERNATIONAL cannot and will not get involved in the decision of the court of competent jurisdiction in the United States of America, but can and will request that the civil and political rights of all citizens and persons resident and visiting the United States be respected.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 7:30 am

An advice regarding your web site: It makes people dizzy after just few seconds of looking at all those object move in different directions: flags move, globes rotate, news links scroll up.
Does your web site designer suffers from ADHD?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

naturalizedcitizen wtrote: “What is the name of the expert(s) used by factcheck.org used to verify the COLB document?

———–

Well I don’t know about Factcheck, but I can give you the name of one official who is both qualified and able to verify the legitimacy of the document posted on-line.

Since this nonsense began over a year ago, every birther idiot in the world has called, e-mailed and snail mailed the DOH officials. Many of them numerous times. Over and Over again.

The document posted on-line is in fact visible to all who wish to look at it, including those same persons listed above (Chiyome L. Fukino, the health director, Alvin T. Onaka, the state registrar and any of their staff with the authorization to examine, maintain, and protect the state vital records database.) These persons have had ample opportunity to examine the on-line document. In fact, it is their duty to investigate all allegations of fraud or violations of state statutes regarding their records.

The birthers have made this allegation, over and over again.

These people also have access to the official records. In face, Dr. Fukino has publicly stated that she herself has examined the original document.

If the data in the on-line document did not match the data in the official records, then it is also the duty of those above officials to protect the integrity of their certified document system by prosecuting anyone who alters or forges an official document. In fact there is a specific statute in the DOH regulations that spells out the fines and punishment for such cases.

No such prosecution or regulatory mandated actions have taken place, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the on-line document matches the official data held by the state and as confirmed by the state.

Give it up, loser.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

Man: Well, what've you got?
Waitress: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; spam egg spam spam bacon and spam; spam sausage spam spam bacon spam tomato and spam;
Vikings: Spam spam spam spam…
Waitress: …spam spam spam egg and spam; spam spam spam spam spam spam baked beans spam spam spam…
Vikings: Spam! Lovely spam! Lovely spam!
Waitress: …or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and spam.
Wife: Have you got anything without spam?
Waitress: Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 6:28 pm

What is the meaning of “Filed by Registrar” on Obama's COLB?
It does not say it was “Accepted by Registrar”.

factcheck.org never mentioned what the meaning of this field is. Without it we have no idea what the COLB actually describes.

If you carefully parse Dr. Fukino's words – you will not find the claim that she had inspected the original birth certificate (physical document).


Jim
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 6:33 pm

If you carefully parse NC's words, you will find he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. But, that's what makes a blower so entertaining…the ability to take a straightforward statement that says Obama was born in Hawaii and twist it into something totally different…in their heads. Gotta love the way they keep showing their stupidity.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 6:49 pm

Sstatement given on July 27, 2009:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
———————————————————————————————-
1. She mentions original vital records (plural).
She did not say : I have seen the original birth certificate.

2. She mentiones “on file” – she did not say “accepted by registrar”.

3. The natural-born qualification is interesting: What is her definition of a natural-born citizen? There is no such definition/guideline in any DoH document. Why did she include it in her press release – trying to make the issue go away?
In the follow up email she said that the statement was prepeared based on advice from AG Benett.
According to Hawaii UIPA laws – any legal advice provided by the AG is supposed to be filed within 3 days and be available to public upon request, including documents used to support the legal advice.
If the DoH followed the law, this information would have to be released to the public. We will find out what documents have been used as a basis for the press release.


Jim
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

1) That's what ALL officials say. I've yet to EVER hear someone say they've seen the vital record. Twisting again I see.
2) Showing your idiocracy again, I see. Why would something not accepted be on file? Why would something be on file that wasn't accepted? Maybe because the words are interchangeable? Except, of course, in your imaginary world where everything is a conspiracy.
3) Maybe because, according to SCOTUS, anyone born in the USA is a natural born citizen? And she knows it better than you, since we had to show you SCOTUS opinions and the constitution because you were trying to idiotically change that with no legal basis in fact or law.

Please, keep it up…stupidity is so fun to laugh at.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

1. So we agreee that she did not mention the original birth certificate. She could have seen a database record – we do not know what she ment by original vital records.

2 When you send your income tax forms they are first filed and maintained on your record. Later on, your submission is either accepted or you get a follow up letter requesting more information or you are audited.

The DoH is uses two different qualifications on COLB documents “Filed by…”and “Accepted by…”. Why would they use different phrases if the meaning is the same?

We need a precise definiton from DoH procedure document describing the meaning of these two terms printed on COLB documents. Until this is given to the public – we can only speculate.

3. This is your interpretation. She never explicitly mentioned her understanding of the phrase.
The statement was actually prepared by AG Bennet – she was just a mouthpiece. By issuing a release – they have opened themselves to UIPA law – that allows public access to all documents used in preparation of legal opinion given by AG.


Jim
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

1) We agree that you're reaching farther and farther because you know you have less and less to work with. Do you even know what a Birth Certificate is? You certainly keep proving you have no idea.
2) Birth Certificates are not tax returns. Why you bring that up makes even less sense.
3) You never specifically said anything worthwhile while you were trying to make about half the country non-citizens. But, are you trying to contend that the statement is not true? Are you saying being born in Hawaii doesn't make you an NBC? Are we going to have to slap you around with SCOTUS and the constitution again because you're so against our President you don't think laws apply anymore?


Anonymous
Comment posted October 8, 2009 @ 12:42 am

Sorry about the delay.

Are you saying that the President should use the force of the United States
to get a birth certificate out of Hawaii? If he used force or used the FBI
or CIA to get the document, would that be a good thing? And why do it if
the document that Hawaii has already provided is the OFFICIAL BIRTH
CERTIFICATE, which legally proves birth in Hawaii. Why do it when the two
officials in Hawaii have twice confirmed the facts on the official birth
certificate. Why do it when the notices in the Hawaii newspapers, which were sent out
by the government of Hawaii for births in Hawaii, also confirm it.

As the Wall Street Journal noted: ”
Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he
was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the
contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the
burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know
that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven,
Conn.
The release of the obsolete birth certificate would not “resolve the issue”
to those for whom it is not already resolved. They claim without basis
that today’s birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from
claiming without basis that yesterday’s is as well.”


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 7:59 pm

The statement had to be carefully written to comply with Hawaiian privacy law. Nevertheless, it means that Obama was born in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog…).

This confirms the official birth certificate, and it is in turn confirmed by the notices in the Hawaii newspapers that were sent out by the government for births in Hawaii (and not for births outside of Hawaii). There is even a witness who recalls being told of Obama's birth in Hawaii in 1961. (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 9:12 pm

1. I know that during Clinton years we had to parse the meaning of the “is”.
It seems that we are back tothe same language parsing.
If Fukino ment original birth certificate – that is what she should have said, not vital records. They use the double-speak to provide the fallback in case somebody questions them.

2. If you submit an application to change your birth records – it does not mean that the change is accpted by the registrar. The IRS was an example that should be more familiar to most people because we file it on a yearly basis. How many people file for changes in their birth records?

What is the difference between “Filed by..” and “Accepted by…” – you keep awoiding the answer.
Once you understand the difference – you will see the COLB document in different light.

3. I do not get your comment about making half country non-citizens?

First we need to establish for 100% that Obama was born in Hawaii. The resistance to show the original long form birth certificate is telling. What is he hiding?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

You are only specuating about Obama's Hawaiian birth.
Where is the long form birth certificate?
Fo all I know, Dr. Fukino could be covering Obama's back.
It would not have been the first time that state officals lied to us.
You need to read her email responses to UIPA requests for the release of documents to realize that she is trying to protect Obama.
The proof of Obama's birth is in the original documentation maintained by the DoH, which should be available for court verification.
Obama's mother was enrolled at Univeristy of Washingthon for the Fall 1961 semester, which started on Aug 19, 1961.
What are the chances that she gave birth in Honolulu on Aug 4, then pack her bags, bring her infant son to Seattle only 2 weeks later (without having any support from the family)?


Jim
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

1) Do you even understand what a birth certificate is? It is part of your vital records. So, in order to see a part of the vital records for an individual, you would pull their file. The only parsing that is going on is by a delusional individual who can't get basic statements through their thick skull…and you prove it every time you post.
2) I avoided nothing. Nowhere does it say the BC was amended, you're just making things up because you want to ignore what was openly and clearly stated. You just parse words because the truth isn't what you want to hear.
3) Hawaii has said it multiple times…he was born in Hawaii. Your lack of acceptance of that very straight-forward fact just goes to prove you aren't interested in the truth. So, he is hiding nothing and you're still a blower.


Jim
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 9:43 pm

So, now you're calling Dr Fukino a liar. About what I'd expect from a blower, everyone else lies but them. And then, you complain when there's a disagreement between the government and a private citizen over what a law states…something that happens all across the country all the time. So, now, you're going to bring up that already debunked theory that she was in Seattle. See, that's how it works with you blowers. You've got nothing and you know it so you try to make something out of nothing. Weel, you can coat a turd in chocolate, but it's still a turd…and so are your arguments.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 9:45 pm

Assuming that all what you said is correct: Why would the original birth certificate be hidden from public, why would letter from the White House to Kapiolani hospital be pulled from the web? Why do the same Hawaii officials who proclaimed NBC status deny public access to documents according to the UIPA laws?
It does not make any sense to a thinking individual. If you are a partisan hack – that is another story.

Obama's vital statistics records have been amended – If you took time to read emails between Fukino and public, you would have learned that she was specifically asked to release AMENDED records. The UIPA law requires her to either release the document, deny access to it or state that document does not exist.
Guess what – Dr. Fukino DENIED access to it. She did not say that document is not on file.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 9:51 pm

I read her emails on Donofrio's blog. She is a liar.
You can find it yourself – I am not going to cut and paste her statements for you.

There would be no need to speculate about anything – Obama should release the long form birth certificate and prove beyond any doubt that he was born in Hawaii. No need to put poor state and hospital officials in a hard situation that they have to cover his back.


Jim
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 9:52 pm

1) You aren't entitled to it.
2) The current BC is the legal BC of Hawaii and all that is necessary to prove birth in Hawaii.
3) Your interpretation of the law is incorrect, and I've seen you try to interpret laws so I wouldn't believe any interpretation you give.
4) I just enjoy laughing at your childish attempts to get something for which you have no legal right. So, you keep posting your nonsense, and we'll keep enjoying you and Orly getting laughed out of court.


Jim
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

Obama will not release his long form. He has proven to be born in Hawaii and just because you don't want to accept means so little to the vast majority of the people, you folks are just a running joke. Besides, one of you blowers would just call it fake with no proof and start asking to “Show us the Penis” so you could see if he was circumcised. So, when given the choice between giving you something you really don't want and ignoring you like the nuts you are…I'll go with the latter anytime. And we're going to be entertained by you folks until the next shoot-down by the courts.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 10:47 pm

” It does not make any sense to a thinking individual. If you are a partisan
hack – that is another story.”

There are NO birthers who are thinking individuals. You help to prove that
with every post. Your desperate (and silly) word parsing makes Bill Clinton
look like a model of clear speaking. “Accepted by” and “filed by” mean the
same thing when they are on a state certified, sealed and stamped, birth
certificate. The birth certificate is legally prima facie proof of birth
circumstances–the idea that the word “filed” instead of “accepted” somehow
negates that is ludicrous to the extreme. A birth certificate IS a “vital
record.” Saying “vital records” instead of “birth certificate” is just how
those people talk. It sounds more official somehow. But when you say
“original” vital records that does NOT mean a computer entry–it means the
ORIGINAL birth certificate, marriage license, death certificate, etc., and
in this case we're talking about a birth certificate.

It's really pointless to argue with birthers. Here we have people who can
take a statement from the Kenyan ambassador mumbling about an “assumption”
and “his grandmother is still alive” and turn that into an “admission” Obama
was born in Kenya, then turn around and take the very clear statements from
Fukino and say she didn't really say what she said.

Isn't it strange how such extreme different standards are being applied? In
the ambassadors case they bend over backwards to interpret him saying what
they want to hear when in fact no rational person would say he said any such
thing. So in that case they use incredibly low standards of evidence to
invent a message that just isn't there. Then in Fukino's case they do the
opposite, resorting to bizarrely absurd word pasring to claim she didn't say
what they DON'T want to hear.

You've made it obvious that, regardless of what is actually said, you will
hear what you want to hear and not hear what you don't want to hear. In such
a case communication becomes impossible and any attempts at it pointless. I
could tell you “the sun will rise tomorrow” and you will hear, “Obama was
born in Kenya.”


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 7, 2009 @ 11:49 pm

The press release by Fukino is not the only statement that I consider when asking these questions.
Read her responses to UIPA requests on Donofrio's blog.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 5:31 am

Question for Anti-Birthers: How old is Barack Obama?

According to his page on MySpace: 52
http://www.myspace.com/barackobama

His COLB document mentions Aug. 4 1961.

Why is there discrepancy between the two sources?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 5:34 am

He does not have a long form BC that would prove Hawaii birth.
The MySpace page lists his age at 52. Why is he playing games with date of birth?


AXJ ROCKS
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 6:21 am

We will soon find out since Judge Carter has ORDERED the State of Hawaii to publish his documents…stay tuned..


mystylplx
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 8:20 am

Lol! I suppose if MySpace says it then he must be 52. To make matters even more mysterious his facebook page says 48. And his twitter and youtube pages don't mention his age at all! What do you suppose it all means?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 8:37 am

You know it's funny–you're trying to promote a website, but every time you post blatant made up crap like that you just discredit yourself and the website you are trying to promote.

I mean, I'd think if you were going to go around making up lies to post you'd come up with stuff that wouldn't be so obvious. You're comment will still be visible long after everyone knows what Carter really decides.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

How old are you? You post outright lies (your own orgasmic fantasies), then expect people to believe you have any credibility at all? Your website, by the way, is a joke. As to your post, Judge Carter has simply established the dates for future proceedings so he can pull the rug out from under Oily Titz and her ilk, such as you. Carter won't order Hawaii to publish ANY docs. We know it — why don't you???


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 12:55 pm

You're a braindead fool. The COLB is the ONLY legal form of birth ID in Hawaii and is a laser copy of the information on the original long form certificate. I have mine and would never let it out of my sight. The copy he obtained and submitted was the LEGAL FORM.

As to the chances that his mom gave birth, then left for school two weeks later are HUGE. That is exactly what happened and who said she had no support from her family. First you say she couldn't afford to travel to Seattle, yet you also want us to believe she could afford to travel to Kenya WITHOUT HER HUSBAND to give birth then fly right back to Hawaii to register his birth. No wonder birthers are called WINGNUTS.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

and you think his MySpace page is going to affect anything? He's playing games because it drives jackasses like yourself crazy. Don't you love his smile?


Empirical
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

Well……. The Obama “citizenship” issue may now be 'moot' — with the Nobel Prize Award … he becomes officially crowned as “King of the World.”

That is what he has coveted from the first…..!!! That will make it all the easier for him to thumb his nose at those who question his right to be the U.S. President………….. Perhaps more difficult to carry through the challenge…???

Please, Mr. Obama, go on off NOW and do your “King of the World” thing …… Resign the Presidency….. So that America may restore it's government to one of American tradition…….. NOT the ACORNS and Arabs and Islamists and illegals and all the other leftist malcontents who voted for you……..

One day there will come a judge who will not be afraid (or too awed by your “King of the World” status) to ask WHY, WHY, WHY??? “Why shouldn't Obama provide the same proof of his qualification status … that any “citizen” who claims U.S. citizenship would have to provide???”

One day there will come such a judge………

Cheerio………


mystylplx
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

“One day there will come a judge who will not be afraid (or too awed by your
“King of the World” status) to ask WHY, WHY, WHY??? “Why shouldn't Obama
provide the same proof of his qualification status … that any “citizen”
who claims U.S. citizenship would have to provide???”
He has. And more. But you know that. Your dishonesty and fake indignation
isn't fooling anyone, not even yourself.

And the only way you're going to get a judge to side with you is if you find
one you can pay off.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 5:32 pm

Re: “Why shouldn't Obama provide the same proof of his qualification status … that any “citizen” who claims U.S. citizenship would have to provide???”

Before Obama no president ever showed proof that he was a US citizen. Obama has shown legal proof that he is a US citizen by showing the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it, that he was born in Hawaii, were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii. This is legal proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there is even a witness who recalls being told of Obamas' birth in Hawaii (because she wrote about the unusual event of a woman named Stanley giving birth to her father, also named Stanley) (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

This is certainly proof.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

He lied, and you are laughing.
When you google “MySpace Barack Obama” the above posted link is returned, it mentions that this is an official Obama's page.
Do they not know about COLB and the birthdate claimed there?

Tell me which one is a lie? How do you prove it?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 5:52 pm

On his myspace.com page Obama claims that he is 52 years old.


Jim
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 5:53 pm

That's OK, did you know the official Orly page is actually a joke? The only official document is his Birth Certificate…whether you like it or not.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

If the COLB is equivalent to original birth certificate, why is the that DoH will not even release the date when the original birth certificate was submitted? This is part of the index data – a record describing a vital event registration.
There would be no need to hide it from public.

Until June 2009 Department of Hawaiian Lands did not accept COLB as a proof of Hawaiian birth.

Where did I say anything about her financial situation?
My theory is that Obama was not born in Hawaii and his birth was not registered by his mother, rather by his grandparents, using an affidavit. The rules for registering the Hawaiian birth were quite loose, a sworn statement was enough.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 6:06 pm

It is an official myspace page for Obama. Did they not get the memo about Kapiolani birth in August 1961?
It contradicts the COLB posted on factcheck.org.
Which one is fake? This is an additional argument for looking into the original documents.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 6:13 pm

How do you know it is a joke?
Obama is publicly claiming contradictory information about his birth.
Where is the long form birth certificate?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 6:17 pm

Obama lied (52 years old)?


Empirical
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 6:30 pm

The claim below is devoid of any legal value at all…………
_____________________________________________________________

“Before Obama no president ever showed proof that he was a US citizen. Obama has shown legal proof that he is a US citizen by showing the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the facts on it, that he was born in Hawaii, were confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii. This is legal proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there is even a witness who recalls being told of Obamas' birth in Hawaii (because she wrote about the unusual event of a woman named Stanley giving birth to her father, also named Stanley) (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

This is certainly proof.”
____________________________________________________

It is certainly NOT proof……..!!! It may not even be true…..!!! We will not know until it is tested UNDER OATH in court and has been weighed against other evidence……..

BTW: No other president has confronted the nation with such a blatant challenge to the Constitution on the citizenship “qualification” issue……..

OF COURSE … no president or presidential candidate has been called upon to provide such proof before…….. That means nothing……. EXCEPT THAT THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED IN THIS CASE … JUST BECAUSE IT IS OBAMA………

“No president is above the law………”

Any other such a challenge would be handled in much the same way…….. Probably quicker, because Obama has refused to present his evidence TO A COURT………!!! Remember, the charge was presented to the court BEFORE Obama was even nominated………!!!

Cheerio………


Jim
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 6:38 pm

How do you know it isn't an innocent mistake? You've made more than your share on this board.


Jim
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 6:52 pm

Empirinut: The claim below is devoid of any legal value at all…………

That's what we keep telling you blowers…you just don't want to hear it. All the arguments you've presented on this board are devoid of any legal value…at all. But, we just enjoy laughing at your stupidity. Is it any wonder the only lawyer that would take your case is a mail-order one? A real lawyer would just tell you the truth, you're wasting yours and the courts time.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

Innocent mistake? Are you kidding me?
It has been posted on myspace for ages and nobody noticed?
Why would anybody trust Obama on this issue is beyond my comprehension. We can find the truth in no time – just release the original birth certificate to the public. There is no private information on that document – according to 'smrtstrauss” even the name of alleged attending physician was published in a newspaper article.
The original lomg form birth certificate would nicely tie all this information:
Birth on August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Hospital, Dr. West attending physician.
Llet's see the document! Only then we can ignore the the myspace page.


Jim
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 7:03 pm

Nope, we can ignore you all the time. We just like you to keep proving your stupidity. It is so entertaining. Tell you what, why don't you try and get the myspace page entered as evidence, let's see how far you get with that. LOL


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

Somebody made a mistake. Have you never heard of mistakes? Obama was born
in 1961, as the official birth certificate says. This was confirmed by the
notices in the newspapers, which also were in 1961.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 8:27 pm

Mistake? It is Obama's web site, have they not received the news about Kapiolani birth, COLB,…
We have not seen the official birth certificate. We have an IMAGE (a .jpeg) file of a document claimed to be an official document.
Where is the paper copy of the original long form birth certificate. It would be much more difficult to produce a forgery of an old document, and its associated index records.


Jim
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 8:32 pm

So, let me see if I've got this straight, NC. You want Obama to go door-to-door with a paper certificate and show it to 300,000,000 individuals one at a time?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 8:34 pm

I agree with you: try using the image posted on factcheck.org as evidence in the court of law. It is a worthless document – until a physical copy is presented to the court for verification.
What is Obama afraid off?

You keep refusing to answer a simple question – how can you trust anything Obama says without verifying the facts. He lied about his age on the web. One of those two web sites contains false information. I do not trust either one – the truth can be discovered only be examining the actual physical documents on file with DoH.
It is a sad day for USA when Obama is hiding behind few skirts in DoH to cover for him.


Jim
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

Making up stuff just doesn't work. He's afraid of nothing, no court has asked.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

No you got it wrong.
There have been numerous lawsuits before the election about Obama's eligibility.
1. He could have authorized the release of this information to court – one case would have been enough to prove his eligibility.
2. As an alternative, he could have asked the DoH and the hospital to relase the original long form birth certificate – invite few sceptical journalists to see the hospital registrar – I assume it is a thick book with handwritten entries.
By comparing the dates when info was received by the DoH with hospital registrar it could have been proved, without any doubt that he was indeed born in Kapiolani on that day. This could be ccomplished at any time – if Obama choses to do so.
Yet, he would rather fight the eligibility lawsuits to keep US public from learning the truth first hand.


Jim
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 8:53 pm

No, you have it wrong. No court has asked for it, because you blowers don't have anything worthwhile for the court to even bother with it. You want to see it, prove your case. Don't expect everybody else to bow to your egotistical ravings, you just aren't that important.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 8:58 pm

Baghdad Jim strikes again!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 9:06 pm

Obama's lawyers asked for the dismissal of eligibility lawsuits.
An honest person would have proved the eligibility before the election regardless of lawsuits.
Obama has been caught lying time and time again – to a partisan hack like yourself – it means nothing. You will keep defending him until very end – just like Baghdad Bob.


Jim
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 9:23 pm

An honest person would have asked for a dismissal. An honest person would look at what you have and say “what the heck is this?” An honest person would recognize that you know that Obama was born in Hawaii and all you're left with is reaching for every mundane thing you can find in order to try and prove your non-case. An honest person can see right through your charade and laugh at how little you really have.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

Well, if the judges had refused the requests for dismissal, I might think you had a point.

But the judges have agreed, which means the dismissals were warranted. That's the way our legal system works.

You may not agree with the results. But you do respect our Constitution, don't you? No matter what you want, no matter how badly you want it, you have to follow the law.


Jim
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

Why thanks, Naturalizednutjob strikes again and shows he's got nothing except a wild imagination.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

Our judicial system is corrupt.
When an eligibility lawsuit is brought several months before the election – there should have been an immediate discovery.
Obama won his first public office (state senate seat in Illinois) by disqualifying opponents in the Dem party primaries. Courts worked fast enough to remove his competttion – yet in far more important elections – they drag their feet.
It seems to me that the most important thing is to have a symphatetic judge, you can manipulate the system for a long time.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 9:50 pm

COLB = 48 years old
MYSPACE = 52 years old.
Who is lying?

Where is the original long form birth certificate? Why did Kapiolani hospital remove Obama's letter of admittion of being born there?
More lies from Obama?


Doubtful
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

Yep, that's always the excuse. A corrupt judicial system.

Judge after judge, Republican and Democrat, all corrupt.

Oh, and the Republican governor of Hawaii too. And all the members of both houses of Congress. All corrupt.

Nice dream world you live in!


Jim
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 9:56 pm

Nope, just more reaching from NC. First, call people liars with no proof other than his imagination, then expect everybody to bow to his demands. No matter how hard you try, nc, you just aren't that important an individual where anyone is going to bow to your delusions.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

You did not answer my question.
Politicans are afraid for their own career. Most of them have skeletons in the closet – they do not want media scrutiny.
We saw what happened to an ordinary citizen “Joe the plumber” who dared to ask Obama tough question. Did media care about his privacy protection – they leaked his tax information in order to smear him.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 9, 2009 @ 10:30 pm

LOL — there's no question mark in your previous post and none in this one either. You're just blowing smoke.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 10, 2009 @ 1:10 am

“When you google “MySpace Barack Obama” the above posted link is returned,
it mentions that this is an official Obama's page.”
I thought you couldn't top the stupidity you've already shown, but you just
did. The fact that google returns the page means it's an “official page?”
Can you POSSIBLY be that stupid?

Dude, you couldn't count to 9 if I spotted you 1 through 8.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 10, 2009 @ 4:42 am

Try it – there will be several results returned. Read the description for the very first link.
Then come back here and comment.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 10, 2009 @ 7:20 pm

Only then can YOU ignore it. Everyone else has no trouble.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 10, 2009 @ 8:46 pm

Using words like “everyone else ” is a lie.
There are many peole who do not drink Obama Kool-Aid.
You did not even attempt to comment on the substance of my previous post about non-existence of any private information that should be protected by hiding the original long form birth certificate.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 10, 2009 @ 11:03 pm

Whackjob, No other President has been “challenged” this way because no other President has been black, plain and simple. There's certainly no rational explanation for why a President who has proven his eligibility more than any prior President in history should still have people who won't accept he's eligible. Remember, this isn't about opposing his policies, or just not liking him, this is about making up baseless rumors and lies in an attempt to argue he has no right be President at all. If you have another theory for this irrational stance of birthers then I'd be curious to hear it.

And one of those many lies is that he has “refused” to show his original vault birth certificate. But you know that and still keep spreading the lie. NO state gives out the original vault copy without a court order, and HI doesn't give certified photocopies, only certified short forms.

But you KNOW that, and just keep lying. Funny that..


mystylplx
Comment posted October 10, 2009 @ 11:29 pm

“You did not even attempt to comment on the substance of my previous post
about non-existence of any private information that should be protected by
hiding the original long form birth certificate.”
You sound like one of those Nazi's–”If you have nothing to hide, then you
will not object to microphones in your house, yes?”

It's not a question of having something to hide, it's a question of privacy
rights written into HI state laws.

He's shown his state certified BC. That's more than most prior Presidents
have ever done. If that's not good enough for you there's something wrong
with you.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 11, 2009 @ 2:39 am

Why are you making caricature of my post?
Nobody is asking to see anything really private about Obama.
Certainly not to put microphone in anybody's house.
The following information should be seen on the original birth certificate:
Birth on August 4, 1961 at Kapiolani Hospital, Dr. West attending physician.
Let's see the document! This is not about asking for information that is not currently in public – rather than verifying that Obama is not lying to us.
For every state official in Hawaii that confirmed his birth there (there is one one so far) I will quote you three higher ranking officials who used strong language to claim that there were WMD's in Iraq.
They lied to us few years ago – we need to verify that we are not being lied to again.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 11, 2009 @ 2:54 am

I think you are missing the point. The privacy laws in HI aren't about Obama, they are about everyone. It's not about whether Obama's information is already out (glad you understand it IS already out) it's about protecting the privacy of average citizens–that's why those laws exist, and they can't be making an exception for Obama just because he's President.

BTW, there's more than one state official who has confirmed Obama's birth in HI, and I'm not sure whether those confirmations were or were not legal. But that's beside the point. The point is that whether or not those confirmations were legal that's no excuse to continue violating their own laws. Like I said, those laws aren't there to protect Obama, they're there to protect average citizens.

Aside from it being a matter of principle I have no objection to them releasing his original vault copy in this case. To the extent it would shut birthers up it would be a good thing. (Though I have no illusions about how much it would shut up birthers–you'll just claim it';s a forgery, or find a typo or some minor mistake on it and claim that invalidates it. You've already shown that nothing will ever satisfy you.)


AXJ ROCKS
Comment posted October 11, 2009 @ 4:09 am

As promised a little history about Judge David O. Carter

Behind that sweet soft spoken demeanor lies a real Judge, nicknamed “King David” and “nominated by President Bill Clinton on June 25, 1998 to fill a seat vacated by William J. Rea. Carter was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 21, 1998, and received his commission the following day.”

So obviously there was no forum shopping on the part of Orly Taitz so that is out of the question.

But what is this man really thinking? He knows OBAMA's future as President of the United States and now International Nobel Peace Prize winner's fate is in his hands.

Does he deny the Attorney General's motion to dismiss this case and proceed with discovery, or does he wash his hands like Pilatus did?

He knows the US Constitution is above every institution in the land and THE AMERICAN PEOPLE created it and the government they are now denouncing for fraud and treason against the American People. Will his decision be the spark of another civil war? Must he realize he is in that position precisely because THE PEOPLE have put him there and he owes his allegiance to the Flag and THE PEOPLE for which it stands?

He probably does know all this and more and although he may have thousands of friends around the United States and abroad, this is the loneliest moment of his career and life.

He know all of Congress and his friends and peers are watching his evey move and will read every word he writes.

Actions speak louder than words and although he has the weight of the world on his shoulders right now, he must be just and impartial and must let this case move forward and let THE PEOPLE decide. He cannot prejudge it before it is tried on the merits as promised.

The documentation Orly Taitz has presented is very serious. If true it will be more dangerous for this great country not to have acted now and let this cancer continue.

For once in his life Judge Carter is silent. Is still. Is thinking.

Let us THE AMERICAN PEOPLE stand beside him and guide him to make the best decision for all of us.

Unfortunately Judge Carter, this time it is black or white, yes or no.

Do you continue with this trial or prolong the suffering for THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

WE MUST KNOW THE TRUTH.

——————–
*David O. Carter (born 1944 in Providence, Rhode Island) is a United States District Court Judge for the Central District of California. Assumed office October 22, 1998, Nominated by Bill Clinton, Preceded by William J. Rea, Born March 28, 1944, Providence, Rhode Island.

Biography

Carter is a “Double Bruin,” having received both his bachelor's degree (B.A. cum laude 1967) and his law degree (J.D. 1972) from the University of California, Los Angeles.

After graduating from college, Carter enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. He was promptly dispatched into service in Vietnam during the Vietnam War where he fought in the Battle of Khe Sahn in 1968. Carter was released as a First Lieutenant following his service in Vietnam. His military awards and decorations include a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.

Carter began his legal career as an Assistant District Attorney with the Orange County District Attorney's Office in 1972 where he became the senior deputy district attorney in charge of the office's homicide division. As a prosecutor, Carter was the initial prosecutor and filed charges in the case of serial killer William Bonin, also known as “The Freeway Killer,” who became the first person executed by lethal injection in California in 1996.

In addition to his judicial functions, Carter now performs a wide array of speaking engagements. He has lectured fellow judges through the California Judges College, the Judicial Criminal Law Institute, and the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. He also speaks frequently with judges abroad, including past engagements in Brazil, Bosnia, China, The Philippines, and Malawi. Carter finally teaches an undergraduate course on the international narcotics trade at the University of California, Irvine, where he has three times received the school's Distinguished Professors Award, and has taught with the Whittier Law School's Summer Abroad Program.

[edit] Judicial career

[edit] Orange County Superior Court

In 1981, Carter joined the bench as a Municipal Court Judge in Orange County, California. One year later, he became an Orange County Superior Judge, a position that he held until joining the federal judiciary in 1998. Carter initiated a variety of programs to assist in the rehabilitation of convicted felons, including a tattoo removal program for gang members, and was active in planning the county's Law Day festivities. He earned the nickname “King David” from attorneys while serving as the Supervising Judge of the court's Criminal Division.

[edit] United States District Court

Carter was nominated by President Bill Clinton on June 25, 1998 to fill a seat vacated by William J. Rea. Carter was confirmed by the United States Senate on October 21, 1998, and received his commission the following day.[1] He now sits in the Southern Division of the Central District of California in Orange County, California. His courtroom deputy clerk is Kristee Hopkins.[2]

As a jurist, Carter is known for his acute intellect, courteous judicial demeanor, tireless work ethic, and expertise in complex criminal litigation.[3] Although he is assigned to the Central District of California, Carter also regularly sits by designation in the District of Idaho and on occasion with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and in the District of Guam.

Notable cases

[edit] Gay-Straight Alliance (Colin ex rel. Colin v. Orange Unified School District)

In the first ruling of its kind, Carter issued a preliminary injunction in 2000 ordering Orange County public school officials to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance club organized by students to meet on campus. In so doing, Carter held that the Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 4071-4074, requires a public high school that accepts federal funding and established a limited open forum for non-curriculum-related student groups must allow a student group promoting tolerance for homosexual persons to meet on campus.[4]

The case settled after Carter issued the injunction, with the school board agreeing to recognize the Gay-Straight Alliance organization. Although the case was politically controversial, Orange County School Board member Linda Davis later admitted at a board meeting on November 18, 2000 that Carter's legal ruling was correct when she stated, “We know the law is on their side, but our community members don't want it.”[5]
[edit] Mexican Mafia Trials (United States v. Fernandez, et al.)

Between 2000 and 2001, Carter presided over the longest criminal trial in the history of the Central District of California.[6] This case involved the prosecution of more than forty alleged members of the Mexican Mafia on charges of murder, attempted murder, conspiracy to murder, extortion, robbery, and various drug trafficking and firearms crimes. Much of the case involved a triple homicide that occurred in 1998.[7]

The case was severed into three trials, with Carter presiding over each, and lasted for a combined 18 months. Following the conviction of Mariano “Chuy” Martinez on murder charges, the prosecution sought the death penalty, making it the first capital case to be tried in Los Angeles federal court since 1950.[8] A jury ultimately spared Martinez, sentencing him instead to life imprisonment.

[edit] Anna Nicole Smith (In re Marshall)

In 2002, Carter awarded over $88 million in damages to former Playmate Vickie Lynn Marshall, better known as Anna Nicole Smith, in the battle over the estate of her late husband, billionaire J. Howard Marshall. The case came to Carter on appeal following a federal bankruptcy court ruling that awarded Smith $475 million of her late husband's $1.6 billion fortune.

Carter ultimately concluded that Howard's son, E. Pierce Marshall, interfered with Smith's attempts to collect her inheritance. “The evidence of willfulness, maliciousness, and fraud is overwhelming,” Carter wrote in his 54-page opinion.[9] Upon finding that Smith had a reasonable expectation that she would receive a portion of her husband's estate without interference, Carter held that Smith was entitled to collect $44.3 million in punitive damages and $44.3 million in compensatory damages against Pierce Marshall.[10]

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Carter's order on the grounds that he lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because federal jurisdiction interfered with Texas probate court proceedings.[11] The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Ninth Circuit, concluding in a unanimous opinion that Carter properly exercised jurisdiction over Smith's claim and remanded the case for further proceedings.[12] With this jurisdictional issue resolved, the case is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit on substantive issues.

[edit] Aryan Brotherhood Trials (United States v. Mills, et al.)

Carter has been heavily involved in the proceedings arising from the 2002 indictment on racketeering charges of forty alleged members of the Aryan Brotherhood (“AB”), a notorious prison gang.[13] This indictment alleges that the AB ordered thirty-two murders over a twenty-three year period and charges forty-one AB gang members and associates with violations of the federal RICO Act.[14] Twenty-six defendants were eligible for the death penalty, making this the largest capital indictment in federal history.[15]

Twenty of the defendants charged in the indictment were assigned to Carter, including two of the three commissioners of the AB's federal faction, Barry “The Baron” Mills and Tyler “The Hulk” Bingham. Following a six-month trial, a jury convicted both Mills and Bingham of committing Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (VICAR) and murder. The jury deadlocked on the death penalty,[16] and both have been sentenced and are now serving life terms at ADX Florence, the federal system's sole supermax facility.

The trials of several remaining defendants are currently ongoing before Carter and other judges in the Central District of California.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_O._Carter


mystylplx
Comment posted October 11, 2009 @ 10:55 am

All the above is bad news for birthers. Carter is not a nutjob, and birthers
only hope was that he *was *a nutjob.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 11, 2009 @ 7:18 pm

In a message dated 10/9/2009 4:28:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:

We have not seen the official birth certificate. We have an IMAGE (a
.jpeg) file of a document claimed to be an official document.

Have you see the official birth certificate of any previous president? I
mean, did Nixon or Bush1 or Bush2 or Truman or FDR show their birth
certificate to ANYONE?

Obama has posted and shown to both FactCheck and Polifact his official
birth certificate. That is the only birth certificate that Hawaii currently
issues, and the facts on it, that he was born in Hawaii were confirmed twice
by the officials in Hawaii. Additional confirmation of Obama being born in
Hawaii was provided by the notices in the Hawaii newspapers, which were sent
out by the government of Hawaii in those days for births IN Hawaii and
not for births outside of Hawaii.

Yes, you have seen an image of his official birth certificate, but what
else could you have seen. If it was photographed and shown in a newspaper,
that would only have been an image. THAT image is more than any other
president has ever shown, and the facts on it were confirmed, and the myth that he
was born in Kenya has no evidence behind it. His Kenyan grandmother did
not say that he was born in Kenya. She actually said that he was born in
Hawaii.


jedidad
Comment posted October 11, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

BATTLE HYMN OF THE UNSINKABLE BIRTHERS!
(Sung to the tune of “The Battle Hymn of? the Republic”)

Mine eyes have not yet seen
Obama's birth certificate.
It is hidden in a vault
Where only God's Right Hand can get.
Obama's C. O. L. B. is a
Lousy counterfeit.
It's truth we're marching for!!!!

Orly! Orly! Hallelujah!!!
Orly! Orly! Hallelujah!!!
Orly! Orly! Hallelujah!!!
It's truth we're marching for!!!!

We shall fight the Masked Usurper
On the beaches, in the hills.
We shall fight this Painted Joker
On the seas and in the fields.
We shall fight to Hell and back
And into court and with appeals.
It's truth we're marching for!

Orly! Orly! Hallelujah!!!
Orly! Orly! Hallelujah!!!
Orly! Orly! Hallelujah!!!
It's truth we're marching for!!!!

(Author grants permission to reprint on web or in print and to perform in public)


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 12, 2009 @ 2:19 am

I read Mario Apuzzo's blog the other day.
He answered all these things to you few months ago.
If you want to continue drinking Obama's Kool-Aid – nobody is stopping you.

For every Hawaii official confirming Obama's eligibility, I will find you three higher ranking officials who said the same thing about WMDs in Iraq few years ago.
It would be much easier to verify Obama's birth certificate – there is no need to invade a foreign country.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 12, 2009 @ 8:18 am

Another “artist” on NEA payroll?


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 12, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

What we have in this situation is the combination of legal and confirmed
proof that Obama was born IN Hawaii, and the absence of any proof that he was
born in Kenya or anywhere other than Hawaii.

His Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said that
he was born in Hawaii. The idea that Obama's mother would go from Hawaii to
Kenya when she was pregnant in 1961 is laughable. (1) It was expensive;
(2) Pregnant women rarely traveled long distances in 1961 because of fear of
stillbirths; (3) You had to get a Yellow Fever shot to go to Africa in
those days (very bad during pregnancy); (4) Anyone born in Kenya would have
required some kind of US travel document such as a visa to get to Hawaii, and
there has been none found in this case; (5) No Kenyan documents either
(except for forgeries).

There is even a witness who recalls being told that Obama was born in
Hawaii in 1961 (_http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html_
(http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html) )


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 12, 2009 @ 3:57 pm

For every Hawaii official confirming Obama's eligibility, I will find you three higher ranking officials who said the same thing about WMDs in Iraq few years ago.


Jim
Comment posted October 12, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

So, now you're going to compare a legal BC with stupid pubs who were itching for a war? Now, that is a reach.

Nobody's dancing around any issue. You can't have the LC because you have no legal right to it.

Transparency in government and transparency in private life are 2 very different things. Besides, he's been more transparent than any previous President in history by showing his BC.

So, you still got nothing, you still get nothing. Have a nice delusion.


smrstrauss
Comment posted October 12, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

There is proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. There is no proof that he was
born in Kenya or anywhere else. The officials who looked into the file are
members of a Republican administration. They have no incentive to lie
about Obama being born in Hawaii, and if they did and it were proven that they
lied, they would be in real trouble. (The officials who said that there was
WMD in Iraq were simply wrong. It has not been proved that they lied, much
less lied on a constitutional issue).

The officials say that there is an original birth certificate in the files.
They also say that this means that Obama was born in Hawaii. (Because
foreign birth certificates could not be placed in Hawaii files in 1961, and
because they confirm that the original birth certificate says “born in
Hawaii” just like the Certification.) This was confirmed again by the notices in
the newspapers, and confirmed by this witness
(_http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html_ (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html) )

There is absolutely no proof that Obama was born in Kenya. His Kenyan
grandmother said he was born in Hawaii. There are no documents from Kenya
(except forged documents). There isn't even a document from Kenya showing that
Obama's mother was ever IN Kenya. If a child were born in Kenya, she or he
would need a US document to get them to the USA, and there is no evidence of
any US document such as a visa or a passport issued in Kenya being issued
in this case. The McCain campaign looked at all of the allegations, and
decided that it was crap.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 12, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

The point is simple: The WMD claims were truly bipartisan. Numerous Dem. Congress members agreed with the administration.

How can you or anybody else have so much faith in government officials telling the truth – is beyond me. It is rather simple to prove Obama's eligibility.
Let DoH follow the law and release information that is in public domain (DoH index data).
Does this count as transparency in government. How abolut legal opinion provided by AG Bennet to DoH director Dr. Fukino.
According to Hawaii law that legal advice is in public domain – it should have been files by AG within three days. Why is it that government is NOT transparent when it comes following the law that could shed light on Obama's eligibility?

Dance, baby dance!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 12, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

1. When did McCain's campaign verify Obama's long form birth certificate?
Are you just asuming things?
Show us the long form birth certificate that would confirm statements from that news article.
It is that simnple – just one document! It took you more time to write the previous link than what would take Obama to ask for the release of long form birth certificate.

2. McCain is not eligible either. He had no incentive to talk about the eligibility issue.


Jim
Comment posted October 12, 2009 @ 7:29 pm

1) NC you ignorant slut, (sorry to SNL, but the BS NC keeps putting out is gone to totally asinine) the official BC is the one shown. The LC is just for people like you to have something to complain about. Besides, idiots like you would just say it's fake and ask to see Obama's penis next…no need to show you.

2) You have just unilaterally decided to make the kids of military personnel around the world ineligible to become President. I would think the military might have something to say about a delusional idiot taking away their kids' citizenships.


Jim
Comment posted October 12, 2009 @ 7:31 pm

Yep, we'll be dancing at your next 2 beatdowns this week, no problem. BS is all you've got NC, the courts demand more. Why is it every time you type the only thing that comes to mind is Dan Akroyd on the SNL Weekend news talking about you…”NC you ignorant slut!”


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 13, 2009 @ 4:02 pm

Judge Land sanctions Orly Taitz $20,000!

http://candidblogger.blogspot.com/2009/10/birth…

Now let's hear all the birthers cry in unison:


RedGraham
Comment posted October 14, 2009 @ 5:43 am

Looks like Keyes v. Obama Jan.26th 2010 might be our last best hope. But I know I will give this up only when the truth comes out or they pry my cold dead fingers from the keyboard.
Update: October 9, 2009 This simple question is followed by the text of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Call it an open book exam . . . please comment with your answers.
Is the son of a British subject born on U.S. soil eligible under the Article II natural born eligibility clause to be President of the United States?
“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.” U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl 4
Update: July 30, 2009 Recent publishing of the Certificate of Live Birth of twins born the day after Barack Obama show Obama’s COLB number indicating a later birth, a higher number. This only supports, circumstantially, my conclusion that Obama’s COLB was from a 338-5 compulsory registration. Obama’s birthdate was earlier, but not produced by a licensed birthing facility. The mother, Stanley Ann Dunham visited the local agent for the health department at a later date to register the birth without a birth certificate.
Secondly, the jurisprudence of challenging ‘prima facie’ evidence is the key reason for demanding Obama’s original 1961 birth registration information. The Hawaii department of vital records either has a birth certificate from a licensed birthing facility, or merely a compulsory record of data from undocumented and unconfirmed sources. (See H.R.S. § 338-5)


mystylplx
Comment posted October 14, 2009 @ 5:56 am

“Is the son of a British subject born on U.S. soil eligible under the Article II natural born eligibility clause to be President of the United States?”

Yep. That's the law. Much as you wish it weren't. I think maybe you forget that the framers themselves were all sons of British subjects, and were each also born as British subjects themselves. IOW the sons of the framers were ALSO sons of British subjects.

Love how you birthers keep trying to piss all over the law and the Constitution in your desperate efforts to convince anyone that Obama isn't eligible. Doesn't even seem to matter why–you easily flip from claims that he wasn't born on US soil to claims he's ineligible due to his fathers citizenship to claims he's ineligible due to dual citizenship at birth… just so long as somehow someway (anyhow, anyway) you can pretend he isn't eligible.

So this obviously has nothing to do with defending the law or the Constitution (quite the opposite, you piss all over both) so why is it so important to you to pretend Obama isn't eligible? So important you are willing to lie, deceive, and try to rewrite the very Constitution in your desperation? What's your real motivation? It sure as hell aint the truth, so what is it?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 16, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

Obama can't release the “long-form” version of his birth certificate, because it no longer exists, if it ever did. The Hawaii Department of Health has already said that it does not maintain “short-form” and “long-form” certificates.

Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, [Health Department Spokeswoman] Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”
“The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:25 am

Do you have a link to the story?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:27 am

Where did you find the definition of a “natural born citizen” that includes a dual citizen at birth?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:36 am

You know as well as I do that it's included unless it's excluded. Show me a definition of “natural born citizen” that includes…. I don't know…. how about “people who use 'naturalizedcitizen' as screen names?”

Can't find it, can you? Then you can't be “natural born?”

Nonsense.

You know that whole argument is (and this is saying a lot) the weakest argument the birthers have. Claiming being a dual citizen rules him out is COMPLETELY made up. At least with the whole 'he was born in Kenya' thing and the 'his father wasn't a citizen' thing there's some sort of pretend argument to be made. But claiming that dual citizenship disqualifies him is something you birthers have 100% pulled out of your asses. There's not even a breath of a hint of support for that–not even Vattel said that!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:52 am

Vattel said that you have to be born in the country, of citizen parentS to be considered a natural born citizen.


RedGraham
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:53 am

Obama has a way out of this. He could do the honorable thing and resign before any indictments making Biden the legal president. Biden could then pardon Obama of treason, falsifying documents, etc. Everybody wins except then that goofy Biden would be our prez. But oh well.
Judge sets court date in 'birther' case filed by Wiley Drake
By Bob Allen (from The Examiner)
Thursday, September 10, 2009
BUENA PARK, Calif. (ABP) — The so-called “Birthers” claimed a small victory Sept. 8 when a federal judge set a tentative trial date of Jan. 26, 2010, for a lawsuit claiming that President Obama is constitutionally ineligible for his office.
“We won again,” Wiley Drake, a former second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, said of the ruling by federal judge David Carter. Drake is one of several plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleging that Obama cannot hold his office because he does not meet the constitutional requirement that the president be a “natural-born” citizen.


RedGraham
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:54 am

How convenient.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:59 am

A. That's wrong. He said no such thing.

B. It's beside the point. WHATEVER else he said he never said anything about dual citizenship.

Vattel never even used the phrase “natural born citizen.” That didn't get added in until an english translation that came out 10 years AFTER the Constitution was ratified. The word he used was “natives.” And according to Vattel, to be a native your FATHER (not both parents) had to be a citizen. Period. He did mention being born on the soil, but he then went on to say that children born of a citizen FATHER were still “natives” no matter where they were born.

In any case, the whole “dual citizenship” argument is still the weakest one because NOT EVEN Vattel supports that one.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 6:09 am

Obama doesn't need a way out of this. There's nothing to get “out of.” He's ignoring you birthers, and rightly so. Birthers are irrelevant. He has more important things to think about than a bunch of nutjobs who can't accept that the black man with the funny name is eligible to be President of the United States.


AXJ ROCKS
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 6:30 am

Good post AXJ, reading through it we can clearly see Judge Carter is a practical man and right from the get go he has West tell him how it would work in Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President and West concedes it would end up in Court just like this case has.

At minute 08:50 West concedes this Court has Competent Jurisdiction and there would be standing. Orly has won.

At minute 08:59 Orly starts right, this is not about impeachment, that is only for an eligible candidate and legitimate President and Obama might not be. Well done.

At minute 09:00 Orly explains to Judge Carter why he has competent jurisdiction under a case of Quo Warranto. Well done.

At minute 09:03 Orly goes for the jugular and states this is a legal question of constitutional law, not a political nor congressional matter so therefore they are out and this is a Court of competent jurisdiction. Well done again.

At minute 09:00 Orly explains to Judge Carter why he has competent jurisdiction since there is no Res Judicata tried on the merits. Brilliant.

At minute 09:17 Orly explains to Judge Carter why he has competent jurisdiction under a case when there is a violation of the Constitution. Brilliant again.

At minute 09:39 Orly explains to Judge Carter that the Secretary of the State of California did not verify Obama's eligibility. This is a grave matter. Well done.

At minute 10:00 Kreep asks Judge Carter to issue the appropriate Subpoena. Well done.

At minute 10:50 Orly explains to Judge Carter how Osama Bin Laden can win a Presidential Election with the help of the King of Saudi Arabia. Sad but true.

At minute 10:55 Orly explains to Judge Carter why he has competent jurisdiction and the American People have the right to enforce the Constitution. Well done.

At minute 11:24 Kreep sums it up for Judge Carter why he has competent jurisdiction. Well done.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 6:34 am

Do you always compliment yourself in the third person? Dude, that's weird.


RedGraham
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 7:14 am

This has nothing to do with being born in Kenya. This has everything to do with Obama being black. There would never be an anti-birther movement if under the same type of circumstances, Obama was (in the eyes of racists) white. What if Obama's dad was a white South African who left when he was two and then died, but his mother was the same. The anti-birthers would then question Obama's citizenship.
The only thing fake in this debate is what passes for ” anti-birthers ” brains. And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between questioning authority and the black-panther crowd seems to have been virtually erased.


RedGraham
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 8:16 am

What had “birthers” done that was so over the top? They asked to see Barack Obama's birth certificate, and to date, they have been denied that “crazy” request. In fact, multiple law suits have been filed across the country in numerous forms, simply seeking access to Obama's personal history, and most recently, a judge has fined one of those attorney's $20,000 for “filing frivolous law suits” on the matter.
Meanwhile, taxpayers have picked up the tab for over $1.5 MILLION in Obama legal defense fees, used to keep Obama's birth certificate, his school and college records, his passport and travel records and his law practice files Top Secret. So far, the “transparent president” is anything but “transparent.” He is the ONLY president in US history to hide his entire past. per Give Us Liberty website Oct. 14, 2009


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:01 am

If that were the case no one would even be questioning his citizenship. He showed his birth certificate, which is already more than most Presidents have done. Multiple confirmations from the HI DOH and 48 year old birth announcements in two HI newspapers would be MORE (MUCH more) than enough if Obama was white.

Like I said, he's already proven his citizenship more than any prior President, at least since Chester Arthur. If he were white it never even would have gone this far.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:10 am

It is sad that taxpayers are footing the bill for those frivolous lawsuits. Luckily it's not much of a bill.

And birthers are “crazy” because, in spite of all evidence, in spite of knowing better, in spite of overwhelming evidence, you keep insisting he hasn't shown his birth certificate. That's called loony tunes. You are in denial of reality.

And you just keep lying. The whole thing about him spending a million dollars (or whatever figure you promote, it varies from birther to birther) is truly one of the stupider lies birthers tell. Truly absurd.

And nope, none of those things you claim are “top secret.” But you KNOW that, yet still keep repeating the lies anyway. So birthers aren't just crazy, they're also fundamentally dishonest. Lying nutjobs who are so incapable of accepting that he's eligible that your perception of reality conforms to your lunacy. Maybe you're not a liar, maybe you actually believe the crap you just wrote, and I'm not sure which would be more pathetic.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:19 am

You are not helping Obama. By your own definition he is not a natural born citizen since his father was a British citizen.

What do you think was the reason for including the phrase “natural born citizen” into constitution?
Did it get there by accident?

There was a concern about national security and possibility that a foreigner might become the commander of the US military.
The CIC had to have allegiance to only one country – USA.

The following article gives many details including references Vattel as well as court cases where the phrase “natural born citizen” was discussed.

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-R…


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:31 am

You seem to have reading comprehension problems.

Look, again, Vattel never used the phrase “natural born citizen.” Never. He used “natives.” But he meant the same thing by it that the framers meant by NBC–citizen at birth.

The phrase “natural born” was not used by Vattel, but it WAS used in both British common law as well as the citizenship laws of the states prior to the ratification. It meant just what I said–citizen at birth. Different states had different requirements for who was and was not a citizen at birth, but anyone who fit those requirements was a natural born citizen of whichever state we're talking about.

Vattel used the word “native” (in French it's indegenes) to mean citizen at birth. Vattel believed that to be a citizen at birth it was necessary that your father be a citizen. But even Vattel didn't use the term to mean some special third kind of citizenship. Even for Vattel you were either a citizen at birth or a naturalized citizen. Those are the only two choices.

And we in this country don't go with Vattels requirements for who is and is not a citizen at birth. See the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution for more info.

The framers required that Presidents be citizens from birth rather than naturalized because there was concern about national security and possibility that a foreigner might become the commander of the US military. Thus they required the CNC be a citizen from birth and not naturalized. They were worried a naturalized citizen might harbor loyalty to the country he was originally from.

Obama is originally from here. He was a citizen at birth–thus a natural born citizen. He has no loyalty to anywhere else.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:49 am

Talking about 14th amendment:

“… I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen “

Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 )


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:59 am

There was some disagreement among representatives over exactly what the 14th meant, but the law is the law, and it says what it meant. Wong Kim Ark decided it.

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

~Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It says what it means and it means what it says. Obama was born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. He was a citizen at birth and as such is a natural born American citizen.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:12 am

You accused me of having a reading comprehension problems.

Your WKA quote mentions CITIZENSHIP only.

Where does WKA define a natural born citizen?
It determined that a child born in the USA of resident parents (foreign citizenship) is a CITIZEN.

Not a natural born citizen.


Empirical
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:16 am

As I read Rocks' report below — of the court proceedings on Friday — I conclude that serious judicial consideration of a serious Constitutional issue is underway……….!!!

***Does any one “out there” have any reports of ANY coverage of this court proceeding by ANY part of the U.S. media……….??????***

I suggest that such coverage is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than the coverage we all endured recently … about a little boy that was NOT in a balloon flight across our TV screens for nearly 48 hours of conjecture, hype and fantasy………

Let's get real……..!!! …. CAN WE……………?????

—————————————————————————————————————

AXJ ROCKS
Today, 02:30 AM
Good post AXJ, reading through it we can clearly see Judge Carter is a practical man and right from the get go he has West tell him how it would work in Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President and West concedes it would end up in Court just like this case has.

At minute 08:50 West concedes this Court has Competent Jurisdiction and there would be standing. Orly has won.

At minute 08:59 Orly starts right, this is not about impeachment, that is only for an eligible candidate and legitimate President and Obama might not be. Well done.

At minute 09:00 Orly explains to Judge Carter why he has competent jurisdiction under a case of Quo Warranto. Well done.

At minute 09:03 Orly goes for the jugular and states this is a legal question of constitutional law, not a political nor congressional matter so therefore they are out and this is a Court of competent jurisdiction. Well done again.

At minute 09:00 Orly explains to Judge Carter why he has competent jurisdiction since there is no Res Judicata tried on the merits. Brilliant.

At minute 09:17 Orly explains to Judge Carter why he has competent jurisdiction under a case when there is a violation of the Constitution. Brilliant again.

At minute 09:39 Orly explains to Judge Carter that the Secretary of the State of California did not verify Obama's eligibility. This is a grave matter. Well done.

At minute 10:00 Kreep asks Judge Carter to issue the appropriate Subpoena. Well done.

At minute 10:50 Orly explains to Judge Carter how Osama Bin Laden can win a Presidential Election with the help of the King of Saudi Arabia. Sad but true.

At minute 10:55 Orly explains to Judge Carter why he has competent jurisdiction and the American People have the right to enforce the Constitution. Well done.

At minute 11:24 Kreep sums it up for Judge Carter why he has competent jurisdiction. Well done. Read more…


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:20 am

Your reading comprehension problems continue.

Read above. I already answered that question.

You're problem is you're trying to invent a special third kind of citizenship which has never existed. There are only the two kinds.

And WKM explicitly defines “natural born” as part of the dicta. The court held that–

“It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

WKM was a citizen from birth, thus natural born. You can't have a whole new kind of citizenship that's never existed before. No one has ever argued that except birthers.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:28 am

Can you? (Get real?)

I doubt it.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:49 pm

The naturalization act of 1790 gave “natural born citizenship” status to children of US citizens born outside USA.
It was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795. Such children were given CITIZENSHIP.

There are legal ways how to change the Constitution. Declarative resolutions in Congress do not mean anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:27 pm

WKM?

The English law talks about natural-born SUBJECTS not citizens.
Try again.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:32 pm

WKM = Wong Kim Ark
And “subject” is what the Brits call “citizens.” If you are trying to imply
the term “natural born” means something different when put in front of the
word “subject” than it does when put in front of the word “citizen” then
that is asinine. I mean really really ridiculous.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:34 pm

Check Obama's election committee report to FEC about donations and expenditures.
The law firm's name is Perkins Coie:

This is just one of the quarterly reports you can find on the government web site:
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2009/Q2/C00431445…


BigGuy
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

And, pray tell us, how are you able to break out of those figures how much was “used to keep Obama's birth certificate, his school and college records, his passport and travel records and his law practice files Top Secret”?

Without that, you've got no evidence to back up your claim.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

Yes? And?

I know, I know, birthers forget that all Presidential candidates (and sitting Presidents) are in need of LOTS of legal advice, and so they dishonestly take those figures and pretend that all of that was spent on fighting those frivolous birther suits.

It's particularly absurd considering none of those suits have even gone to trial. How anyone could be so ignorant as to think it's even possible to spend anywhere close to that much on these kinds of frivolous suits is beyond me.

Lawyer walks into court, files motion to dismiss, motion granted. $1 million dollars? Not even close.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

It is not enough to prove a CITIZENSHIP. To be eligible for US presidency a candidate must be a natural born citizen.

An IMAGE posted on the web is not a proof of anything.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:43 pm

You're reading comprehension problem has turned into a memory problem. We
just went over this last night. See above. Get someone to explain it to
you.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 5:44 pm

Why did we have an independence war if all English laws apply here?

Read the last paragraph in WKA – you will find Judge Gray's explanation on what did the case determine.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

Hey, Red, I don't see the logic here.

If these law suits are costing the taxpayers money, and judges have ruled the suits to be frivolous, how does that end up being Obama's fault?

I would hope that anyone who's the subject of frivolous law suits would take the trouble to oppose them, and I would also hope that those who are fined for filing them would learn from their mistakes and stop doing it.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 6:43 pm

AXJ, do you promise to be equally complimentary of Judge Carter when he dismisses the case?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 6:58 pm

They don't. But english definitions apply here. We still speak the english
language to this day.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:36 pm

What did I claim? I just posted a link where the campaign reports to FEC can be found.
I


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:39 pm

What is frivolous about making sure that eligible candidate occupies the White House.
A dual citizen at birth is not a natural born citizen.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:43 pm

“A dual citizen at birth is not a natural born citizen.”
That's a frivolous claim. You don't get to just make things up and expect
anyone to take you seriously.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:48 pm

You posted it in support of the claim that “taxpayers have picked up the tab for over $1.5 MILLION in Obama legal defense fees, used to keep Obama's birth certificate, his school and college records, his passport and travel records and his law practice files Top Secret.”

That's what mystylplx was referring to, which elicited your response..


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:49 pm

1. No Obama supporter has ever addressed the point that an image (.jpg file) on the web cannot be used as a proof of Hawaiian birth.

2. Does the US Constitution use the term “subject” or “citizen”?

3. The term “You're” from the previous post is grammatically incorrect. The correct word is “Your”.
At least you will learn one thing from this conversation.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:50 pm

If you don't understand why the suits have been labeled frivolous, read the decisions again. The judges have explained it very clearly.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:53 pm

“No Obama supporter has ever addressed the point that an image (.jpg file) on the web cannot be used as a proof of Hawaiian birth.”

No one has ever claimed that it could. It's just a straw man, and it's been addressed as such several times.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:55 pm

1. It's not the image on the web that is proof, it's the document that the image is of. (Duh.)

2. The constitution uses the term “natural born.” If you are suggesting that “natural born” means something different in front of the word “citizen” than it does in front of the word “subject” you are just displaying how desperate and bankrupt your non-arguments are. I mean seriously, that's asinine.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 9:56 pm

I did not invent anything.
Read the following article. It refers to actual cases that mention the “natural born citizen” issue.

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-R…

Please scroll down toward the bottom of the page. There are several cases cited. It also has a quote from John Bingham, the framer of the 14th Amendment


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:00 pm

Put a quote from Bingham from a speech on the house floor up against the
14th amendment itself and guess which one trumps the other?
And I've read it. We've been over this. You just don't respond, wait a few
hours, and start again from scratch. YOU'RE memory problem is getting worse
and worse.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

I was just doing a service to all of you, no claims on actual spending.

There is no reason to argue with you about the EXACT amount of money spent on an expensive law firm, it does not change the fact that it would have been much cheaper to place a phone call (or send a letter) to the DoH allowing them to release the original long form birth certificate.

There would be no need to spend any money on lawyers fighting for the dismissal of eligibility lawsuits.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

And BTW, nothing in that article nor any of the cases it cites says anything
about dual citizenship being disqualifying. That's the part you are making
up. The rest you are merely wrong about. This has been pointed out to you
repeatedly, but you just ignore, forget, and repeat.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:06 pm

“There would be no need to spend any money on lawyers fighting for the
dismissal of eligibility lawsuits.”
Another case of you just ignoring, forgetting and repeating. None of those
lawsuits were just about the birth certificate. This has been pointed out to
you. You simply don't hear what you don't want to hear.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:10 pm

Have you been reading web blogs and comments posted all over the web?

The main argument used by Obama supporters is claim that his birth certificate has been disclosed to the public and it confirms Hawaiian birth.

This is simply not true. An image of a document, “claimed by Obama to be his COLB”, has been posted on the web.

The actual physical copy has not been examined by either courts or independent journalists/investigators.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:23 pm

If you're making the case that anyone who's sued frivolously ought to concede in order to save legal fees, the stupidity of that argument speaks for itself.

Especially when there's a Constitutional issue at stake.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:25 pm

Nope, you're playing with words now.

An image of the COLB has been released to the public.

No one has claimed that the image proves anything.

What they have claimed — and correctly — is that the COLB is proof of his Hawaiian birth.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

Let's ignore court cases for a moment.
A prudent politician would not waste his time and credibility on something that became a major distraction to his political agenda.
If Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, there would be absolutely no reason to hide the original birth certificate from public. Nothing in that document should be different from the information previously disclosed to the public (if Obama is telling the ruth).


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:34 pm

There would be no lawsuits if Obama could have provided a proof of being a natural born citizen of USA.
He knows that he is not eligible – that is why he is fighting for the dismissal of lawsuits.
His case would be stronger if he could show the long form original birth certificate indicating Hawaiian birth.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:38 pm

In case you hadn't noticed, Obama is ignoring you. He's not “distracted” at
all. You have an extremely inflated sense of how important birthers are. If
anything you are helping him by making his political opponents look like
nutjobs by association. It might not be fair to those who legitimately
oppose his policies, but it's true.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:41 pm

I am not playing with words – I am stating the facts.

Vast majority of Obama supporters uses phrase “birth certificate” not the COLB.
They assume that image posted on the web is equivalent to a physical copy, and they mention it as a proof of Hawaiian birth.

I am not willing to make that assumption. It is easy to manipulate computer images.

If Obama's COLB is a legitimate document, why not invite independent journalists/investigators to see and inspect it (or even better send it to court for verification).


mystylplx
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:48 pm

The computer image is all you're going to get. Most Presidents never show a
birth certificate at all. He's already proven his citizenship more than any
prior President in recent history. Far more, in fact.
Sorry, but you don't get to dictate terms. You can accept it, or not, but no
one really cares one way or the other what birthers think. Even Ann Coulter
says you are nuts, and that's really saying something. Ann Coulter calling
you nuts is like Jerry Springer saying you're too sleazy to be on his show,
or Cheech and Chong telling you to lay off the pot.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:49 pm

Consider the folowing scenario:
I applied for a government job and put the copy of documents verifying my qualification for the position on the Web.

Would the person in charge of hiring be considered nutty if (s)he asked me to send certified copies of those documents?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

Unless she had access to the original birth certificate to back up her claim (or witnessed Obama's birth first hand :-), it is only her opinion.
There is no need for speculation – long form birth certificate could easily prove it. Why is it hidden from US citizens?


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 11:36 pm

The long form birth certificate is no longer the legal form of birth identification in Hawaii and has not been since 2000.

The State of Hawaii has issued a Birth Certificate that meets all of the requirements of CFR 22.51.42. That Birth Certificate is certified by the State of Hawaii, and is considered proven by the Laws of the United States. It will be up to anyone who challenges its authenticity to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Birth Certificate is actually invalid. The Certification of Live Birth provided by Obama is LEGAL under Federal law for passports, drivers licenses, running for office, etc.

There is a very high standard of proof that must be met in order to override the Constitutional ‘Full Faith and Credit’ standard granted to the State of Hawaii in this matter. That standard of proof would require that the complainant show proof that there was an actual fraud committed by the State of Hawaii in the certification of that Birth Certificate, or that the certificate itself was fraudulent. Either way, the burden of proof rests with the complainant. Merely making accusations that this may have happened is not sufficient.

This would be true even if a foreign power were to present a Birth Certificate that was claimed to show birth in another country. Under the standard of ‘Full Faith and Credit’ that is specifically provided for in the Constitution, the public records of the State of Hawaii would take precedence over the public records of any foreign power. In order to meet the required burden of proof, the foreign record would not only have to be proven as true, but also the State of Hawaii’s record would have to be proven separately as false.

Demanding President Obama’s birth certificate is the 21st century of 19th century demands of newly freed slaves: Show me your papers. And when they did they were still lynched. Because hatred makes you blind.

I urge you to seek to unite our country. Not divide. Seek to pursue issues that truly matter, that you truly disagree with within the normal civil discourse. Seek to be an American among Americans, as our President does. Truly embrace the beauty of our democracy to offer the highest office in the land the the most humble of it’s servants. Disagree with our newly democratically elected President, but show him the same respect I showed George Bush- who was appointed by the Supreme Court.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 11:37 pm

If you read Rocks you must have rocks in your head. There is no big deal going on — just the juvenile hallucinations of immature jerks.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 11:47 pm

LOL, how thick can you be? Obama never offered the online image as proof of anything.

How many times do you have to be told the same thing?


AXJ ROCKS
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 11:48 pm

Here you go, enjoy:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12234409/Divorce-Decr

No marriage certificate, no father, no service, no child support, no P.11 which is the supposed birth certificate of the supposed child, all fabricated. Read it. Need more evidence?

How about these summer of 1961 nude pics, doesn't look too pregnant does she?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4YFhK87NXPE/SamoRZtXP

Then she appeared in August in Seattle, WA…boy she really travelled didn't she…some people will believe anything…

And a fake COLB posted on the internet? Some people will believe anything. Let him present that document to Judge Carter.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 17, 2009 @ 11:56 pm

I say it's just the opposite. He knows he is eligible, and so he can just go about the business of being President without wasting a minute worrying about the nutjobs who are saying he's not.

The fact that the judges have agreed that the cases are frivolous proves he's doing the right thing.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 12:07 am

Wow. You're actually too dumb to realize what you just posted contradicts
your case. I've noticed this if often the case with birthers–they hold up
evidence which they think proves them right, but which they're too dumb to
know actually proves them wrong.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 12:34 am

His case would be stronger?

ROFLMAO! He's won every case! How much stronger could it be?

Do you have any idea how dumb you sound?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 3:38 am

Really!?
Check the following link:
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcerti…

It has been used to claim that Obama is born in Hawaii.
It is very interesting that site uses the phrase “native citizen of the USA”, and not the one used in the Constitution “natural born citizen”.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 3:48 am

1. Why did he post the image of COLB on “fightthesmears” web site, if he is not concerned about the eligibility question?

2. You will notice that the registration number had been blacked out. At the bottom of the image it clearly says in capital letters “ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE”.

That web page serves as a smoke screen – to deceive the public into thinking that an official document confirms Obama's Hawaiian birth.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 3:55 am

He did not win a single case. They have been dismissed on the standing issue. Basically judges decided not to get involved. They “punted the ball” to Congress while Congress members “punted the issue” back to judiciary – they do not want to comment to avoid interfering with the pending litigation. It is a ridiculous situation that nobody is willing to simply ask Obama – show us the long form birth certificate.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 3:57 am

LOL, when the case against you is dismissed, you've won. Don't be silly.

Oh, and learn a little about law. Standing is an important constitutional issue. It is unconstitutional for a judge to accept a case without standing.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 4:00 am

God, you are incredibly dense!

The image is not proof of anything. The document itself is proof. I think you're the only person in the universe who is too think to understand it — or maybe you're just playing dumb.

I'm sorry you can't get it through your head, and I'm not going to explain it to you again.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 4:14 am

Obama can unite the country as he promised before the election. He could also fulfill another campaign promise; transparency. He should simply show the long form birth certificate indicating Hawaiian birth. He did not cheat his way into the White House, did he?

How difficult is it for a sitting president to release a trivial information like a long form birth certificate?
What is so secret on that document: Is it the hospital name or the attending physician – it is laughable that Obama is going to such great length to keep this information from being released to US citizens/voters.

I am sure that the birth hospital would be proud to put a copy of the birth registration record on public display. It would definitely help them raise funds for the hospital.
Yet Obama would not allow them to do it? Why? Could it be that the Kapiolani hospital birth is a fabrication?

The COLB document posted on “fightthesmears” web site has registration number blacked out. The bottom of that document indicates that any alteration invalidates the document.
Basically we have an image of an invalid document posted as a proof of Hawaiian birth?
You have to come up with a better response.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 4:28 am

Alan Keyes, and all other presidential candidates listed on the ballot have standing. They were denied fair elections by having an ineligible candidate as an opponent.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 4:34 am

Who examined the actual COLB document? Was it submitted to any Secretary of State – no.
How do we know that the COLB posted on the Obama's web site represents a real document and not a forgery?
Got my point?

You assumed that the COLB document is real – I am not willing to make that assumption based on history of lies told by Obama. We need an independent verification.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 9:59 am

“We need an independent verification.”
You need an independent psychiatric evaluation.

Got my point?


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 1:18 pm

You are really desperate. There is no proof those photos were taken in the summer of 1961. It is also probable that the image was photoshopped. Divorce records don't have images of the child's birth certificate. You are buying the lie that Orly has page 11 with the BC. That is just another right wing fantasy. PROVE IT. The COLB posted on the Internet is simply a photocopy of the original COLB which he has and which does not have the certificate number blacked out. They only did that because they were unsure if they should publish it according to his campaign. Your posts reveal a condition called delusions of adequacy.


Doubtful
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

Thanks for ruling on that issue, your honor.

If you don't mind, I'd prefer to wait and see how the real judge rules.

You'll accept his ruling, won't you?


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 4:21 pm

Again, your ignorance of the law is astounding.

The law requires that official documents be presumed to be real unless solid evidence to the contrary is shown.

The best you can offer is your assertion concerning a “history of lies told by Obama.”

You're entitled to your opinion, but it is a far cry from evidence.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 4:46 pm

ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 4:47 pm

ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 4:53 pm

naturalizedcitizen said:

ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE
___

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. There was an alteration to some of the *posted images* — but as you were the first to point out, posted images aren't proof of anything, either validity or lack of it.

Too bad. Try again.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

You are correct – there is no proof that those photos were taken in 1961. I am also willing to extend the assumption to the validity of pictures; there is no proof that that was Obama's mother, and not a Photoshop creation.

It is absurd to claim that COLB posted on the “fightthesmears” web site has any more credibility that these photos. You cannot have it both ways.

In addition, the following sentence is written in capital letters at the bottom of the image posted on “fightthesmears” web site:
ANY ALTERATIONS INVALIDATE THIS CERTIFICATE

Motivation for alteration makes no difference.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

I gave you two reasons why the COLB posted on the web is worthless:

1. Main reason: It could be a Photoshop creation.

2. Even if you are willing to ignore the first reason (as most Obama supporters do) and take an image posted on the web at its face value, you would still face a problem that an alteration to the document has been made, which according to the same document makes it invalid.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

Nice try, but it still won't work.

We all agree that posted images prove nothing. There's no point belaboring that issue.

However, the document underlying the COLB photo is an official state document, and therefore it is entitled to full faith and credit under the U.S. Constitution.

Now why don't you check your Constitution to see whether “summer of 1961 nude pics” are entitled to similar consideration.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

I think you are a photoshop creation. Or perhaps some kind of computer bot.
You certainly don't pass the Turing test.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 5:12 pm

For the last time: I am not “tak[ing] an image posted on the web at its face value.” I've said repeatedly that images posted on the web prove nothing.
No one but you is raising that silly straw man argument.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

14th amendment deals with citizenship issue – it does not define the “natural born citizen”.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

Seriously. You don't pass the Turing test. We've been over this. You seemed
to understand for about half a second, but then you glance away and forget.
Now you're back repeating the same BS as if it hadn't already been
explained. That's why I think you're a computer bot.
You haven't proven that you're a real person–all you are is an image of
words typed onto a computer screen. I think you should go to court to prove
you are real. How else can you expect me to accept you as if you were an
actual human being?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 5:26 pm

Read your post again.
The second sentence makes the third one laughable.

Unless you saw the physical copy of COLB you cannot make the claim that it is an official state document.

I have seen a video on You Tube where a person made the “COLB” document using Photoshop in a few minutes.
Anybody could do something similar and then hide the registration number to prevent people from verifying it against the original records.

Would you accept such creation as an official COLB?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 5:32 pm

So we agree that “COLB” posted on “fightthesmears” does not prove Obama's Hawaiian birth.

That is the logical conclusion of your post.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 5:34 pm

Would I accept it? Since when am I the arbiter of official documents?

But if you're suggesting that Obama concocted a fake COLB “using Photoshop in a few minutes,” then you'll have to explain why he hasn't been prosecuted for fraud, and why Hawaiian state officials have confirmed the information.

Remember, official state documents are not *absolute* evidence, they're prima facie evidence. If you think Obama's is fake, challenge it. With real evidence.

Otherwise you're just blowing smoke.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

Don't lie about what I said.

The image posted on fightthesmears doesn't prove anything.

The document shown in the photo is prima facie evidence, which means it is valid unless proven otherwise.

Are you claiming to have proven it invalid? If you haven't, it is valid until you do. And that's the law.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

It is funny you mentioned the Turing test, I have to present my thoughts in a manner very similar to that when programming a computer: Step 1, Step 2,…Step i,…Step n, otherwise you do not seem to get it.

Did they forget to debug your brain prior to shipping it from the factory? Is it still under warranty?
If not, I could do you a favor, at work we use a very good debugger named “TotalView”. It is excellent for memory leaks, buffer overruns and resolving racing conditions in multi-thread process programs.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

We are going in circles here.
You agreed that an image on the web proves nothing. Therefore, an image of COLB document proves nothing.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

Excellent! Yes, we agree that “an image of COLB document proves nothing.”


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 6:17 pm

If Obama had an R in front of his name, the media would have verified his claims long time ago.

The verification argument is very similar to what Saddam Husein did when asked (by UN) about the proof that WMDs had been destroyed. As a response he sent a document to UN claiming that he had no WMDs and at the same time kicked out the inspectors from Iraq.

Obama posted COLB on the web and then sealed the access to original records. The eligibility for office has been turned on its head. Instead of candidate proving that he is eligible, others are asked to prove otherwise, while the original documents are hidden from public.

What is there to hide? The name of the hospital or attending physician? Could you help me understand the motivation for Obama's behavior?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

Why is it that Obama supporters are using the same image as an argument that Obama was born in Hawaii?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

Check the following link:
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcerti…

It has been used to claim that Obama was born in Hawaii.
It is also very interesting that site uses the phrase “native citizen of the USA”, and not the one used in the Constitution “natural born citizen”.

They also fail to mention that this is a COLB not the birth certificate.

The site is a clever attempt to deceive those who are not informed. Such behavior can only be explained as a cover up so that the real truth about Obama's birth remains hidden from US public.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

I can't speak generally for Obama supporters, I can only speak for myself.

I see the image as *part* of an argument that he was born in Hawaii. I don't see it as proof.

As I said a short time ago, I am very skeptical that he could have produced a forged document and not be called on it by a single federal or state prosecutor or a single one of his many political enemies. I am more than a little doubtful that the administration of Hawaii's Republican governor would be making false statements concerning when and where he was born.

Am I claiming the online document is proof? No, as we agreed, I am not.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

Please compile and link your posts into an executable.
I can only process information in binary form.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 6:27 pm

“They also fail to mention that this is a COLB not the birth certificate.”

False. A COLB is a birth certificate. The State of Hawaii says so.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 6:30 pm

It's hard to explain his behavior when you are misstating it.

There is absolutely no evidence that “Obama … sealed the access to original records.”

His records are protected by the same privacy regulations that apply to everyone else.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 6:37 pm

Help me understand one thing.
Why is there a need to have a web page with COLB image on it and all the hoopla regarding speculations about Obama's birthplace?

There would be no need for it – Obama could have asked the hospital to release the original record to the public. The public would be reassured that he was born in the USA, historians would have original record for their books, hospital could use the publicity for good purpose (fundraising to improve the health care services), tourists would have another site to visit when traveling to Hawaii…

I cannot think of one reason against the release of the long form birth certificate, if the claim of Hawaiian birth is true.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

He has the power to release the original documents. He chose not to.

There is an indirect way to check if the original records were indeed filed as claimed on COLB.
The DoH index records (name, sex, date and title of the vital event) are in public domain according to Hawaii law. It is very suspicious that DoH is stonewalling the release of this information.
You can read about it on Leo Donofrio's blog. I cannot paste the link here because links to his blog are immediately deleted on this blog.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 6:47 pm

You've been told the reason many times. The “long form birth certificate” would be redundant proof of something that the COLB already proves.

Now, if you want to know why the COLB hasn't been produced in court, it's because it hasn't been requested by a judge.

But read Judge Carter's 10/5 transcript. He makes it clear that if he rules that Barnett v. Obama will continue, he will simply request the appropriate document from the State of Hawaii.

And I asked you before — if he rules that the Plaintiffs don't have standing, will you respect his ruling?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 7:00 pm

Birth certificate fraud has been done before in this country:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande10…

As stated in the article, legal US passports have been issued based on fraudulent birth certificates records.

How do we know that Obama's COLB is based on truth and not a fabrication?
Where is the original long form birth certificate?


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

LOL, of course! All kinds of crimes have taken place over the course of history.

If you think one's been committed here, prove it. Simply pointing out other cases of it will get you nowhere.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

Check my new post on top of the thread. COLB does not prove Hawaiian birth.

If judge Carter dismisses the case for the lack of standing, I would respect his ruling only if he provides a clear explanation on what the proper legal procedure is for preventing an ineligible candidate from running for US presidency.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 7:14 pm

You're going around in circles again.

A COLB is *prima facie* proof of Hawaiian birth.

That means it is proof unless you can show it is fraudulent.

Showing that other COLBs in the past have been fraudulent would accomplish nothing, any more than the fact that there have been murders in the past proves that you are a murderer.

But that's obvious, I shouldn't even have to point that out to you. You are grasping at straws.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

What is the proper legal procedure to ensure that only eligible candidates are placed on the ballot?

As judge Carter asked about hypothetical example using Arnold Schwarzenegger: If Congress was Controlled by Republicans and Arnold is placed on the ballot with an affidavit statement that he was born in the USA – what would be a legal procedure to ensure he does not become a US president?

If an affidavit is all what it takes to get on the ballot – why is it that courts would not order a discovery, let the truth be known and end the speculation.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 7:59 pm

Now you're asking a different question. “[E]nsur[ing] that only eligible candidates are placed on the ballot” is a very different matter from trying to challenge the eligibility of someone who's already been elected and inaugurated.

Judge Carter made it clear that his view of standing would be not necessarily be the same if the suits had been brought earlier.

But one part of the answer to your question is certainly clear: Any member of Congress could have filed a written objection to the vote of the Electoral College. I remember that time very well, and the birthers were presenting their “evidence” and pressuring their congresspeople to do just that.

Not one of them did. So there was no lack of legal procedure — just a lack of anyone choosing to use it.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

What are we going to do with lawsuits brought up before the elections, before the electoral college vote? Ignore them, dismiss them for the lack of standing?

The procedure was not properly administered because Chenney never called for objections. But this is just a minor point, even if he did call for objections and a member of Congress raised an objection, what difference would it made?

Lets assume in our hypothetical example that Arnold was elected and the electoral college vote is taking place:
Would an objection cause a formal investigation or a shouting match on the Congress floor?


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 9:07 pm

1) It's not up to me, but I got the distinct impression from Judge Carter that he would grant standing to the right plaintiffs earlier in the process.

2) That's why I mentioned filing written objections. None were filed, so the failure of Cheney to ask for them is irrelevant.

3) You wonder if the making of an objection would be an effective remedy. There have been cases historically where the vote was rejected. Whether that would always work is not clear, but unless we amend the Constitution, that's the prescribed procedure.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

How about phrase “native citizen”.
It is just another example of “lawyering” – leaving a wiggle room, being careful not to perjure themselves.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 9:22 pm

The Obama campaign's opinion of what constitutes a native or natural born citizen is irrelevant. Since he was born in Hawaii, long-standing legal precedents say he's an NBC.

You can challenge that in the courts if you like, but I haven't heard a single reputable legal scholar who thinks that the outcome would be in doubt.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 9:23 pm

There is more chance that the Hell would freeze over before a majority party nullifies the presidential elections won by their party candidate.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 18, 2009 @ 9:45 pm

Well, of course, you're just speculating. I think that if there were legitimate evidence of election fraud the public outcry would be sufficient to demand redress.

But, as I said, if you don't think that's a sufficient remedy, amend the Constitution. Right now, the procedure is very clearly specified.


Empirical
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 2:19 am

Much of the space on this subject has consumed endless back and forth palaver which imagines various contrived situations … that might “prove” or “disprove” WHEN Obama's status would — or would not be — “legal” as President………

That is particularly true of the discussion I read in the foregoing…….

That subject matter is pointless…….!!!

There is nothing complicated about the language in the Constitution. It is very clear: It REQUIRES that our President be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN…….

Until and unless the Constitution is ever changed … if 'he' or 'she' is not a “natural born citizen” … then 'he' or 'she' cannot hold that office……………….

And any person who attempts to hold the office without meeting that qualification … IS NOT LEGITIMATELY “THE PRESIDENT.” 'He' or 'she' is a USURPER of that office………

The Constitution contains no language which provides, suggests or even implies … that any EXCEPTION is allowed……..!!!

There is no reason to speculate, for example, as to whether or not the Vice President properly instructed the Electoral College … or whether or not the Democratic Party did or did not KNOW the true facts of Obama's citizenship status at the time of their convention … or whether or not one judge or TEN judges have failed to accept the plaintiff's complaint against Obama…..

ALL THAT WILL MATTER IS WHETHER OR NOT OBAMA CAN PROVE THAT HE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY QUALIFIED……….

In the end … he WILL have to prove that he is within the Constitution……..

There is no Clause in the Constitution that allows, suggests, or even implies otherwise……………!!!!!! Unless, of course, the citizens of this nation are prepared to abandon the Constitution…… I doubt that will be their choice…….

The issue will be contested until it is proved — in court — one way or another…..


mystylplx
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 2:28 am

You have already proven that you will never accept any amount of proof, so
the “issue” will persist. Period.
But then there are always nutjobs. There are still those who deny the moon
landing, or even claim the earth is flat. Those “issues” persist, and in
that same way this one will as well. When Carter rules against you you will
simply claim that he is a traitor as well, or that someone “got to” him, or
paid him off, or all of the above. Birthers always find an excuse to dismiss
any and all evidence that contradicts their lunatic theories. That's not
going to suddenly change with Carter. So the “issue” will persist and
birthers will spend their last breaths continuing to deny reality. It is the
way of birthers and conspiracy nuts of all stripes.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:06 am

You are such a child. In the end he won't have to prove ANYTHING. He is already the President of the United States and you have ZERO chance of ever getting anyone to listen to your hallucinations. Judge Carter will dump Orly on her butt again and it's over. Other so-called attorneys will continue their useless efforts for publicity, but it's over dude. You lost.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:30 am

Judge Carter has the following document in front of him:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21193106/KEYES-BARNET…

How do we explain that a person, allegedly born in Hawaii, got a social security number from Connecticut issued between 1977-1979.
At that time Obama was in high school in Hawaii?

In addition the same social security number was already issued used by somebody born in 1890.

Something does not add up in Obama's story.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:34 am

Social security number used by Obama appears to be obtained fraudulently:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21193106/KEYES-BARNET…


mystylplx
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:43 am

Different Barack Obama, idiot. It's a common name among immigrants from
Swahili speaking countries.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:55 am

Read the complete document before replying and turn your brain ON.

There is a list of addresses in Chicago used by Obama over the years and associated SS#. It is the same number that was issued in Connecticut.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 5:13 am

Is it just a coincidence that judge Carter hired a clerk who used to work for Perkins Coie – the main law firm used by Obama to fight eligibility lawsuits?

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/c…

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David…

It's a small world indeed.
How much time will pass before the Wikipedia page is altered to remove the name of the new clerk: Few hours, a day?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 5:42 am

Ah, so you're already getting the excuses ready. A law clerk who once worked
for Perkins Coie now works for Carter. So what is it you think that means?
What's your theory there? Is the law clerk a spy or something?


AXJ ROCKS
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 6:15 am

Already sanitized.

Good thing AXJ made a copy:

http://axj.puntoforo.com/viewtopic.php?t=2861


AXJ ROCKS
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 6:17 am

Judge Carter has a Spy working for him.

Already sanitized by Wiki..

Good thing AXJ made a copy:

http://axj.puntoforo.com/viewtopic.php?t=2861


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 6:33 am

Of all the available lawyers in the USA, judge Carter selected one from Obama's team!?
He does not even bother to create an image of judicial impartiality.
The new clerk started on October 1, 2009 – how convenient?

Remember what judge Land's clerk did recently in Orly's case in Georgia. Clerk included a non-certified fax into court documents. The fax was highly critical of Orly's conduct as a lawyer.
The document was later removed and judge Land mentioned that it did not influence him when he issued an emotional tirade against Orly in his decision. Yeah right, he erased it from his memory.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 7:21 am

It's not a lawyer, it's a clerk. And it's not nearly as big a coincidence as
you imply, and it means absolutely nothing.
But I notice you didn't answer the question–what is it you think it means?
Other than just sinister innuendos, what's your theory? Is he a spy and
Carter doesn't know where he used to work? Is it some kind of quid pro quo
where now Carter can be influenced by a law clerk that works for him? What's
your theory?

See, the reason I ask is this is just like most birther BS. It's utterly
meaningless and if you think about it past just saying “ooooh” and imagining
sinister innuendos there's just no sense to it at all.

And that's all assuming it's even true. Birthers don't exactly have a good
track record of accuracy and honestyt in stuff like this to begin with.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 7:55 am

Being a clerk for a judge does not mean that person is not a lawyer. It is a good practice for young lawyers to see court in action first hand.

Hiring a lawyer from Obama's team to administer a case about Obama's eligibility does not look good on paper. The perception of impartiality is very important for any court.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 8:00 am

It looks fine on paper or any other way. Only if you're looking for sinister
innuendos (and looking hard for them) can you make out like there's anything
improper. It's just a clerk who at some point in the past worked for a law
firm that currently works for Obama. Trying to make something of that is yet
another example of the desperation of birthers.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 8:16 am

Would you feel the same if judge Carter hired somebody from Orly's office?

Are you making any progress in your response to the question of Obama using a SS# issued in Connecticut?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 8:30 am

Pretty much, though Orly doesn't have an office, so that would be a little
weirder. But to make it more realistic, lets say it was someone who used to
work for a law firm that used to work for Keyes. Nope. No problem.
And I don't know about the SS# thing. Looks like there's just the one
number, so I don't see what's such a big deal to you. I don't know why they
say it was issued in Connecticut. Maybe that's where he applied for it for
some reason. Maybe the SSA screwed up their paperwork. Who knows?

Typically though you turn it into another sinister innuendo. What's your
theory on that one? It's not identity theft since it's in his own name, what
would be the point of “fraudulently” getting a SS# in your own name from a
different state?


Empirical
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 9:10 am

Until and unless the Constitution is ever changed … if 'he' or 'she' is not a “natural born citizen” … then 'he' or 'she' cannot hold that office……………

The ACORN commentary which (now) dominates this site … is much more perishable than is the Constitution……….

Cheerio………….


mystylplx
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 9:15 am

He IS a natural born citizen, and no matter how often you try to rewrite the
Constitution to make it otherwise, the Constitution will outlive you and
your attempts to piss on it.
And what is it with nuts being so obsessed with acorns? Isn't that a little
incestuous?


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 3:30 pm

LOL, I read the document and there is nothing that suggests to me any connection between fraud and the current president. Right now it's all speculation.

But, as I've told you many times, if you think you've got evidence, take it to a judge.

Here's a hint, though: Do your homework. If you take raw data — like a fake Kenyan Birth Certificate, or an internet SSAN search that frequently turns up false positives — don't just dump it on a judge and expect him to do your research for you.

If you don't believe me, no problem. Wait for the ruling and see what the judge says.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

Barry was in high school in Hawaii, ha was born in Hawaii (at leas that is what he claims) yet somehow applied for a SS# in Connecticut?

Why do we need to speculate? Let the discovery process answer that question.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:06 pm

The only person working with Orly on her cases right now, at least on the record, is Charles E. Lincoln III.

He is a disbarred lawyer with multiple felony convictions, and if any judge hired him for anything I would consider it a serious breach of good judgment.

Why do you suppose Orly's paying him? I believe it's in violation of the rules of the California Bar, and I suspect that Orly's already been notified of that.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:09 pm

And how do you suppose the discovery process works? You just get to see whatever you want?

You grant that all you've got is speculation. And speculation is not enough to compel discovery.

But you know that, don't you?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

Orly has done her homework on this one.
A signed affidavit from a private investigator is in front of judge Carter. It should be very simple to verify it.

It is very unusual that a SS# is issued in a state 4000 miles away from Barry's high school. Another thing that puzzles me is the timing.
SS# is assigned at birth – this was the case with my kid. I got my SS# as an adult upon immigrating to US.
Why is it that Obama got his SS# when he was a teenager?

The only thing that worries me about judge Carter is the latest news of hiring a lawyer from Obama's team to be his clerk. I simply cannot explain the reason for doing it. Judge Carter tried to present himself as an impartial judge, yet hired a clerk tied to Obama? I am still trying to understand the motivation for such a controversial move.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

Nice dancing without commenting on the substance of the issue: the perception of bias by hiring a lawyer from a firm that has been representing Obama in eligibility cases.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

No, Orly has not done her homework. She has submitted raw data from an investigator. Have you ever used one of those database searches? They turn up all kinds of information, some of it valid and some of it not.

But what's your point? Social Security numbers have no bearing on the question of whether he's eligible to be president. Orly's just raising the subject as speculation about Obama's alleged nefarious past, and even if it were true it would be completely irrelevant to the case in which she submitted it. As I've said many times, if you think you have evidence of a crime, take it to a prosecutor.

On the silly speculation about the clerk, have fun. You must be anticipating an adverse ruling from Judge Carter.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:25 pm

Reading the latest transcript from Oct 5, 2009 judge Carter appeared to be of sound mind. He asked many interesting and provoking questions.
I am sure that he can easily figure out who is telling the truth in this case. All he needs is the long form birth certificate from Hawaii, hospital records and Social Security number verification.
It is not a rocket science to figure it out.
The bigger question is what is happening behind the scenes. Hiring of new clerk from Obama's legal team is strange.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:26 pm

Perkins Cole is a big firm and job offers to law clerks are made far in advance.

If you want to claim there's an appearance of impropriety, you're going to have to bring a lot more evidence than that.

But I understand, you'll grasp at anything now.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:32 pm

I agree concerning Judge Carter's competence, and I'll go further than that — it is not rocket science, and he'll be able to figure out what he needs to know without any long forms, hospital records, and SSANs.

He *may* ask for the COLB — but I would be willing to bet against it.

And you're really stretching things beyond all recognition when you say the clerk is “from Obama's legal team.” Perkins Cole is a big firm.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:32 pm

You have shown in previous responses that you are an intelligent person. The latest one is not in the same category – it is more in the Baghdad Bob category: stick to the script – evidence be damned.

The SS# indicates that he may not have been born in Hawaii – which would make him ineligible for the office of US President.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 4:47 pm

OK, let's go back a bit. The COLB is prima facie proof that he was born in Hawaii unless it can be shown to be invalid.

Now you explain to me how the investigator's report calls that document into question.

Remember, mere speculation won't do it!


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 6:11 pm

Social security numbers were NOT assigned at birth. I got mine when I applied for my first job at age 16. It's amazing how dumb birthers really are. As to the clerk, he is not “tied” to Obama who worked for that law firm decades ago.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 6:49 pm

I guess the birthers are running scared in anticipation of Judge Carter's ruling and are already looking for ways to accuse him of bias.

This one from naturalizedcitizen is typical:

“Hiring of new clerk from Obama's legal team is strange.”

What's even stranger is that this member of ” Obama's legal team” was actually working in the Seattle, Washington office of Perkins Cole specializing in Product Liability.

http://www.lawyers.com/Washington/Seattle/Siddh…


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 6:50 pm

I explained to you how my child got SS# at birth (few years ago) and how I got SS# as an adult.

Instead of insults you could have simply stated that in the past SS# were assigned at different time – not at birth.

When you got your SS# did you get it from the state you were you lived, or from another state where you had no prior connections to?

Perkins Coie law firm represents Obama in eligibility lawsuits.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

If Obama was in high school in Hawaii at the time when his SS# was issued (by the state of Connecticut), it indicates that he committed a fraud.
There is no legitimate reason to have a CT SS# issued for somebody living in Hawaii.

Few weeks ago I had a discussion on the web regarding SS numbers. I was told by Obama supporters that government does not re-use SS# after person dies.

Report indicates that Obama's SS# was issued to sombody born in 1890.

A person born in the USA does not need to shop for SS# on the black market.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 7:28 pm

I'm sorry, did you have trouble reading what I wrote? I asked “how the investigator's report calls [the COLB] into question.”

And you've responded with pure speculation about “shop[ping] for SS# on the black market.”

As you so rightly point out, Social Security fraud is a crime. Take your “evidence” to a prosecutor. But as long as all you have is speculation, don't expect it to play any role in the case currently before Judge Carter.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 7:37 pm

Anybody working for Perkins Coie is on Obama's legal team. You can spin it any way you want.

Do you know anything about internal relationships between people within Perkins Coie to prove that this guy did not work himself, or does not know people who work on Obama's eligibility lawsuits?

The mere perception of bias looks very bad for judge Carter.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

Suddenly you are having trouble following the logic?
The investigative report mentions that the SS# was used by another person born in 1890.
A person who lives in Hawaii and claims to have been born there would not have to obtain a SS# from another state across the country.
The information about place of birth indicated in COLB is false.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

LOL, you've got a strange definition of “legal team” to include many offices of a large law firm practicing in many areas of the law all over the country!

If you want to say that it causes a perception problem, say it. It's a free country.

Any bets on whether it's going to have any impact on the case?


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

No, the logic problem is yours.

The fact that the COLB is prima facie proof means that you have to show that the document itself is invalid. Speculation about its content is irrelevant; you must invalidate the document. That's what prima facie means.

Sorry if you don't like it, but that's the law.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

The “logic” over the Social Security numbers is a complete scam.

An investigator claims that there is some association between Obama and a SSAN that was apparently issued to someone else. Now, of course, if anyone uses a SS number fraudulently, that is a crime, and that person should be prosecuted.

But not only are SSAN database searches notoriously unreliable, there are many varieties of fraud; and it's an incredible stretch to conclude that any of this would point to Obama's birth having been outside Hawaii. Are you actually saying that Social Security fraud is never committed by Natural Born Citizens?

So you've got two problems — to show that there's any incriminating evidence involving President Barack Obama, as opposed to someone else with a similar name; and then to show that it proves he wasn't born in Hawaii. And there's a third — you still have to counter the presumed validity of the COLB.

If you can make the case, fine. But so far it's nothing but pure speculation. If you expect it to have any real-world effect, you're dreaming.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 8:27 pm

Judge Carter's decision was very strange. I have less confidence than few days ago (when I read the transcript from Oct 5) that he will be an impartial judge in this case.
If he dismisses the case on standing issue – this hiring decision will flame the claims of conspiracy.

Compare this sitiation with the selection of a jury in a court case. Last year I was in a pool of prospective jurors for an asbestos law suit. One of the questions asked if we worked for a company that was involved in a similar case before. Why did they ask the question? Perception of bias!?

I work for a big company and one of its divisions was involved in such case (and company had to pay a lot of money).
How would the families suing for damages and their lawyers feel if I had been selected as a jury member and the case was dismissed?

I did not have any connections with companies being sued at that time.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 8:41 pm

If COLB document can be used for legal purpose, Obama could send it to judge Carter – the same was as Orly submitted her document supporting the request for case to continue.
After all COLB sent to judge Carter would not reveal anything different ethan what was shown on “fighthesmears” web site, would it?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

Are you suggesting that the first person (born in 1890) comitted a fraud or that Obama (as an NBC) comitted a fraud?

You have to look at the following three pieces of information together to come to conclusion that Obama's SS# is highly suspicios.

1. The investigative report connects the same SS# with numerous home adresses used by “the” Obama over many years.
We have the right person.

2. SS# issued to Obama was from CT.
Why would the state of CT issue a SS# to somebody born in Hawaii, who was resident of Hawaii at the time when SS# was issued? It makes no sense.

3. It was used by another person (born in 1890).
Duplicate SS# – we have another problem here indicating fraud.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 8:53 pm

Of course. Juries make critical decisions, and it is essential that bias be avoided.

If you want the case of a court clerk to be comparable, you have to begin by showing that he or she will be rendering judgments in the case.

If Judge Carter dismisses Barnett v. Obama as I expect him to, lots of luck trying to associate it with the fact that one of his clerks practiced Product Liability law with Perkins Cole in Seattle! (You're aware, of course, that Perkins Cole is not involved in this case.)


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 8:56 pm

Of course not, I made it clear that so far I've seen no evidence that anyone has committed a fraud. Read what I wrote again.

And I tell you once more, your conclusion that something is “highly suspicious” carries no weight in a courtroom, especially when you've got an official government document going against you. You're going to need a lot more than that. It's pure speculation.

I'm not saying the evidence isn't there; I have no way of knowing. But what you've waved your hands about so far doesn't even come close.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

Absolutely, and if Judge Carter requests it — which he might — I would certainly expect Obama to comply, and I also would expect it to correspond to the one that was posted.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 9:09 pm

In another eligibility case (judge Land in Georgia), the court clerk accepted a fax, highly critical of Orly Taitz, judge issued a decision and later on the document was excluded when it was pointed out that it came from a local store.
Do I believe that the fax had no influence on judge Land's decision – Absolutely not. You cannot erase your memory just like that.

Did the judge fire his law clerk for submitting papers that were not notarized?

How do we know that new clerk had not been “borrowed” to judge Carter for a year. He may return to Perkins Coie after his one year term is up and obtain a nice promotion as a compensation for his trouble.

New clerk could ba a “liason officer”, to avoid the need for Obama lawyers to call or mail judge Carter directly -thus avoiding paper or electronic trace of such communication.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

LOL, you are too much!

Haven't you learned to recognize speculation yet? Hints: “Do I believe” and “How do we know it's not” and “could be” are indications of speculation.

You are free to speculate all you like. But don't expect people to take it seriously as if you were offering facts.

Oh, and by the way, I don't think Judge Land forgot about Capt. Rhodes's letter at all. I think he probably notified the California Bar of the client complaint against Orly, and I think we'll be hearing more about that in the future.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 9:42 pm

The facts are simple:
1. A lawyer from Perkins Coie law firm (representing Obama in eligibility lawsuits) was hired by judge Carter just days prior to making decision on eligibility lawsuit against Obama.

2. Obama used SS# issued in CT while he was resident of Hawaii. He did not submit request for SS# to his “native” state.

3. Obama's SS# was used by another person born in 1890.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 9:47 pm

1. Speculation. How do you know when the clerk was hired? We know when his or her term began, but I haven't seen any evidence of a hiring date.

2. Speculation. The investigator associated a name with a number. I've seen no evidence that President Obama actually used a particular SSAN. Have you?

3. Speculation. What's your evidence — do you actually know President Obama's SSAN and who else used it?

Keep working at it. You're still not too good at separating fact from speculation.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 19, 2009 @ 10:40 pm

By the way, just out of curiosity, I reread Susan Daniels's affidavit. Have you read it?

(http://www.scribd.com/doc/20509291/KEYES-v-OBAM…)

What she has sworn to is that the State of Connecticut appears to have issued a social security number to someone named Barack Hussein Obama in 1977-1979, and that the same number may have been assigned previously.

That's it. Not a scrap connecting it to the President.

Now, like I said, if you investigated it further, who knows what you'd find?

But what you have now? Absolute crap.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 12:24 am

SS#'s are not assigned at birth, idiot. You have to apply for one. These
days most parents get one for their kids when they are very young, but back
then it was not uncommon to wait to get one until they were older and needed
to get a job.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 12:33 am

Read the rest of it: Addresses and SS# used by person named Barack Obama over the period of many years.

Then come back and tell me that we are talking about somebody else other than the person sitting in the White House.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 12:36 am

I read everything in the documented I cited. If you've got another, let me know.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 12:41 am

It's an interesting question, but that's about it. There's certainly no
evidence of any fraud. Something weird with the SSA obviously, since they
clearly issued a duplicate number, and they're not supposed to do that. But
notice it's the SSA saying the number is registered with two people (one
long dead)? So I don't see how you get that's supposed to be Obama's fault.
And if they screwed up by issuing the same # they could just as well have
screwed up on the state. Maybe Connecticut is where the original guy was.
Who knows?

The point is all you've got is evidence the SSA screwed up somehow, and
you're trying to draw sinister innuendos about Obama from that. Sorry, but
it's typical of you and other birthers to try to stretch nothing into
something nefarious.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 1:01 am

This is posted here as an answer to a question below:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21193106/KEYES-BARNET…

This link show document containing 11 pages. Your document had only first three.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 1:05 am

I posted a link at the top of the page.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 1:06 am

Thank you. Now please show me what on those 11 pages is specifically incriminating to President Obama in the sense that it casts doubt on his proof of Hawaiian birth.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 1:37 am

He claims to have been born in Hawaii. At the time when SS# was issued he was resident of Hawaii (attending the high school). Nobody ever suggested that Obama had a residence in Connecticut.

For a native resident of Hawaii there would have been no problem to obtain the SS# from Hawaii.
There would be no need to obtain a fraudulant SS# (previously used by another person and issued in another state).

I have only one explanation: he was not a legal US resident at the time. It is contradictory information to his claim of being born in Hawaii.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 1:41 am

“I have only one explanation: he was not a legal US resident at the time. It
is contradictory information to his claim of being born in Hawaii.”

You can't possibly be that stupid. Well… maybe you can.

Where do you get “fraudulently?” The SSA issued him that #. That's according
to THEM in the document you showed. The number is issued to him in his own
name. So you think he “fraudulently” got a SS# in his own name but from a
different state? What would be the point of that?

Do you see how pathetic and desperate that makes you? Of course you don't.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 1:43 am

But it's just a list of names and numbers with no explanation. What do those entries mean? On what basis are they associating a name, an address, and a social security number? Are they claiming to have gotten that information from the individuals themselves? From other sources? Who? You seem awfully quick to accept these nameless sources in contrast to the grave skepticism you show toward an official state document from Hawaii!

But most important — the conclusion you have drawn, that “he was not a legal US resident at the time,” is completely unsupported by the facts.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 1:44 am

What is your theory: Who screwed up his application for SS#?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 1:51 am

I don't know. That's the difference between us. If there's no evidence to
say one way or the other I admit I don't know. When there's no evidence one
way or the other you come up with some vague formless theory of Obama
committing fraud–a theory that doesn't even make sense.

It shows how desperate you are to twist and distort everything and anything
into supporting your non existent case.

Don't you think it's a little odd you immediately swallow this
unsubstantiated stuff at face value and leap to weird senseless conclusions
that Obama committed fraud, while at the same time you dismiss a legal state
certified BC, multiple confirmations from the HI DOH, and two birth
announcements from HI newspapers as not being proof?

Your standards of proof vary WIDELY depending on whether it's what you want
to hear or what you don't want to hear.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 1:56 am

I could only guess from my own example – let's see: When did I have to give my SS#: To open a bank account, credit card, student loan, car loan, mortgage application, employment records, physicians office, dental office…
All those records contain person's name, address and SS#. I am sure that credit agencies have most of those records on their files too.

Private investigator signed an affidavit submitted to the court. I assume that the lady has donce similar research in the past and knows the procedure of how to verify person's SS#.

Do you have a better explanation on why would a native resident of Hawaii use SS# from another state and previously used by another person?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:03 am

“Do you have a better explanation on why would a native resident of Hawaii
use SS# from another state and previously used by another person?”

Do you have an explanation for why the SAA would issue such a number to him?
Is the SSA in on the conspiracy too now?

All you have is a minor mystery and naturally you jump to all kinds of vague
nefarious conclusions that don't even make sense. You're own document shows
the SSA issued that number to him and to another person. This is not
evidence that HE committed fraud–this is (if that) evidence the SSA screwed
up. They aren't supposed to issue the same number twice, yet obviously they
did.

But naturally in your pathetic desperation you try to make this somehow
Obama's fault.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:04 am

So we're right back where we started. “I am sure that the credit agencies have”… “I assume the lady has done”… “Do you have a better explanation?”

As I said earlier, you would do well to recognize the signs and symptoms of speculation. Could you really think you would have any impact whatsoever on something as important as the eligibility of the President with arguments as weak as these?

And don't forget — there's still a COLB hanging over your heads. As long as there's a valid legal document stating he was born in Hawaii, there's not a judge in the country who would consider evdence that he wasn't, much less a story as full of holes as yours. Read the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:05 am

Where does it say that SSA issued him that number?

For your theory to be correct we need to asume that Obama applied for SS in Hawaii and somehow SSA made a mistake and gave him the number associated with another state, and it is a duplicate SS# on top of it.
They had to make a compound error just to fit your theory.

If state agencies are so incompetent when handling Obama's records, how much confidence do you have in COLB image posted on the web?


BigGuy
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:09 am

Oh, and one other thing — you “assume that the lady … knows the procedure of how to verify person's SS#.”

Read her statement. She hasn't verified anything. She made some statements about someone named Barack Hussein Obama without identifying him further, and then presented pages of data with no explanation — but in the hopes, no doubt, that some weak-minded souls would assume that she had verified these social security numbers.

Pure unfounded speculation. Just like before.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:09 am

Minor mystery? How do we resolve a minor mystery?
Where is the long form birth certificate?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:11 am

It says right in the document you showed. It clearly (and in several places)
says the # was issued and “assigned” to Barack Obama. Try reading your own
so-called “evidence.”


mystylplx
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:14 am

And just how would his long form explain why the SSA assigned him a # that
had previously been assigned to someone else?

“Desperate” is too weak a word for your continual BS. There isn't a word
strong enough to describe it, but it's quite transparent to everyone except
other birthers.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:16 am

The lady presented a list of names, adresses and SS# that she found.
As a private investigator she has done this thing before.

What is not true in the statement that credit agencies have personal data on file which includes names , addresses and SS#?

The lady is a private investigator – what is wrong with the assumption that she has done SS# check in the past?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:31 am

Ok Mr. word parser.
Private Investigator did not “verify the SS”.

She verified that Barack Obama used SS# indicating CT residence, which was previously used by another person born 1890.

Feel better now?

Those pages of information confirm that we are talking about same person who is sitting in the White House. There is no confusion that somebody else with the same name used that SS#.

Lady is a LICENSED private investigator. Give her some credit.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:34 am

I didn't say they weren't true. That's the thing about speculation — it could be true, it could be false. That's why I'm asking you for facts. A list of names address and social security numbers with no explanation invites speculation, and you have been more than happy to accept the invitation. That will never convince a judge and it's not convincing me.

And once more I will ask you: among this mass of undifferentiated data, where is there any but the most speculative connection with the question of whether he is a Natural Born Citizen?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:35 am

” She verified that Barack Obama used SS# indicating CT residence, which was
previously used by another person born 1890.”

Try again. She verified that the number was issued to him, that it was
issued from Connecticut (nothing about Connecticut residence) and that it
had previously been issued to someone else, now deceased. Try reading your
own links. He didn't just “use” it–it was “assigned” to him.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:39 am

Are you saying that a state agency was so incompetent and made a blatant error to issue a previously used SS# associated with another state? First three digits are uniquely assigned to states. Nobody noticed such an obvious thing before mailing it out?

If they are capable of making such mistakes – why would we have any confidence that a derived document like COLB would be issued properly.

Where is the original long form birth certificate?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:42 am

I'm not saying it. The document from the PI that YOU showed is saying it.

And if you want to go there then why would we have any confidence in the
long form either? We may as well just throw up our hands and assume that
nothing means anything.

As for where the long form is–it's hidden in the corner of the Oval Office.
Go find it.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:43 am

She verified that Barack Obama personally used a certain Social Security number? How on earth could she possibly know that? Was she there when he said it? How could she know? How can you possibly say she verified it?

You sure are willing to believe anything if it suits your agenda!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:47 am

Why did Connecticut issue a SS# to a Hawaii resident?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 2:53 am

I already told you I don't know. Why do you keep asking questions I've
already answered? And while we're at it, why do you keep misrepresenting the
evidence that you yourself presented? And implying all kinds of nefarious BS
based on your misrepresentations? And engaging in desperate and really
stupid speculations that don't even make sense?

Why?

Even if the PI's information is true (I don't know that it is) all it says
is the SSA issued him a # from Connecticut that had previously been issued.
This would not indicate any fraud on his part, but rather a mistake on the
part of the SSA. It was assigned to him in his own name by the SSA. That's
not fraud. Fraud would be if he used a # that had not been issued to him, or
applied for one under a false name. Even the PI's report you showed clearly
shows neither of those were the case. So any mistake (if there even was one)
was on the part of the SSA.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 3:02 am

BTW, Obama Sr. lived in Connecticut. Maybe that has something to do with it.
That's only speculation, and at least I know the difference between facts
and speculation.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 3:05 am

And beyond that, how do you even remotely connect it to the eligibility issue?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 20, 2009 @ 3:08 am

You'd have to be a desperate birther to make that connection. It's simply
because they've got nothing, so the desperately cling to anything they can