Orly Taitz Smacked Down: Birther Lawsuit Dismissed

By
Thursday, October 29, 2009 at 1:33 pm

Central District of California Judge David O. Carter has dismissed Barnett et al v. Obama et al, Orly Taitz’s most successful lawsuit — that is, the one that got the furthest through the legal system — demanding proof of the president’s citizenship. The entire decision is here, and it’s devastating to Taitz. Here’s an excerpt of the disposition, with emphasis in the original:

Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by We the People‚ sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

That’s the end of the story. But the ruling is limned with criticism of Taitz for the screwball, media-grabbing tactics she used to promote her doomed, frivolous lawsuit. Here, Carter confirms that he got complaints from Taitz witnesses like Larry Sinclair, claiming that Taitz wanted them to lie on the stand.

[T]he Court has received several sworn affidavits that Taitz asked potential witnesses that she planned to call before this Court to perjure themselves. This Court is deeply concerned that Taitz may have suborned perjury through witnesses she intended to bring before this Court. While the Court seeks to ensure that all interested parties have had the opportunity to be heard, the Court cannot condone the conduct of Plaintiffs’ counsel in her efforts to influence this Court.

And here’s the full ruling:

Follow David Weigel on Twitter


Categories & Tags: | | |

Comments

3,791 Comments

uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted October 29, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by Fired Up! Missouri: This is the @timwjones and @cynthialdavis case. RT @twi_news: Orly Taitz Smacked Down: Birther Lawsuit Dismissed http://bit.ly/Ky9DQ #nutz…


Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Orly Taitz Loses Another Birther Case: Barnett v. Obama Dismissed
Pingback posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

[...] v. Obama, the last birther case filed by Orly Taitz that hasn’t been dismissed has, well, been dismissed: U.S. District Judge David O. Carter has dismissed Barnett et al v. Obama et al, Orly Taitz’s most [...]


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:38 pm

Taitz is off her rocker to be sure. But David Weigel is wrong when he dismisses the “natural born citizen” status of President Obama. The historical definition of a “natural born citizen” goes back to the Law of Nations. The 69 million that voted for Obama mostly assumed that Secretaries of State and the Democratic Party did their due diligence in vetting out Obama’s Constitutional qualification, others simply didn’t care what the Constitution states as qualification. The truth is, by Obama’s own admission, that he was born with dual-citizenship. And a dual citizen cannot be considered a “natural born citizen” because that person is born with citizenship to more than one country. This is explicitly defined by Vattel in Book 1, Chapter 19, SubSection 212 in “Law of Nations” where it states:

“The Natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . . it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only his place of birth, and not his country.”

Why is Vattel’s definition relevant? Because when the Framer’s were drafting the Constitution, Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was the single most influential text on the subject of government, specifically democracy. It is well known that the Framer’s relied heavily upon it to settle disputes as the Constitution went from draft to revision to ratification and amendment.

Again Obama has openly admitted that he was a dual citizen at birth. And dual citizens at birth ARE NOT natural born citizens as defined in the Constitution and intended by the Framer’s I think he, Michelle, Axelrod and the lot are still amazed by the lack of protest. Essentially they have taken the American public for suckers, mainstream media and all.

I have a strong feeling that America, even Democrats, wouldn’t have been as laisse-faire on this issue if a candidate for President had been born to one American citizen and one Iranian citizen. Just something to think about.


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 1:41 pm

Have to say it, birthtards: We told you so.

The grounds for the dismissal are exactly what I, and many other sane people posting at WI, said they would be.

You have been spouting off for weeks about “going to trial” on January 26. When we said, “It isn't going to happen,” you mocked us.

Can you simply admit that you were wrong?


borderraven
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:13 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.oa…

The story

updated 10:01 a.m. EST, Thu January 22, 2009

Obama retakes oath of office after Roberts' mistake

President Obama retook his oath of office Wednesday after Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed while delivering it at Tuesday's inauguration.

The second oath — also administered by Roberts — took place at 7:35 p.m.

Wednesday in the White House's Map Room. Roberts asked Obama whether he was ready.

“I am, and we're going to do it very slowly,” Obama replied……

20090120 Stamped at 3:26 PST (6:26 PM EST) Tuesday January 20, 2009
Keyes – Complaint (#01, January 20, 2009)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16443502/Keyes-Compla…


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

DISMISSED ! ! !


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

Birfoons are delusional, treasonous, pathological liars who can't distinguish right from wrong.


patgund
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:19 pm

Quite the OMG moment for the birthers…..


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

You lost. You lost the election. You have lost every lawsuit. Do you get it? The federal courts are not going to overturn the will of over 69 million voters.

Won't. Ever. Happen.


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

Wait for the appeal.

2009-10-28 RHODES V. MACDONALD et al Appealed

2009-10-26
BERG v OBAMA (ORIGINAL CASE) – Letter Re: Hearing Scheduling – Transport Room
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20177067/BERG-v-OBAMA…

But wait, there's more!

Donofrio dropped off his blog to litigate possibly a quo warranto.


Judge: ‘Birther’ lawyer urged witnesses to lie on the stand | Raw Story
Pingback posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

[...] reported by David Weigel at the Washington Independent, the judge stated he had "received several sworn [...]


Don
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

Those are very harsh words from the judge. He's clearly setting her up for discipline by the California bar.

He should have sanctioned her under Rule 11.


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

Appeal what, Orly's incompetence? You cannot get relief through the courts, only through congress. In fact, the Judge went out of his way to explain how badly her incompetence cost you your chance. So, send her more money, those long lunches are expensive for a lawyer that doesn't know or understand our constitution and laws.


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:33 pm

Irrelevant. Read the Constitution.


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:35 pm

Orly screwed up the Notice of Appeal, you think the rest will get any better?

Donofrio is a stooge too. If you're pinning your hopes on that loser, you're in for even more head explosions.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:36 pm

If you want to see what the lying hack Dave Weigel will never tell you about the ruling, click here.


Mimmee
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:36 pm

We will remove the filth from the WH!


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:42 pm

They’re certainly more logical than your poorly disguised bigotry.


Jim
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:42 pm

WARNING: Feel free to argue with the blowers…I promise you it will be entertaining. However, I would encourage you NOT to click on their links, they are only forgeries and wild theories anyway. Besides, it has been reported that virus attacks have happened when visiting some of these sites, so if you click, make sure your antivirus software is up-to-date. Also, before you click, consider that these sites are paid by advertisers by the click, so if you choose not to go you will be cutting off a source of their income. Now that this case has been dismissed, you will see the blowers no longer debating, but just trying to get you to click on their links.


borderraven
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:42 pm

There is right, wrong and unchallenged. SCOTUS has not decided a POTUS NBC case.

The cases thus far seemed to be interpreted by anti-birthers as attacks on Obama's political party, or race. This is not about the man. This is about the US Constitution and if it is valid. This needs focus.

No court has ruled on the merits of any of these cases, only ruling
on subject matter jurisdiction and standing.

The opportunity to share views, investigate issues, and debate is welcome. I'm reminded of the old movies about a Navy officer called Mr. Roberts, if I tremember correctly, about a ship's Captain who had the crew focused on hating him, while they united to serve the ship. Well, the USA is like a ship, in that it needs constant attention.
Complacency is a ship's worst enemy.

Here is a SF 86 FORM 13 Pages Questionnaire for National Security Positions. Do one on yourself and start one on your kids and keep it up in a file, so they can get at security clearance.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/l…
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/pdf/sf86.pdf

Look at 32CFR147– PART 147_ADJUDICATIVE GUIDELINES FOR
DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION.pdf


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:42 pm

It's a sad day in birtherville. Now maybe the nutjobs will crawl back under their rocks where they came from.


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

Do you run a cleaning service? If so, I hear that they’re looking for a pooper-scooper to clean up after the First Dog….


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

Your point? He was legally President as of noon on January 20, 2009, whether he took the oath of office or not. That isn't going to change.

Give it up. You were wrong. Now go admit it like a nice little fanatic and do something useful.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

British law doesn’t apply here or to the natural born status of U.S. citizens. We even fought a couple of wars to prove this point. British common law has set precedence in court but more importantly, the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the question of what “natural born citizen” means.

And in 1898, in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court looked into the meaning of “natural born” in the common law and concluded that a non-citizen’s mere presence in the U.S. is enough to make their child, if born here, a natural-born citizen.

There’s your sign.


msdaisy
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:44 pm

Hay Cornhole! (and the rest of you birthtards) Are you out there? Awwwwhahah, Told you so!!!


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:45 pm

If you truly think that this nonsense is going before the Supreme Court, you are even more delusional than you appear.

Also, please stop smearing the memory of a great old Henry Fonda movie by associating it with your ridiculous excuse for a movement.


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

Taitz is off her rocker to be sure. But David Weigel is wrong when he dismisses the “natural born citizen” status of President Obama.

The historical definition of a “natural born citizen” goes back to the Law of Nations. The 69 million that voted for Obama mostly assumed that Secretaries of State and the Democratic Party did their due diligence in vetting out Obama's Constitutional qualification, others simply didn't care what the Constitution states as qualification. The truth is, by Obama's own admission, that he was born with dual-citizenship. And a dual citizen cannot be considered a “natural born citizen” because that person is born with citizenship to more than one country. This is explicitly defined by Vattel in Book 1, Chapter 19, SubSection 212 in “Law of Nations” where it states:

“The Natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. . . . it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only his place of birth, and not his country.”

Why is Vattel's definition relevant? Because when the Framer's were drafting the Constitution, Vattel's “Law of Nations” was the single most influential text on the subject of government, specifically democracy. It is well known that the Framer's relied heavily upon it to settle disputes as the Constitution went from draft to revision to ratification and amendment.

Again Obama has openly admitted that he was a dual citizen at birth. And dual citizens at birth ARE NOT natural born citizens as defined in the Constitution and intended by the Framer's I think he, Michelle, Axelrod and the lot are still amazed by the lack of protest. Essentially they have taken the American public for suckers, mainstream media and all.

I have a strong feeling that America, even Democrats, wouldn't have been as laisse-faire on this issue if a candidate for President had been born to one American citizen and one Iranian citizen. Just something to think about.


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:47 pm

Correction before I’m piled on:

This candidate is at least 35 YEARS of age.


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

I'm sure there will be an appeal, followed by another dismissal, followed by Orly Taitz' disbarment hearing.

So? Must the entire judiciary system waste its time dismissing these frivolous suits?


Jim
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

Better start working for 2012 then, mimmee.


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:48 pm

Findings of lack of standing and jurisdiction ARE decisions on the merits. Quit listening to those losers like Orly (has she ever had a single MOTION granted?) Maybe a Motion for Pro Hac Vice, but those days are OVER. Her attempts to get admitted as such in Idaho have been REJECTED unless she finds local counsel. Good luck finding any real lawyer to put their ticket on the line for Orly.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:49 pm

Vattel never used the phrase “natural born citizen.” That only came into it in an english translation that came out ten years after the Constitution was ratified.

You are also highly over-estimating Vattels influence, but it doesn't matter. It's not possible they took their definition of “natural born” from Vattel for the reasons I stated.


Mary_Adams
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

ORRIN G. HATCH:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”

DON NICKLES:
“It is clear that a child born within the physical borders of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is eligible to run for President.”
*********************
“if a candidate for President had been born to one American citizen and one Iranian citizen.”

That candidate would get as many votes as Alan Keyes….. LOL!


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

Vattel's law of Nations has nothing to do with our Constitution. Sorry, dude. You are the only sucker and you have been taken by so-called attorneys who like to see their name in lights — even if they lose.

Some of the Birthers — like de facto leader Orly Taitz — believe that Obama wouldn't be eligible for the presidency even if he were born in the U.S. That's because, in their infinite wisdom, the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution a fair amount of phrases they never really bothered to define. One of those is this explanation of who can be president: “No person except a natural born citizen.”

The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the question of what “natural born citizen” means. So the Birthers have simply settled on their own definition — someone born to two citizen parents — and found a source,”The Law of Nations,” a 1758 book by the Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel, to back them up.

There are a couple of problems with this. Most important, Obama isn't the first president with a non-citizen parent: Chester A. Arthur, the 21st president, was. His father was from Ireland and apparently did not become a U.S. citizen until more than 10 years after the future president's birth.

Plus, even if the Founding Fathers did rely on Vattel as much as the Birthers say — always a dubious proposition — Swiss philosophy books aren't legal precedent in the United States. British common law is. And in 1898, in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court looked into the meaning of “natural born” in the common law and concluded that a non-citizen's mere presence in the U.S. is enough to make their child, if born here, a natural-born citizen.

You lose.


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:51 pm

Now why would anyone click on your links? I've read the opinion, Weigel is totally accurate (as usual). If you ever read the ruling, we can discuss it. Until then, go away.


Jim
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

Actually, you need to read up. Why is it that he lost his american citizenship before he was 30, John?


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

If you’re going to cite the original Berg v Obama case, you might also want to link to the 9 October letter on the case

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20860730/BERG-v-OBAMA-OPEN-DOCUMENT-Submit-Notification-for-Monday-10-26-2009-TLW-Transport-Room

No oral argument to be heard.


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:52 pm

Ah the racist birfoons are crawling out from under their rocks…………


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:52 pm

We already have — Bush is gone.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

I suspect he’s waiting to see what she does with her appeal.

If she acts towards Judge Carter like she did Judge Land, sanctions are more than likely


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

Nothing new in the above link, just more blathering from people who don’t understand the concept called “burden of proof”.


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:54 pm

Nothing new in the above link, just more blathering from people who don’t understand the concept called “burden of proof”.


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

More silly birfer crap disguised as a less looney approach. It's still immaterial, irrelevant and inapplicable. Go read Judge Carter's ruling.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

“Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution … Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”

Judge David Carter


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

Ellid, I suppose you have some historical evidence that no one else has ever seen that somehow states that Vattel’s Law of Nations was a summary of Swiss law?! Talk about ignorant silliness.

And Vattel wasn’t unearthed to unseat Obama. I had to read the Law of Nations and reference many times along the way during my poly-sci major. In fact, any college level institution worth it’s salt requires its students to read and reference the law of nations.

Additionally, the truth is more along the lines of coordinated revisionism by the Democrat’s and GOP because their two most popular candidates this time around happened to NOT be Natural Born Citizens.

The Shepherd of the Sheople has led you astray, my freind.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

Not to mention the fact that Vattel never used the phrase in question. He wrote in French, and what he said was, “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.” No “natural born citizen” in there, nor in the english translations that existed at the time the Constitution was ratified.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

“I don’t have the time to correct”

Spare us your arrogance and B.S.

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:00 pm

And you’re still a lying idiot with more spare time than common sense fully deserving of derision for your stupidity.

For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009 09-063
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai?i 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.”
###


Jim
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:00 pm

Sorry folks, I'm going to repost this to the top for people who aren't familiar with the blower mentality. I just don't want them to have to spend a couple of days cleaning up their machines if they can avoid it.

WARNING: Feel free to argue with the blowers…I promise you it will be entertaining. However, I would encourage you NOT to click on their links, they are only forgeries and wild theories anyway. Besides, it has been reported that virus attacks have happened when visiting some of these sites, so if you click, make sure your antivirus software is up-to-date. Also, before you click, consider that these sites are paid by advertisers by the click, so if you choose not to go you will be cutting off a source of their income. Now that this case has been dismissed, you will see the blowers no longer debating, but just trying to get you to click on their links.


Midday open thread | Bloggers For Change
Pingback posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

[...] Orly Taitz loses another one. [...]


Orly Taitz Lawsuit Thrown Out By California Judge | Obama Biden White House
Pingback posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

[...] Another challenge from birther queen Orly Taitz against President Obama’s birth certificate has been thrown out of court. [...]


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

There is a different between your opinion on the issue and historically established, scholarly verified facts.

This where I took the quote from, however they are not unique in their representation of Vattel's words.

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

Lonang welcomes your scholarly, research verifiable objections. Feel free to correct the record.

The concept of the definition of natural born citizen pre-dated Vattel, it wasn't his idea, he simply recognized what was already in practice and documented it.

There are American Law Review articles for the 19th century that verify this and acknowledge that a NBC must be born of two citizen parents on the soil of the country of citizenship. To argue otherwise is essentially saying that ANYONE who becomes a citizen can become the President. This is a very slippery and dangerous slope. Obama, the Democratic party and the whole of Congress have been reckless in allowing this dangerous precedent to be set.


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

President Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is not relevant. Taitz is completely off the mark and doesn’t understand even the most basic aspects of Federal court.


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:08 pm

And your a person who lacks the intellect to follow the logic, research the facts and have an original thought of your own.

You’re a prime example of the deadthink status of mainstream America. everything is win or lose and look how funny I can be with put-down one-liners.


Don
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

I imagine you’re correct, but I’ve seen Federal Judges sanction litigants for relatively minor things like hard-nosed discovery tactics. I’ve always been amused by how quick Federal judges are to sanction versus state court judges who will put up with almost anything.

These lawsuits are clearly what Rule 11 is all about and it’s hard for me to understand why she hasn’t been sanctioned in every court she’s filed these suits.


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

Judge Carter's ruling has nothing to do with the points I am making.

I think Orly Taitz, Gary Kreep and Alan Keyes are looney and as misguided as the next person.

What I speak of is a failure of the early vetting process. Obama should have never had his candidacy declaration validated by the DNC, let alone the various S.O.S.

There really are only two options remaining . . . the House would have to miraculously suddenly wake up to their Constitutional duties OR come next election, proper vetting of Obama's candidacy filings would need to occur.


Midday open thread | The Latest Liberal Blogs
Pingback posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

[...] Orly Taitz loses another one. [...]


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:12 pm

We can read the ruling for ourselves, numbnuts. I already have. Your birthtard take on it is irrelevant.


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:13 pm

Neither of these comments answer the question I posed.

Again just repeating what you’ve read, rather than following the logic, the facts and historical precedent.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

Look at the date on that translation. It's in the preface. Grasp the concept here–he never used the phrase. Two earlier translations that did exist PRIOR to the ratification also did NOT use that phrase.

And you're right–the definition did pre-date Vattel. British common law actually DID use that phrase. Read Blackstone. He used the phrase. Vattel never did. And it NEVER in history meant what you claim it meant.

And those arguments from the 19th century were arguments about who was and was not a citizen at birth. They never intended “natural born” to mean some extra third kind of citizenship. And they lost those arguments. It's now the 21st century, and those arguments have been long put behind us. You're side lost.


JohnC
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

Why is Vattel’s definition relevant? Because when the Framer’s were drafting the Constitution, Vattel’s “Law of Nations” was the single most influential text on the subject of government, specifically democracy.

The Founding Fathers could not have relied on subsection 212 as you quote it, because up until the time the Constitution was drafted and adopted, it never contained the term “natural born citizen.”

When de Vattel original wrote Law of Nations in French, he used the term indigènes – which literally translates to “natives” in English. Well into the 1790s, English translations of de Vattel left this term in its original French incarnation. It wasn’t until nearly a decade after the Constituion was adopted that English translations began introducing the term “natural born citizens.”

So, the Founding Fathers’ use of the term “natural born Citizen” could not have come from de Vattel, and originated from a different source. But from where? As it turns out, by 1787, “natural born citizen” was a commonly used term in colonies such as Massachusetts, which referred to persons who were born in the United States. This was distinguished from “naturalized citizens” – those citizens who weren’t born in the United States and became citizens at some time after their birth, and “aliens” or “foreigners,” who were not U.S. citizens at all.

These categories of citizenship were well understood at the time the Constitution was drafted, and terms like “naturalized” and “natural born” were frequently and casually used by courts for decades afterwards in the same context. If the Founding Fathers planned some radical overhaul of the jus soli principles were inherited from English common law, the Founders left no trace of their intentions, and the courts missed them entirely as well.

What you are proposing is that the Founding Fathers put in place THREE categories of U.S. citizens – (1) natural born, (2) naturalized, and (3) citizens who are neither, and that Obama is in the third category. But I challenge you to point to one single case in the history of American jurisprudence, at the state or federal level, which agrees with your assertion.

I’ll bet you can’t.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:15 pm

You're wrong but obviously to stubborn or dense to comprehend.

And you shouldn't copy/paste concepts you clearly don't understand.

Your blathering is irrelevant.


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:16 pm

Yes, they can appeal. But Judge Carter was right, so the appeal will fail.

You birthtards are all the same: you keep predicting victory, but you can't explain what, specifically, is wrong the with decisions of the judges who rule against you.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:16 pm

Give it up, Nance-y boy.

And hiding your bigotry behind the Constitution is desperate and pathetic.


slippy
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

“Why is Vattel's definition relevant?”

I think it's relevant precisely because it *isn't.* Digging some antiquated text out of your crack does not mean you've got anything to talk about . . . .


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

Do you wonder why there's not one Constitutional scholar that buys your definition? Even in the 19th century it was a minority opinion–a minority opinion that lost.

Welcome to the 21st century, where that particular argument has long been settled.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

Do you wonder why there's not one Constitutional scholar that buys your definition? Even in the 19th century it was a minority opinion–a minority opinion that lost.

Welcome to the 21st century, where that particular argument has long been settled.


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

Your rebuttal is specious and I don't have the time to correct the many errors of statement you have made.

Your position is consistent with the general historical malaise this country suffers from, especially with regard how the Constitution came to be, and legal precedent.

Suffice to say, prior to Obama, this issue has only been dealt with once before, and that President, clearly covered up the facts of his fathers citizenship status. A precedent was unknowingly set at the time, to be discovered in later years. My guess is Obama if was ever actually backed into a corner he would point to this precedent to substantiate his candidacy.


Rob Lewis
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

My guess: Orly is strongly attracted to Obama, and in order to exorcise this “taboo” relationship, she is compelled to attack him.

Or she's just nuts.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

Relevant:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
News Release
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
DIRECTOR
Phone: (808) 586-4410
Fax: (808) 586-4444
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009 09-063
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai?i 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.”
###

Irrelevant:

Your lies and delusions.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

Relevant:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
News Release
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
DIRECTOR
Phone: (808) 586-4410
Fax: (808) 586-4444
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009 09-063
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai?i 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.”
###

Irrelevant:

Your lies and delusions.


JLS
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

Silly, ignorant me. I thougtht for sure that the framers of the Constitution were thinking about Shakespeare's MacBeth in which McDuff informs the doomed MacBeth, “Know thee I was of no woman born:. That is, I was sure “naturally born citizen” meant someone who had passed through a woman's birth canal, and not been “untimely ripped from his mother's womb” — the product of a c-section. Carried to its logical conclusion by a strict constructionist such as Justice Scalia, this would mean that any citizen of the U.S.A. who was born by c-section or who was conceived with medical assistance would be ineligible to be the President.


JLS
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

Silly, ignorant me. I thougtht for sure that the framers of the Constitution were thinking about Shakespeare's MacBeth in which McDuff informs the doomed MacBeth, “Know thee I was of no woman born:. That is, I was sure “naturally born citizen” meant someone who had passed through a woman's birth canal, and not been “untimely ripped from his mother's womb” — the product of a c-section. Carried to its logical conclusion by a strict constructionist such as Justice Scalia, this would mean that any citizen of the U.S.A. who was born by c-section or who was conceived with medical assistance would be ineligible to be the President.


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

In which case they would have to look at the document released by the Hawaiian Dept of Health that clearly says Obama was born in the state and meets the requirements as natural born citizen.

Then what will the birfers do?


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

I can’t believe you cited Chester Arthur. It is known that Arthur LIED about his Father’s naturalization status. When he was running as VP, he maintained to the press and anyone else that asked that his father was already a naturalized citizen when he was born. Arthur’s lie has been proven by the discovery of news accounts dated at and before his election as Vice-President under Garfield.

It wasn’t until YEARS later that it was discovered that Arthur’s father was not naturalized until many years after his birth. Arthur, like Obama, was born with a claim to dual citizenship and thus not a NBC.

Now WHY would Arthur lie about his Father’s naturalization to the press during the election, through Garfild’s election and Arthur’s assumption as the 21st President?!

Because Arthur knew he was NOT a NBC, and that if this fact were to be known, he would have been disqualified as a candidate.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:20 pm

“And dual citizens at birth ARE NOT natural born citizens as defined in the Constitution”

BZZZZT. Wrong. You are dismissed.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:21 pm

COME ON PUSSY WHAT YOU WAITING ON??? WHY DON’T YOU COME OUT OF MAMAS BASEMENT AND SHOW US LIBERALS HOW YOU DO IT!! I DOUBLE DOG DARE YA.. IF YOU DON’T YOU ARE A PUSSY!! HERE KITTY KITTY KITTY


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:21 pm

I wonder how Judge Carter feels about bieng the start, of a REVOLUTION!
Do you all think we are just going to walk away and hide under a rock?
Pffttt, JUST THE OPPOSITE!

Judge Carter's decision, has only made us more determined. Since the courts are TOO AFRAID and don't seem to be the way, to get this SETTLED, then we will have to go the route that it is supposed to be done. I spose it's time to put the PRESSURE on Congress and the one's that let this LIE, get past them to begin with!


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

Just for the record, I didn't lose. “WE” lost. How can a person who self-admittedly, was born with DUAL citizenship ever be considered a natural born citizen – which historically means a person born to two citizen parents on the soil of the country of citizenship – with no loyalty or claim to another country?!

Your arguments do not follow any sort of logic.


oo rr ll yy « "a nice hell of your writing"
Pingback posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

[...] oo rr ll yy By hamthechimp Leave a Comment Categories: mental instability, orly might as well get her own tag and politics Orly Taitz Smacked Down: Birther Lawsuit Dismissed [...]


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:23 pm

Why don’t you go OUT THERE, grab the truth and bring it up to us? Why do you choose to believe fake Kenyan BC and doubt Hawaiian authorities? It doesn’t make any sense to me. Tell us exactly, what’s the beef with Obama?


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:23 pm

Dude, we are talking about people that think the results of an AOL poll are considered legitimate evidence.


democracy_inaction
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:24 pm

Ah, concern trolling at its finest.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

HAHAHAHAHAHA DAMN YOU ARE A JOKE!!! HERE KITTY KITTY KITTY


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

I'm shocked, shocked that an 18th century Swiss scholar did not write in English. The nerve! Jesus wrote in English — it should be good enough for everyone!

(Thanks for pointing out the mischief that occurs when we ignore that texts have gone through multiple translations. I assume you are referring to the 1759 English translation of the 1758 original text).


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:26 pm

Your arguments are ignorant to the extreme. “Natural born” NEVER meant anything about two citizen parents. At no point in history did it ever mean that. That's just a bit of nonsense that ignorant birthers made up.


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have fun providing the Happy Meals, Cornholio!


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

He is a natural born citizen because he was born in the US
A person can be both a natural born citizen and have dual citizenship.
All this was settled a long time ago by minds much greater than you. Give it up. YOU and the rest of your brain dead sore loser ilk lost. Get over it.


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:28 pm

Majority Will, speaking of arrogance and BS – one of the links you post is to Obama’s campaign website. Go ahead and read through it. You’ll that Obama openly admits that he is a dual citizen at birth.

Your boy tee’d one up right in my wheelhouse.

Now go read up on Chestur Arthur – ya know the guy that your boy up above cites as an example of President. During the campaign and in candidacy declaration Arthur claimed that his father was naturalized BEFORE Arthur was born. The TRUTH is Arthur LIED during the campaign about his fathers naturalization – and we know this from published NEWS ACCOUNTS of ARTHUR’S statements at the time. It wasn’t until after Arthur was out of office that the truth about his Father’s naturalization came to light. That is, Arthur’s father was NOT a US citizen at the time of Chester’s birth.

Now ask yourself, why would Chester Arthur lie about his Father’s citizenship status at the time of Chester’s birth?! I’ll let you think this one out for yourself.


mariestella
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

The Founder Fathers never decided to use Vattel definition to decide who would be a natural born citizen. Your argument IS irrelevant. We should continue to follow British Common Law, considering anybody born on US soil as a natural born citizen.
If your argument was valid, the GOP, the RNCC and HC would have risen the issue during the campaign.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

It wasn't until the 1797 translation that the phrase “natural born citizen” was introduced. I don't recall off hand the dates of the earlier English translations, but neither of them used the phrase.


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

Vattel was Swiss and pre-Revolution. Not even vaguely relevant to the American legal system.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:29 pm

Hey Loser, stop fillin up my inbox…


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:29 pm

Do you ever wonder why the phrase “natural born citizen” appeared only in Article II, Section 1?

And unlike you I don't have the ego to assume that ALL Constitutional scholars disagree with my position.


plainview
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

Yes I am sure you guys will rise up and overthrow the president now. How delusional are you? Seek professional help.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

LOL YES ON THE INTERNET YOU CAN BE WHAT YOU WANT TO BE!!! LOLOL


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:32 pm

Turn yur fucking caps off dickbreath!


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:33 pm

HEY SHITBREATH GO FUCK YOURSELF HERE KITTY KITTY KITTY


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:33 pm

It was a phrase taken from British common law. Anyone born on the soil was a “natural born subject.” It was also used in the citizenship laws of the states prior to the ratification to mean the same thing. The framers changed “subject” to “citizen” since this was no longer a monarchy.


whatever4
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:33 pm

But you obviously haven't read the decision, as Judge Carter mentions de Vattel:

“Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John
Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).”


dissento
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:33 pm

This is satire, no?


mariestella
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:33 pm

To all birthers out there:
The law of the country is as follows: You have to bring compelling proof before a court that some wrong have been done. Get off your basement, take our PJs and/or underwear off and buy a ticket to Kenya. Find the proof that Obama was born there. The burden of proof is on you, not Obama. How come you don't get it?
Just put your money where your mouth is.


Joe
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:34 pm

And you’re a person “who lacks the intellect” to choose the correct form of the homophone.


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:34 pm

Come next election The President will show the same Hawaii birth certificate that he did in 2007/2008, and since it is a completely valid legal document, it will be accepted and he will be re-elected. End of story.


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

First, I haven’t called anyone names. But then you are a product of simple pop-culture thought, so I shouldn’t be surprised that you do.

Again I’ll state it, Obama was 100% most definitely born in Hawaii. That fact has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not he was a natural born citizen – because, by Obama’s own acknowledgment, his Father was NOT a US citizen when Barrack was born. Thus, Obama was born of DUAL loyalties and cannot under any legal definition, historical or imagined, be a natural born citizen.

If you go to Obama’s OWN birth certificate posting on his Fight the Smears website, he NEVER claims to be a Natural Born Citizen, he cleverly claims to be a NATIVE born citizen.


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

1. I've been running the linked website since 2002, and before then it was hosted at a site I started in 1995. If anyone lies about my sites, I am perfectly willing to sue them for libel and I will not hesitate to collect the judgment. Of course, those smearing below aren't naming specific sites, they're just trying to smear all BHO opponents and trying to get you from learning the truth.

2. In case you missed it, here's just one of the things Dave Weigel doesn't want you to see. That focuses only on a false assumption the judge made that may indicate bias, or ignorance, or that he has a problem with engaging in sloppy thinking. That doesn't involve who has burden of proof; it involves a flaw in the judge's thinking that might indicate problems elsewhere in the ruling.

3. If you're wondering why Dave Weigel didn't tell you about that, see the link. He is not in any way a credible source.

4. If the “N.B.C. brigade” were able to give me some assistance, hacks like Weigel wouldn't write things like this, others wouldn't smear you, and the judge might have been more careful in his ruling. My main goal is to show that the MSM and others have repeatedly lied about the simple facts of this matter, yet I've gotten almost zero help in doing that. And, that's why you see articles like this.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

Here–

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documen…

Notice this actually DOES precede the ratification of the Constitution.


Joe
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:36 pm

To quote yourself below:

“Pathetic game show sounds and Bill Maher style humor are best left for entertainment purposes.”


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:36 pm

WHY DON’T YOU BRING YOUR PUSSY ASS HERE AND MAKE ME! HERE KITTY KITTY KITTY


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:36 pm

Unfortunately, no. Tracey is paranoid, mentally unstable trailer trash.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:36 pm

You can rub it in all you want. What you guys call a WIN, is merely just MORE COVER UP. Wouldn't you all like to see his REAL Birth Certificate and be able to LAUGH IN OUR FACES, when it is TRULY PROVEN?

You all are living on a LIE and you defent it as if you are 100% sure he is legal, when there is NO possible way, you could know, without seeing the REAL THING. If you had any moral judgement or integrity at all, you would want the TRUTH, but instead you laugh and say you have won, when you haven't, you are have just piled lie on top of lie. You should all feel ashamed, that you hide the TRUTH!


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

Nope: typos; misspellings, bad punctuation and worse grammar are the signs of a true birfer. What's that saying? One french fry short of a Happy Meal?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

Links to your paranoid drivel are SO credible. </sarcasm>

Beware of viruses and spyware to anyone dumb enough to go there.


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:38 pm

Please by all means, you and your tiny itsy bitty minuscule minority, put on all that pressure. My God, how will they be able to stand it when a short bus full of wackos descends on them? Please, I fully support your efforts. Now that Arrested Development is off the air, those of us in the reality based community can use the laughs.


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

Completely and utterly wrong. Swiss law is not and never was used as the basis for anything in the American or British legal codes, and I am stunned that a supposed patriot would believe this nonsense.

As for how the Constitution came to be, I would suggest that you reread the Federalist Papers and not obscure Swiss legal scholars whose deservedly unknown writings were resurrected by fanatics determined to unseat a President based on specious concerns about his birthplace.


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

Your mother should be ashamed she didn't send you to school.


Notamailorderlawyer
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

Your mother should be ashamed she didn't send you to school.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

Send Tracey to one of those FEMA camps that Oily Taintz keeps squawking about.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

Kenya schmenya, I could care less about that. I’m more interested in him being adopted at age 6 and becoming an indonesian. His school records say that and it is highly unlikely he went to Pakistan in 81, with a US passport, given the US/Pakistani relations at the time.

He more likey had an Indonesian passport, which would prove he swore allegiance to Indonesia, therefore relinquishing him of his US citizenship, since Indonesia does not recognize dual citizenship.


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:40 pm

Unlike some parts of the Constitution (Treaty Clause) where it is clear that “the Framers” referred to Vattel during the debates, there is no record whatsoever of debate, discussion or clarification during the drafting of the Constitution with respect to the meaning of “natural born citizen.' In over 200 years, the federal courts have never issued a precedential interpretation of the phrase “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 4; when it has been mentioned, it has been in dicta.

If you think the federal courts will or should wade into that briar patch, you are nuts.

At a minimum, “natural born citizen” is to be distinguished from “naturalized” citizen. In other words, to be eligible to be President, you have to have been a citizen of the United States at birth. But do you have to be a citizen based both on being born in the U.S. and having one or both parents be U.S. Citizens? If so, why?

What I usually hear is a concern that a President who had dual citizenship at birth or was born to U.S. citizens abroad may have “divided allegiance.” I suppose that could be true. It could also be true that voters might think a President born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents has “divided allegiance”: John Adams was accused of being a monarchist, after all, and there certainly were people alleging that John F. Kennedy (as our first Roman Catholic president) was going to be taking orders from the Vatican.

Those are issues the voters can sort out. Beyond the basic notion of “citizen at time of birth,” I think the federal courts would wisely find the varying interpretations of “natural born citizen” to be a political question best left to the vigorous debate of elections, to be decided by the voters.

Does the fact that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone (to parents who clearly were American citizens) make him unfit to be President? Why should a judge decide that?

Does the fact that Barack Obama's father was from Kenya (a fact he has never denied) make Barack Obama unfit to be our President? Why should a judge decide that, when the real question being asked is one common to ALL Presidential candidates: will this man or woman be committed to serving the best interests of the nation, above all else? That is a question the voters decide.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:40 pm

uhhh, no…


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:40 pm

As long as the candidate was born on American soil or an American military base, she would be a natural born citizen and thus eligible.


darthtater
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

The truth is out…ORLY LOST AGAIN!!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

You obviously aren't aware of Orly's followers!
It's only going to get WORSE, WATCH!


democracy_inaction
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:41 pm

“Scholarly verified facts”? Never heard that one before. I'm a scholar as are probably at least half the people on this board, possibly even including yourself, does that mean if we verify something, that makes it a “fact”? That would at least explain how you've reach your conclusions but I fail to see how that actually differs from your opinion. That's like calling a Janitor a “Sanitation Engineer”.

I need to remember that, the next time I state my opinion, I'll call it a “scholarly verified fact”.


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:42 pm

OMG you are hiiiiiilarious.
Come clean. You really are a writer for Colbert and you come here to test drive new material.

In case I am wrong, hate to break this to you, but we already got the truth.
Feel free to call the Hawaii Dept of Health:
(808) 974-6006


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:43 pm

That would be nice, but considering that Obama’s family has been put under a gag order by the Kenyan Government, from talking about him, it’s a little hard to get them to talk!

Why the gag order?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

Don’t you have a trailer to clean, Tracey?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:44 pm

Oops, notice how 24AheadDotCom can't make his arguments here, but instead wants you to click on his link.

Don't do it. If he had anything worthwhile to say he would say it here. Don't feed the monkeys.


darthtater
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:44 pm

What? You mean they are going to break out the Sheets and Torches?


Joe
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

“First, I haven’t called anyone names.”

Liar. From your own comment above:

“The Shepherd of the Sheople has led you astray.”


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:45 pm

Believe me, I have called them many times and they are of no help. The won't answer ANY procedural quetions over the phone. Why is that? They, along with Judge Carters courthouse are soon going to get tired of the calls and they are going to want something done about it.

I just spoke to a guy from the courthouse and he actually was nice to me. He told me he has been on the phone non stop, since this came out. People are pissed and he says he would rather not have to deal with this crazy situation.

Believe me, we have only just begun!


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:45 pm

What you call “false assumption the judge “is in the legal world called “burden of proof”. Look it up sometime.


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:46 pm

So let's assume that you are 100% correct.

We are now in the future. It is 2019 and the race for President in 2012 is in full gear. A candidate emerges in the Republican Party (assuming its still around) who was born on United States soil to an American citizen father and an Iranian citizen mother. This candidate like Obama was born with dual citizenship.

Except this candidate spent his formative years in Iran and didn't make the US his full-time home until he was 30 years old in 2004 (16 years before the 2012 election). Under your view of Constitutional qualification, this person is qualified.

This candidate, like Obama, Bush, Clinton and every President before makes a lot of grand promises during the campaign and convinces a majority of the American public that we will be the best choice for President. He is elected as the first Iranian-American to assume the highest office in the land. The country's media presents this as America celebrating wildly about a new era of Iranian-American relations and reconciliation.

First of all, I doubt this would happen with Iran's political and social climate, but let's say it did.

This candidate is a Natural born citizen (under your definition).
This candidate is at least 25 years of age.
This candidate is a living in the US for 14 consecutive years.

However this candidate spent 25 years of his life in Iran, attending all levels of school until college which he attended an Ivy League school in the US. He then returned to Iran for 5 years before settling in the US for the next 16 years of his life.

Does it seem reasonable that this person who has spent the majority of hi life living in a country that has been an enemy of the United State for several generations should be handed the title Commander in Chief?!


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:46 pm

And if you enter that dark hole of a site, it'll be like you've been with everyone who's ever been there before you.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:46 pm

Dude, FUCK OFF. I finished high school, 2 years of college and am certified in about 5 other areas. SO BLOW ME!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

NO, the PEOPLE lost!


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:48 pm

No, Tracey is just a delusional lunatic.


Hominid Views » Blog Archive » Another Bad Day for Birfers
Pingback posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:48 pm

[...] The Washington Independent: Central District of California Judge David O. Carter has dismissed Barnett et al v. Obama et al, [...]


Steve V
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:49 pm

I had a case in Judge Carter's court. He's a very hard working judge, no nonsense tough guy with a military background. I didn't agree with every ruling he issued (being an advocate for my client of course), but he earns the respect of every lawyer who appears in his court.


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:49 pm

Judge Carter is a U.S. Marine. I don't think Corny's Revolution is going to cause him to lose any sleep. Are you going to throw your keyboard at him?


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

Oh! My!!!
You get your evidence from the internets? Do you realize there is a lot of people in their basements, still in their PJs at this time, some in their underwear, living off mom and dad, posting “information” on the web?
No, pal, there is no evidence, solid or otherwise, that O is not our legitimate president.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:50 pm

AND, as everyone knows..this was dismissed on STANDING. The merits have never been argued. You didn't win anything, you just succeeded in hiding the TRUTH. I don't see how ANYONE can be HAPPY about that!

You laugh over hiding the TRUTH. Pretty pathetic, I must say!


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:50 pm

Tracey misspelled “certifiable”. Oooh, 2 years of college. That may be more hours than Oily Taintz has.


Boulder Dude » O RLY?
Pingback posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:51 pm

[...] I can has Dismissal? [...]


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

The document issued by the Hawaii DOH is valid, legal proof of the President’s natural born U.S. citizenship.

Children not born in Hawaii can get a birth document from the state. But it won’t say they were born in Hawaii, as Obama’s does.

“If you were born in Bali, for example, you could get a certificate from the state of Hawaii saying you were born in Bali,” Janice Okubo, the director of communications for the state Department of Health, told the Washington Independent’s David Weigel recently. “You could not get a certificate saying you were born in Honolulu. The state has to verify a fact like that for it to appear on the certificate.”


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

LMAO ! ! !


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

She has informed us that “Royal Blood” runs in her veins. I think that explains the mental instability and the anti-democratic tendencies.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:53 pm

Liar.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:53 pm

Actually, yes. He would be eligible.

You’re also assuming that this candidate would be nominated by a major party so s/he had a chance of winning, which ain’t gonna happen in this country nohow, right or wrong.

The other take on this is: say the candidate has your stated pedigree to age 30, comes to the US, starts a very successful company and becomes a poster child for US-style capitalism. Why *shouldn’t* that person have a chance to be president?

You’re making the assumption that someone coming from elsewhere could never never adopt the customs of the country s/he currently lives in – that it’s the country and not the individual that counts. However, the US – more than most other advanced industrialized countries – is a country of *individuals*, where you’re *supposed* to be able to come and prove yourself. And the Constitution is not in the business of deciding what countries are “okay” for a dual national to come from in a given year. Arnold Schwartzenegger came from Austria. Sixty years ago we were very much at war with Austria.

A third take: Alexander Solzhenitsyn was a citizen of the USSR for 56 or so years. Doesn’t mean he loved Communism.

And lastly: US citizens who assume offices in other countries above a certain level have to give up their US citizenship (Benjamin Netanyahu, for example, was originally a US-Israeli citizen). I’m betting that the same thing would likely happen to your Iranian-American, whether due to existing Iranian law or because the Iranian government would be pissed at him/her and revoke it.

Heck, there are too many narrow assumptions here to really address this.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:53 pm

Liar.


MN_independent
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:53 pm

Worse? How so, Corny? It will only get worse – and more expensive to pursue – for you and Orly.


msdaisy
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:53 pm

Yes Jim, that’s correct and I can vouch for it. I clicked on one of their links once and before the page even loaded my virus scan went nuts! I immediately killed the Internet switch and ran a complete scan. I had been infected w/3 different viruses, which were quarantined and removed. So anyone going to these links be careful!


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

So much anger, so much hate coming from the sore losers.
Never fails. When they have nothing credible, just toss around some 4 letter words. That always does the trick NOT


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE, MR. URSURPER! THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:55 pm

Liar and a hypocrite.

Tracey drooled, “HE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE, MR. URSURPER!”


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:55 pm

lololololol


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:56 pm

The burden of proof is on YOU, as you well know.


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:58 pm

Please don’t bring your so-called sex life into this.

Also, what’s the name of the restaurant you purportedly manage?


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:58 pm

I for one am happy crazy people like you are here providing us with lots of laughs.
Please keep it coming. This is pure comedy gold.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

No, it was dismissed on a couple of different grounds.

But Judge Carter also commented on some of the issues of the case, and you probably should take these words to heart:

“Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Bingham alone empower this court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon. “Who Can be President pf the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).”


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

Why don't you let people see the evidence and decide for themselves?
Are you too afraid of that? You think they might see something to sway them and you have to stop them from going there?

Why don't you just shut the fuck up and stop accusing people of spreading viruses, you stupid piece of shit! You know there are no viruses there, you are just trying to HIDE THE TRUTH, as always.
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

Why don't you let people see the evidence and decide for themselves?
Are you too afraid of that? You think they might see something to sway them and you have to stop them from going there?

Why don't you just shut the fuck up and stop accusing people of spreading viruses, you stupid piece of shit! You know there are no viruses there, you are just trying to HIDE THE TRUTH, as always.
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE!


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

You conveniently left out the last part of my statement.

Pathetic game show sounds and Bill Maher style humor are best left for entertainment purposes.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

It already has. You should try some yourself.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:00 pm

It's not going to cost anything to go through Congress to get this done. Since we are told that is the only way, then Congress better watch out!


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

To quote your comrade below:

Bzzzzt, Your Wrong. Dismissed.

The GOP ALSO had a candidate which did not qualify as a NBC.


msdaisy
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

Inbreeders, that explains a lot


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

Oh! MY!!!!
You have an answer for everything, on why you can’t prove it. Sorry, but you’re pathetic. Pathetic. Pathetic.


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:02 pm

We have all seen your “evidence”.
A forged birth certificate? The results of an AOL poll?
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Nothing short of brilliant!


Slim Tyranny
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:02 pm

Gotta love the birthers. No matter how crappy their arguments, no matter how incompetent their counsel, no matter how fantastical their claims, they just keep on truckin'.

I love to picture them huffing and puffing at home, SO SURE OF THEMSELVES that they have the “correct” constitutional interpretation, that they totally have the real Kenyan birth certificate as PROOF, and NO ONE WILL LISTEN TO THEM!!! That must be SOOOOOO frustrating for these losers. I LOVE it.


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

This isn't an athletic event, pal.

This isn't about winning and losing, nor right and left – it's about being right or wrong.

And before you knee-jerk like the typical pop-culture mainstream libs and neo-cons alike . . . I have not voted for either major party for two decades now.


Anoooon
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

You mean the MAJORITY of AMERICANS that voted for Obama lost? Hmmm That's a rather silly argument, but your logic fails on so many levels that I would guess a silly argument is all you are capable of understanding. . . .


Anoooon
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

You mean the MAJORITY of AMERICANS that voted for Obama lost? Hmmm That's a rather silly argument, but your logic fails on so many levels that I would guess a silly argument is all you are capable of understanding. . . .


msdaisy
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

Well that’s what happens to people that spend their days at work repeating the same phrase over and over… “Would you like to supersize that?”


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

You are an imbecile, if you see not one stitch of credible evidence, that has been shown around the web lately. I would be embarrased, if I were you to even admit that. Just showes how gullible you are! PATHETIC!

Oh and I'm not angry, because we can now see that this country is being bought out by this ursurper and people are going to rise up. These teaparties that are out now are going to get CRAZY! Even your channels are showing it, so you HAVE TO watch it!


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

Is that what you were told while you were confined in that padded cell?


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:05 pm

The only gag order is on the patrons of your alleged restaurant to keep them from suing you for ptomaine.

Also, just what *is* the name of that restaurant? I’d love to see the address and incorporation papers…..


mizzle
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

I don't care if there is a birth certificate or not. Just the fact that all you idiot birthers are having a collective heart attack is enough for me. I'm going to wear a red dress to your funeral and what I do on your grave won't pass for dancing. Goodbye Whorly Tits!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:06 pm

BigGuy, little dick!

Sorry, but I don't like little ones!


mariestella
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:07 pm

You should try medication. Valium helps. Maybe some antipsychotic stuff i also needed. I pity you. No life. Just this horrible hate. Psychiatric help also is warranted. Clearly, you are delusional.


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:08 pm

We have all seen your “evidence”.
A forged birth certificate? The results of an AOL poll?
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Nothing short of brilliant!

BTW you realize everyone here is just playing you, egging you on to see how crazy we can get you? You are playing right into our hands chump!


franklythisisgoodnews
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:08 pm

No, We the People won!
The wacko minority lost.


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:09 pm

Ah yes, an associate’s degree from East Cornhole Institute of Culinary Arts. Excellent preparation for life, that.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:09 pm

The majority that voted for Obama were Fake Acorn Votes. Everyone knows that and all the convictions, PROVE THAT. It is only getting worse and worse for Acorn, as they find more and more fraud with them. Does that make you guys feel GOOD, that you won by FRAUD. You are all living a lie and you are happy about it…pretty damn funny to me!


student_teacher
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:09 pm

screaming untruths using all capitals doesn't make them true. it just makes you appear more ignorant and hard-headed


BigGuy
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

LOL, so much for the intellectual level of your arguments!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

“Maybe some antipsychotic stuff i also needed”

You needed?..that explains it!
hahahahaha


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

You call hiding the truth WINNING?
What is wrong with you people. No morals at all!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:13 pm

Ahhhh fuck off dweeb


republicanstupidity
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:13 pm

WHEN YOU STOP SMOKING METH YOU WILL BE FREE


republicanstupidity
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:14 pm

DAMN YOU ARE A FUCKING DUMBASS WHERE IS YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE?


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

WOMP WOMP WOMP, nothing intellectual about ANY of you here, so what's the point! Someone that is afraid to let the truth out, is a poor excuse for a person. A total waste of space!


republicanstupidity
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

DAMN YOU LOVE SHOWING OFF YOUR STUPIDITY UNDER THE COVER OF THE INTERNET HUH?? HERE KITTY KITTY KITTY!!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:16 pm

Anddddd, that's from experience?


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:16 pm

Profanity, like violence, is the last refuge of the incompetent.


republicanstupidity
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:16 pm

AHHH THE RAMBLINGS OF ANOTHER IDIOT PRICK!!


dggdydg
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

Way to make an argument on its merits, Obamacorn.


dggdydg
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

Way to make an argument on its merits, Obamacorn.


republicanstupidity
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

HEY SHIT FOR BRAINS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN CASE CLOSED YOU ARE DAMN STUPID


republicanstupidity
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

HEY SHIT FOR BRAINS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN CASE CLOSED YOU ARE DAMN STUPID


Tee Cee
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

Good Lord! Heads Exploding!

Don't these trolls have day jobs?

Sucks to loose, Eh?

I seem to remember 'Elections have consequences'….

Loosers!


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:18 pm

“I AM CORNHOLIO! BRING ME TEEPEE FOR MY BUNGHOLE!”


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:18 pm

How do you spell that sound, when you stick your tongue out and blow?

bllleuuuuhhhuuuhhuuu


republicanstupidity
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:18 pm

COME ON KITTY!! WHY DON'T YOU BE THE FIRST PATRIOT TO TAKE ONE FOR THE TEAM OR ARE YOU JUST A SCARED LITTLE KITTY????


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

Fucks that got to do with the price of eggs?


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

“I AM BIRTHOLIO! BRING ME TEEPEE FOR MY ORLYHOLE!”


BigGuy
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

Awww, poor whiny sore loser!

Take it like a man, can't you? Maybe next time around you'll get some solid evidence and a real lawyer.


republicanstupidity
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

HAHAHAHA DAMN I LOVE IDIOTS LIKE YOU!! YOU ARE MORE STUPID THAT THE COMEDYS ON TV!!!!! COME ON SHIT FOR BRAINS ENLIGHTEN IS WITH SOME MORE OF YOUR STUPIDITY


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

Awww come on crazy lady, you can do better than that.


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

Awww come on crazy lady, you can do better than that.


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

The only acorns I have are the ones on my deck.


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

The only acorns I have are the ones on my deck.


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

The only acorns I have are the ones on my deck.


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

This is a blog. If you think Judge Carter was wrong, you can explain your reasoning here. In my opinion, it is trashy behavior to use blog posts to generate traffic for you own website.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:21 pm

I'm still laughing about Corny's boast yesterday about running a restaurant—-god that was a hilarious exchange!!!
Oh and didi I mention?
Birfers get super-sized for free!!!
LOL


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

Wow, my 4 year old does the same thing when they dont get their way.


republicanstupidity
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

JUST READING YOUR FUCKING STUPIDITY PUSSY


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

Hello, did you just get here, yesterday? Nothing has been PROVEN. No one has seen the long form, so it has NOT been proven. Until his HIDDEN documents come one, he is NOT proven!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

Hello, did you just get here, yesterday? Nothing has been PROVEN. No one has seen the long form, so it has NOT been proven. Until his HIDDEN documents come one, he is NOT proven!


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:23 pm

Oh my! Did you rant this way when W got the Supremes to make him president? Ummmm, I’m kind of embarrassed for you, your family, the town you live and all your ancestors. And the overwhelming facts are . . Oh you are deranged at the thought that a brilliant, African American democrat is in office who blew the other candidate away. I see.


Obama Eligibility Challenge Moves Forward - Page 49
Pingback posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:23 pm

[...] another lawsuit bites the dust: Orly Taitz Smacked Down: Birther Lawsuit Dismissed Central District of California Judge David O. Carter has dismissed Barnett et al v. Obama et al, [...]


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:23 pm

Yep, the kind girl you'd bring home to mom, huh?
I bet you're hubby's proud of your vocab—-trailerpark queen


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:23 pm

Queen's English, please. Remember your Royal Blood!


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:24 pm

kids throwing rocks at your door, then running away, does not meet my standards for a neighborly visit…


republicanstupidity
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

FOR YOU CLOWNS ON THE PLANET OF STUPID IT HAS NOT COME ON KITTY COME ON AND SHOW US LIBERALS HOW MUCH OF A PATRIOT YOU ARE KITTY KITTY KITTY


JBL
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:25 pm

Now, Joe. Seriously, how is my statement that you quoted, calling someone a name?!

I and others are being “idiot’s”, “douschebags”, “stupid”. he same folks that are calling those names are then attempting to explain why I’ and others are those names.

That’s the height of arrogance.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:25 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPKP86P8Fwc&feat…

tp for my bunghole


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:25 pm

This is helping Cornporn forget all her Birfer woes—she's sobbing as she pecks at her keyboard. The neighbors are growing uneasy at the wailing wafting thru the walls…


JBL
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:26 pm

Then why doesn’t Obama himself claim to be a Natural Born Citizen? And he doesn’t. You need only go to his Fight The Smears website to his clever turn of phrase.


deannajones
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:27 pm

I think that since you show a remarkable lack of mental function or integrity in your posts, then your sites must contain nothing but lies and ignorance. Sue me.


republicanstupidity
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:27 pm

EXCATLY WHAT IS A LONG FORM BC? DAMN YOU ARE GULLIABLE! NO WONDER THE REPUBLICANS CAN MIND FUCK YOUR STUPID ASS HAHAHAHA


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:27 pm

Take it like a man, like you?
Sorry, real men don't have teeny weenies


JBL
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:28 pm

How has anything I said bigoted? Please explain, I’d be humored to read it. From your vantage point I could be any of the races and skin colors that exist on this planet.

More appropriately you may be labeled a thought bigot.

Dissent is far more patriotic than being a pawn of the machine.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:28 pm

Let it all out Cornporn—-show your repressed Birfer compatriots what a good raging hissy fit can do for pent up frustration——that's it…now breathe….good


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:30 pm

Yeah this guy is obsessed w/Weigel and probably considers it some pathetic form of victory to lure bloggers off this site LOL


NigerMan
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:31 pm

I’l betcha you’d like a big black one, wouldn’t you?


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

Uh huh, I'm a lifeguard as well. Sorry, but it's not a fast food joint I work in, far from it.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

I’m starting to understand, Cornporn: one minute you say you have a black husband, next minute you need someone to lick your balls…you are finally starting to make sense to me.
You know there are many civil rights in place for hermaphrodites, so dont be ashamed. Be proud of what you are—-there are no genders on the internet!! I promise to stop calling you a freak. How was I to know?


Steve_X
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:33 pm

And the birthers lose again…nut seriously, is anyone really surprised?

In lieu of devastating insults and snide remarks, I'd like to dedicate the following video to all the birfers out there:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

I reckon soooo


JBL
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

That is an intentional misrepresentation of Wong Kim Ark and you know it.

The key statement made by the majority position in that case is:

‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’

That statement only purpose is to validate being a “native born citizen” as Obama claims he is. It does not equate citizenship to the status of being “natural born”.

MEANING Won Kim Ark, born within the US, was as much as citizen as the natural born child of a citizen.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:36 pm

ObamaacornLies,
It’s time to go home now. These people have punked you and made you look like an ass and you are too sad and clueless to see that they are winding you up. They want to see how crazy you’d get–and you basically let us all know there is no limit. It’s kind of funny—(you don’t have kids do you?)–if you do then it’s not funny at all.
Don’t give anymore money to Orly–seek professional help.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

Stick around and witness just how little impact that the real world has on the minds of the delusional freaks here known as Birfers. As far as they're concerned this just proves to them that one more judge is 'in' on the conspiracy. LOL


JBL
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:38 pm

Furthermore, Wong Kim Ark was decided less than a generation before Chester Arthur’s candidacy for VP. So he and the rest of the country would have been completely aware of what the meaning of Wong Kim Ark was.

And it didn’t have anything to do with the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

Give it up, Tracey. By the way, what's a ursurper? Is that part of a secret trailer trash language?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:40 pm

And two whole years of college. Woo.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

You're losing it, Tracey.


John
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

Even Obama himself doesn't have the gall to claim that he is a “Natural Born Citizen”.

But don't take my word for it, go to Fight the Smears post regarding Obama's Hawaiin Birth Certificate.

Obama cleverly claims to be a “native born citizen”.

I'll give him this . . . he's taken Willie-speak to a new level! “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”

Pull the wool up from over your eyes!


JBL
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:45 pm

Right. A typo equates to not knowing your from you’re even though I used it properly in the same post.

Cheap shot. Make sure you proof read your posts carefully from here on out, Joe. I’ll be nitpicking.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

Thanks, but I have no neighbors, Mr Assumer.
My closest neighbor is about a 1/4 mile away.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:47 pm

He doesn't have to say a thing. He's president, idiot. Some of the Birthers — like discredited leader Orly Taitz — believe that Obama wouldn't be eligible for the presidency even if he were born in the U.S. That's because, in their infinite wisdom, the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution a fair amount of phrases they never really bothered to define. One of those is this explanation of who can be president: “No person except a natural born citizen.”

The Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the question of what “natural born citizen” means. So the Birthers have simply settled on their own definition — someone born to two citizen parents — and found a source,”The Law of Nations,” a 1758 book by the Swiss philosopher Emerich de Vattel, to back them up.

There are a couple of problems with this. Most important, Obama isn't the first president with a non-citizen parent: Chester A. Arthur, the 21st president, was. His father was from Ireland and apparently did not become a U.S. citizen until more than 10 years after the future president's birth.

Plus, even if the Founding Fathers did rely on Vattel as much as the Birthers say — always a dubious proposition — Swiss philosophy books aren't legal precedent in the United States. British common law is. And in 1898, in the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court looked into the meaning of “natural born” in the common law and concluded that a non-citizen's mere presence in the U.S. is enough to make their child, if born here, a natural-born citizen.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:48 pm

lolol
Mannn, you are such a ball licker…


msdaisy
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:48 pm

Good thing for them! And I'm sure they even consider that a little too close for comfort


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:50 pm

I dunno, you figure it out, shit for brains!


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:51 pm

There you go again, trying to confuse the birthers with facts… :)


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:52 pm

That's what halitosis will do.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:53 pm

Not the SKANK lady again!

My far away neighbors love me, so kiss off bioootch


24AheadDotCom
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:53 pm

Whereever this issue goes, the noise brigade will surely follow. I don't know where all these people are coming from, but the goal of the great majority of the comments from BHO fans is to simply create noise. In case you haven't seen the page where I discuss how the judge is either biased, ignorant, or unable to figure things out, see the link.


deannajones
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:54 pm

You're wasting your time with factual posts like this. Birthers aren't interested in facts, unless those 'facts' are manufactured or distorted to support their views.


deannajones
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:55 pm

Still hijacking this page to whore out your blog, I see. It's bad form, you know.


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:55 pm

That's right. School cafeterias actually have to serve food with a smidgen of nutritional value.


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

Somehow I'm not surprised.


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

Answer the question. Also, please provide the name, address, and web site of your place of employment. How do we know you aren't doing this from your parents' basement, or Leavenworth?


msdaisy
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:57 pm

Okay, how long before Orly starts calling Judge Carter a traitor and treasonous and accuse him of being bought off or threatened by “Obama’s Brown shirts”. Will it be before or after Carter files charges against her for “suborned perjury”? After all he does have sworn statements, signed sealed and delivered which is much more than she ever had!


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:57 pm

I'm sure they love that you're far away.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:58 pm

And I guess you all think it's great news that Turkey has now,DROPPED the dollar. Look what your wonderful man is doing to our country, exactly what he planned. TO TEAR DOWN ALERICA. Well, if that's what you all wanted, you got it!

http://en.rian.ru/business/20091028/156617011.html


bobdinder
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

Absolutely jail her for standing up for our Constitution! How dare she hold our dictatorship up to scrutiny. Fine her till she screams.

I am sure glad that our straw dog president will sign away our sovereingty in Denmark in December, then we can just shoot people that stand up for their rights.

By all means lets outlaw challenging our wonderful governmemt about anything at all.

I am so ashamed to be called an american now. I am truly saddened by the future Chinese Style Government that is planned for us.

Time to move to a small country without resources our evil government would want.

Or stay and watch as millions of americans attempt a peaceful overthrow of our new dictatorship.

You know that with the extremely advanced weapons opposing them, the people will be mowed down like grass.

We put “In God We Trust” on everything and then turn our backs on HIM.
We get what we deserve for that.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

Then move to Turkey, bitch.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:00 pm

$10 says she already has.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:02 pm

Here's what Judge Carter says about Birthers and the Constitution:

“Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution … Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”

Judge David Carter


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:02 pm

Fuck youuu, I ain't gotta answer shit from you, pinhead!


MN_independent
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

“Time to move to a small country without resources our evil government would want”

We'd be happy to help you pack.


Greg
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

god less alerica


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

Yeah, I guess that's why they always come by…
IDIOT!


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

She wasn't standing up for the Constitution, she was trying to over turn it. Go to school, learn to read, read the Constitution. Using baloney arguments, lies, and attempting to suborn perjury in an attempt to overturn a lawful Presidential election is not something to be proud of. The judge did what was right–if that shames you then perhaps you should move somewhere else.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:04 pm

Do you always talk to yourself. It seems you are mired in the quicksand of obsession and suffer from delusions of adequacy.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

You are truly pathetic! How does it feel to be covered in lies?


MN_independent
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

Exactly! And telling the judge, to his face, that they are going to file case after case until he gave them the discovery wanted on Obama's birth certificate. The Courts are used to that kind of conduct coming from prisoners; less so with non-prisoner pro se civil litigants, but it does happen. But for an ATTORNEY to make that kind of statement is regarded an abuse of her position as an officer of the Court.


Slim Tyranny
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:07 pm

Good news! Your paranoid ramblings are not true and will not come to be!!! All the danger is simply your overactive imagination!

I love people as stupid as bob, they make life that much more entertaining.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:08 pm

Ahhh fuck off Mr. Brady! Go fuck ALICE or somethin!


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:09 pm

Read the decision again…The People Elected Obama…


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

lololol, sorry..I have no clue how to spell america, thought I'd guess and see if it slipped through. But you all are JUST TOO SMART!


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

Please don't discourage this paranoid hate-monger from leaving my country: good riddance! Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, bob


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:12 pm

I wouldn't know. How does it feel to be covered in flies?


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:12 pm

Dunno. How does it feel to be covered in flies?


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:13 pm

Crap! you beat me, mystylpix! !


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:13 pm

I guess his telltale stench is recognizable to everyone… ;)


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:13 pm

Jinx??
LOL


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

um, “her” telltale stench. Evidently, Cornporn is a she


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

So, Obamacorn? Are you finally tired of your lies?


commie atheist
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

I came here specifically to see if you had posted more of your bullshit. Thanks for being so predictably lame.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

“you all are TOO DAMN SMART” you should practice that one, Cornporn, you'll be using it alot…


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

And here the birthtards were thinking they could get away with their criticism of the courts. They must think each judge lives in a bubble.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

They'd fix her foul infidel mouth in a Constantinople Minute!


Guest
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:19 pm

It comes from the latin, “ursus”, which means “bear.” A ursurper is someone who pretends to be a bear.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

Well, it was a 50/50 chance.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:20 pm

“…I don't know where all these people are coming from…”
LOL
We're the MAJORITY which elected Obama, pinhead!


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:20 pm

I'm sure the words came out of her mouth as soon as she got the news. I'm keeping an eye on her website. Seems to be pretty busy right now but no words from the “wiseone” as of yet. I'm assuming there are a lot of visitors because there has been a tremendous wait and sometimes I get routed to a page with search results.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:27 pm

The truth will set you free, Obamacornflakes. Obama doesn't have to do anything but the job he was elected to do by “We the People”. Try to undo our election with blatant lies and this is where it gets ya…


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:28 pm

ms daisy’s use of the term was introduced in a resolution on another blog. It is most appropriate and I’m unsure if she actually gave us permission. If not, I’d be happy to pay royalties for using the term because it is so fitting.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:31 pm

Birthtard is in the public domain with Msdaisy’s blessings if I am not mistaken


msdaisy
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:31 pm

I had a look too; maybe she hasn’t posted anything because she’s been taken into custody. (No, too much to hope for) But I’ll bet when she does get around to it she’ll spew like a fire hose! Probably oozing with insanity and making enough threats to be taken into custody anyway!


Guest
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:34 pm

You started off trying to sound scholarly, dispassionate and reasonable. But now you are letting your birfer colors show. What’s the matter? The revelation that you were using a translation of Vattel that didn’t exist until after the adoption of the Constitution was just too much for your ego?


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:37 pm

Correction: actually, if you read the thread below, Cornporn just came out of the closet as an hermaphrodite—-I know, I know. How could we know?


Jim
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

Sorry folks, I'm going to repost this to the top for people who aren't familiar with the blower mentality. I just don't want them to have to spend a couple of days cleaning up their machines if they can avoid it.

WARNING: Feel free to argue with the blowers…I promise you it will be entertaining. However, I would encourage you NOT to click on their links, they are only forgeries and wild theories anyway. Besides, it has been reported that virus attacks have happened when visiting some of these sites, so if you click, make sure your antivirus software is up-to-date. Also, before you click, consider that these sites are paid by advertisers by the click, so if you choose not to go you will be cutting off a source of their income. Now that this case has been dismissed, you will see the blowers no longer debating, but just trying to get you to click on their links.


Another Judge Dismisses Birther Case; Slams Orly Taitz Hard | Comments from Left Field
Pingback posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

[...] David Weigel has the story: [...]


mystylplx
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:46 pm

Ha! Then we were both right!


offred
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:49 pm

OK, who is bankrolling this dingbat? Somebody with deep pockets has got to be backing her up financially on these lawsuits.

Any ideas besides the Republican Party's slush fund?


Judge dismisses lawsuit by TN Republicans demanding President Obama prove he’s American « Nashville Is Talking
Pingback posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:51 pm

[...] demanding President Barack Obama prove he’s a citizen of the United States had their case dismissed by a California District Court. Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this [...]


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:54 pm

I'm a fan of the Constitution. If you want to remove a sitting President from office, there is only one legal way to do it: impeachment in the House of Representatives, followed by trial and conviction in the Senate.

And no, we're not going to follow the link to boost the traffic numbers on your website.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

You would know, you tell me


Jim
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

Definitely NOT her clients…I hope! Otherwise, they are WAAAAAAY overpaying!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

No, tired of you covering up lies!


darthtater
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:02 pm

She's not sober yet…


darthtater
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

Obviously you are uneducated to think you know better than a sitting Federal Judge.


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

“Time to move to a small country without resources our evil government would want.”

Somalia is just the country you are looking for. Minimal resources. No national government to interfere with the freedom of the people to pursue their livelihood. No gun control. A libertarian wet dream. A rifle, a wooden boat with an outboard motor, and you are in business.

You will be happy there.

Bye!


darthtater
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

But it's fun to kick the ant hill and watch the flying monkeys surround it!!!


darthtater
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

They are anyway aren't they?


darthtater
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

How else will the Birthtard Mythology spread? LMAO!!


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:09 pm

The birthtards are financing her through PayPal donations and, fortunately for us, she's taking the money and using it for lavish lunches and fashion shoes rather than paying her “legal team” anything. Of course, she could get the finest legal minds and still would have no standing. Now, her followers are calling for civil unrest on her website.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

She should be paying them for her representation.


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

Orly will spew, but more like Linda Blair in The Exorcist.

By the way, I've been meaning to thank you for giving us all permission to use the term “birthtard.” You did give us permission, didn't you? Because if I owe you royalties for every time I've used it, I'm truly screwed.


darthtater
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:14 pm

She might be doing time soon…The Judge pointed out her perjury in his decision.


birthersrcrackpots
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:14 pm

If I hear one more republican MORON talk about the Constitution as if they have a clue as to what's in it, I will VOMIT. These people are so stupid they cant even understand this:
————————————————————————————————————–
Interpreting the Constitution is a serious and crucial task with which the federal courts of this nation have been entrusted under Article III. However, that very same Constitution puts limits on the reach of the federal courts. One of those limits is that the Constitution defines processes through which the President can be removed from office. The Constitution does not include a role for the Court in that process. Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution; and to effectively overthrow a sitting president who was popularly elected by We the People‚ sixty-nine million of the people. Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.


darthtater
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

Better get a deep bucket…the birthtards run rampant here…LOL!


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:19 pm

I can understand. It's know it has been really hard to cover your lies.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

Now all we need is for one of the news stations to invite her on for an interview.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:21 pm

If nothing else, perhaps it will help in getting her disbarred.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

I'll bet you're one of the idiots that think that the words “In God We Trust” has always been on our currency from the beginning of time when in fact it was under Eisenhauer that those words were added.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:25 pm

Her clients would be overpaying her even if she worked pro bono.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

same gene pool as Paula Jones
same backers


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:27 pm

O.K., I have to ask — how do you tell the difference between Orly drunk and Orly sober?


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:28 pm

LOL


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:28 pm

Yeah, so she can get the word out, to the world!
Good Idea!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:29 pm

Ohhhh shadddduupppppp!
As if…


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:29 pm

Tell em how it is!


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:29 pm

I was thinking more in the terms of the entertainment value of her going off on her standard diatribe and having another meltdown.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:30 pm

ObamacornFlakes does tend to run rampant.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

Man, why are you all so afraid of her? You are soo pathetic. Why are you sooo afraid of this case, goingto court? Are you afraid of the outcome, if it DOES actually get to court?


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:33 pm

That's it…try to HIDE the truth and not let the people, THINK for themselves.

There are NO viruses people, just the ones here, telling you NOT to look at the evidence!


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:34 pm

Damned those turkeys!


mpauldoyle
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

My God, are all modern-day american conservatives truly as ignorant, paranoid, irrational, immoral, dishonest and cowardly as they seem? Maybe they always have been, but new media have given them platforms to more widely expose themselves. I guess they're welcome to stay, but maybe they should consider leaving the country for some place where there are more like-minded people. Perhaps some of those Taliban-dominated tribal regions of Afghanistan. The only thing that seems to differentiate the two..is an explosives belt.


Jim
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:37 pm

I'm not even near anybody else. They are free to click on any site they wish. I'm allowed to warn them of problems that arise from those choices. The truth was told today by Judge Carter, and you're still a blower!


bearclaw
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:41 pm

Uh, actually — “In God We Trust” first appeared on U.S. coins during the Civil War and has been on all U.S. coins since 1938. It became the official “U.S. Motto” in 1956 (around the time that “one nation, under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance).


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

Sorry folks, I'm going to repost this to the top for people who aren't familiar with them yet.

Hmmm, I was wondering how all you leftie losers here, explain these articles:
(I am sure they will probably get scrubbed after being put here, so get your snapshots people)

“African News Headline: KENYAN-BORN OBAMA MAKES HISTORY!”
http://jillosophy.blogspot.com/2008/06/african-

“Little wonder then why Kenyan-born Barack Obama, America's first Black President,”
http://allafrica.com/stories/200908200781.html

“As Kenyan born US Senator Barack Obama jets into Kenya today as part of his African tour,”
http://www.africa-ata.org/ug_newsletter.htm

“Both were born outside the country — Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand — and graduated from high school in Honolulu — Punahou and McKinley, respectively.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20060207151627/http:

“Kampala — Ugandans have formed a group to mobilise support for Kenyan born-senator, Barack Obama for the US presidency.”
http://allafrica.com/stories/200802180051.html

“The Kenyan-born Senator will, however, face a stiff competition from his Republican counterpart,”
http://www.nigerianobservernews.com/4112008/411

“She also describes the stories that have been exciting, including the U.S. presidential race of Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st

“Olara Otunnu (Harvard Law, 1978) relating the remark of Kenyan historian Ali Mazrui on the oddity that a member of Kenya's Luo tribe (Barack Obama, a Kenyan citizen and Luo tribe member from birth) may become president of the United States before a Luo tribe member becomes president of Kenya.”
http://www.archive.org/details/OtunnuOnLuoTribe

And lastly, the missing debate thapes that will PROVE from Obama's own mouth that his is NOT natural born! (We need to find this debate from 2004 people)

http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/o

Video about it too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjtwwxILZxQ&feat

ANYONE????


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:48 pm

Glad you can understand, cause I can never understand ANY of your comments. Learn how to speak, would ya!


birthersrcrackpots
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:51 pm

The morons are planting bogus articles in african media to match their bogus court “cases” here.

Crackpot!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:52 pm

yap yap yap. I'm free to warn them. You are a fucking low life piece of garbage. They only way for you to fight back, is to make up LIES about people. Well, you learn from the best.

I'd like to warn people also, because I clicked on a link you sent me and it fucking started that “you are infected, let us do a scan and clean your pc and I couldn't get out of the damn page. That was a really low thing to do. PLEASE BE AWARE PEOPLE THAT HE IS ACCUSING OTHERS< WHEN “HE” IS THE ONE SENDING PEOPLE TO GET VIRUSES. I guess he thinks he can cause us to get a virus, then we can't come here to post the real truth. You are a pathetic piece of white trash!


BigGuy
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

Sure, I'll bite. Of the thousands of articles world-wide about Obama, some of them contained errors. It happens all the time. How about the WND article that states that the COLB is not a forgery? Do you have the same confidence in that?

And about the Keyes interview — get real! That was debunked long ago. Don't you wonder why there's a video *about* it but not a video *of* it?

Nice try!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

Uh yeah, we planted them years ago. What an idiot!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:55 pm

Sorry, many of us have asked them if they have redacted these sayings and NONE have. Why do you think that is? Because they KNOW it's TRUE! They should know better than anyone, he is FROM there!


Antibirther
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 6:58 pm

Wow,

How is it possible to go through your day with so much hatred?

Don't you have anything else to to with your life?


Insightful Ape
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:07 pm

Right wing “patriotism” is such a joke.


WhatVideo
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:11 pm

Awww, sorry dumba$$ – the “Kenyan-born” headlines have been debunked:

http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/26…

Paul Colford, director of media relations for the Associated Press: “The AP has never reported that President Obama was born in Kenya. In fact, AP news stories about the state of Hawaii have confirmed that he was born there. The Kenyan paper that you cite rewrote a 2004 AP story, adding the phrase ‘Kenyan-born.’ That wording was not in the AP version of the story.”

As for the video…WHAT VIDEO???

Move on with your life, a-hole.


Dr E
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:15 pm

How can you claim to believe all of the articles you listed? One is saying he was born in Indonesia, others in Kenya. If you want to be consistent in your delusions, surely you'd only include articles that at least agree with each other. It only makes you look more ridiculous to pretend you believe he was born both in Kenya and Indonesia.


mariestella
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:15 pm

Another babbling idiot.


Majyqman
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:18 pm

Heh, wingnut, you provided your own rebuttal in the menagerie of factually incorrect trip (intentional or not) culled from every article about Obama ever.

What impresses me most is that you don't even realize it, and will most assuredly continue with your cognitive dissonance even once it is pointed out to you.

Hint: there are claims within your provided links both of him being born in Indonesia and in Kenya. Well, which is it?

Once you understand that it's possible that the links you've provided are factually correct you might want to weigh the evidence, rather than rely on unsubstantiated reporting.

At that point, you come up rather short.


Majyqman
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

Hah! “tripe” and “incorrect” obviously.

No playing with trolls in the morning for me.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

WARNING! WILL ROBINSON, WARNING! Do not click on any of the links other than the one for YouTube unless you have good virus protection.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

They are delusional as you are.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:28 pm

Afraid of her? That's hardly the case. She's a delusional buffoon that we enjoy.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:29 pm

There is no evidence to look at.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

I think you have your statement backwards. It is YOU that make up lies to fight back because that's all you have. Just lies.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:31 pm

My bad.


GunTotinLiberal
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:37 pm

You lost
Get used to it.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

I'm not sure what you mean about “redacting.” But the Standard, just a few weeks later, wrote:

“Simultaneous with Obama’s rising stature is the increasing desire by Kenyans to identify with him. Typical newspaper headlines and messages flying around the Internet tend to lead with the theme “Kenyan-linked”, or “Kenyan-American”, or even, erroneously, “Kenyan-born”.”

http://web.archive.org/web/20040706035526/www.e…

And are you still standing by that bogus Keyes debate claim?


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

Hatred? I have no hatred in my life…????
Cept, what's coming from you guys, but I can deal with it. You guys bother me at all!
That's why I made this video, I've dealt with your kind for years and years on YT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BmvJ3tDW78


Name
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

Um. Hello? *taps microphone*

It got to court.

And got dismissed.

Thanks for playing.

NEXT!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:56 pm

Not on your life, fleabag!
We will prove you wrong, mark my word!


dougjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:58 pm

One of them says he was born in Indonesia, which contradicts the others that say he was born in Kenya. So if someone was wrong in saying he was born in Indonesia, why couldn't the others saying he was born in Kenya be mistaken as well?

And just because they are from Africa doesn't mean they would know whether Obama was born in Africa. There are also lots of people from the US who say he was born in the US, so by your logic he must have been born in the US, in addition to Kenya and Indonesia.

Also, most of those links don't work.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 7:59 pm

He was Kenyan born and adopted into Indonesia at age 6 and swore allegiance to them as an adult. So, perhaps that's what they meant. As you can see, I am not trying to puul the wool over anyones else. I post them all. One Indonesian but ALL THE OTHERS say Kenya. Can that many be wrong? I don't think so, especially when that country should know better, then us!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:01 pm

Already responded to that flighty…
Try and read the comments first before being redundant!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:04 pm

hahahaha TOO LATE IDIOT..
They've all already clicked as you can see from their comments. PROOF THAT NONE OF THEM HAD VIRUSES, thanks all, for confirming there were no viruses at those links…

You've been debunked schmucharoni!


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

Cornporn calls another blogger redundant:
LOL!!!!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

But, we WILL win, in the end!
Get used to it!


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

Roundly debunked. No question about it, Birthtard


Majyqman
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:08 pm

It boggles the mind, truly boggles the mind, that you can't comprehend how I might have posted that comment before you posted your reply to the other comment.

Truly, how do you manage to function in day to day life?


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

Only when hell freezes over.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

And cornflakes continues to spew her lies.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The truth already is out, nutbar. Obama was born in Honolulu. FACT.


Majyqman
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:14 pm

Quick! Someone find 10 articles, hell, blog posts! That, in the process of destroying birthtards claims with logic, also manage to intimate they have low IQ's and a functional disconnect with reality…

I mean, that many couldn't be wrong!

Wait, that doesn't help my case… oh, there are tens of thousands? Phew.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:14 pm

It is quite clear that you have valiantly battled the real world for years and and years.
It is equally clear that you have kept it from breaching your delusion citadel—you've built those walls of solid rock!
You remind me of the valiant and arrogant French cavalier guarding the castle in Monty Python's Holy Grail.
His greasy and contemptuous scowl is SO Cornporn!
LOL


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:18 am

The only thing I’m afraid of is the mascara falling off Taitz’s eyelashes while she’s performing a root canal, even if it would almost certainly make News of the Weird for great lulz.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:18 am

JBL, Wong Kim Ark is *the* seminal case that determined that children born on US soil of alien parents *are* natural born citizens, simply by virtue of their birth here. It’s been cited for that purpose ever since. See Perkins v Elg or Kwock v Fat.

You don’t know how to read the case. ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’ MEANS Wong was a natural born citizen. “As much as” doesn’t mean as much as except for one thing.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:18 am

JBL, Wong Kim Ark is *the* seminal case that determined that children born on US soil of alien parents *are* natural born citizens, simply by virtue of their birth here. It’s been cited for that purpose ever since. See Perkins v Elg or Kwock v Fat.

You don’t know how to read the case. ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’ MEANS Wong was a natural born citizen. “As much as” doesn’t mean as much as except for one thing.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:19 am

I think Cornholio needs some teepee for her pie hole.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:19 am

I think Cornholio needs some teepee for her pie hole.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

When Reagan and JFK visited Ireland, the locals were thrilled, flattered and proud of their 'native sons'. There were no equivalent insinuations at the time about those Presidents' loyalties or origins.
This time it's different.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to ascertain why…


Mary_Adams
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

Yeah. All of your “Kenyan-born” links refer to the fact that he was born of a Kenyan. Notice they don't say “Kenya-born”. It has been explained in many cases by the papers who printed the original articles that they are very proud his roots are in Kenya:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040706035526/www.e…

http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=114…

As far as the article on Duckworth, the author admitted he was in a rush and picked the first reference on Google without fact-checking.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/…

And lastly, the missing debate tapes. We have them all. Not a word there. Even Keyes says he doesn't remember such an exchange – now why would he forget something like that if it did indeed happen?

Just more grasping at straws by a birfer/nutter. You gullible idiots will seize on every typo, misstatement and outright lie as proof of your position. Too bad you have no concrete FACTS like, oh, certified copy of record of US birth corroborated by no less than two newspapers, statements by officials of the State of Hawaii, including a US Congressman who knew the Obama's before the President was even born, Kapiolani Hospital's recognition during their centennial that he was born there, unanimous vote of the US House that he was born in Hawaii.

LOL! You look like the fool you are.


Mary_Adams
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

Yeah. All of your “Kenyan-born” links refer to the fact that he was born of a Kenyan. Notice they don't say “Kenya-born”. It has been explained in many cases by the papers who printed the original articles that they are very proud his roots are in Kenya:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040706035526/www.e…

http://www.eastandard.net/InsidePage.php?id=114…

As far as the article on Duckworth, the author admitted he was in a rush and picked the first reference on Google without fact-checking.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/…

And lastly, the missing debate tapes. We have them all. Not a word there. Even Keyes says he doesn't remember such an exchange – now why would he forget something like that if it did indeed happen?

Just more grasping at straws by a birfer/nutter. You gullible idiots will seize on every typo, misstatement and outright lie as proof of your position. Too bad you have no concrete FACTS like, oh, certified copy of record of US birth corroborated by no less than two newspapers, statements by officials of the State of Hawaii, including a US Congressman who knew the Obama's before the President was even born, Kapiolani Hospital's recognition during their centennial that he was born there, unanimous vote of the US House that he was born in Hawaii.

LOL! You look like the fool you are.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

Well, considering another came to my email first AND, if you look, you will see the one at 1 hour ago and yours at 58 minutes ago, THAT'S HOW I KNOW! DOOOOH


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:22 am

You’re wrong. Chester Arthur’s issue was whether he was born in Canada vs Vermont, not his father’s citizenship status. It was known at the time of the election that his father had not naturalized by the time of his son’s birth. That was never the issue.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:22 am

You’re wrong. Chester Arthur’s issue was whether he was born in Canada vs Vermont, not his father’s citizenship status. It was known at the time of the election that his father had not naturalized by the time of his son’s birth. That was never the issue.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:23 am

You do know that the actor who played Mike Brady was gay, don’t you?


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:23 pm

Ahhhh shaddduuuppp!


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:25 am

All I’m asking is for you to live up to same standards you would impose on the President. Otherwise, kindly shut up.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:25 am

All I’m asking is for you to live up to same standards you would impose on the President. Otherwise, kindly shut up.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

Don't be too sure about that. These sleazes are petulant little shits who will prove to have no patience with democracy, mark my words


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

Sorry Mary Mary quite contrary, you might want to go back to your garden now. No use for you here!


Majyqman
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:28 pm

I didn't make the claim that I posted before the other poster.

I made the claim that I posted before your reply to the other poster.

So the fact you had already replied to him when you replied to me was completely irrelevant. So why did you mention it?

If your claims of my redundancy were based on me saying the same thing as another poster (whether or not you had already replied), then may I direct you to the fact our posts are a mere 3 minutes apart? The most logical explanation is that we were composing our posts at the same time.

Of course, my apologies, I do doubt anyone has ever accused you of utilizing logic.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:29 am

What you are doing is advocating trashing the Constitution in favor of an obsolete Swiss philosophy that was never the law of any land, let alone the United States. That is not dissent. That is anarchy. Please stop.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:29 am

What you are doing is advocating trashing the Constitution in favor of an obsolete Swiss philosophy that was never the law of any land, let alone the United States. That is not dissent. That is anarchy. Please stop.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:32 am

> And I guess you all think it’s great news that Turkey has now,DROPPED the dollar. Look what your wonderful man is doing to our country, exactly what he planned. TO TEAR DOWN ALERICA. Well, if that’s what you all wanted, you got it!

Of COURSE this had NOTHING to do with that other guy who couldn’t “spel” America – you know, W, the man who made damned sure his successor would be facing the W Depression.

What a fucking moran you are, “cornLies”.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:32 am

> And I guess you all think it’s great news that Turkey has now,DROPPED the dollar. Look what your wonderful man is doing to our country, exactly what he planned. TO TEAR DOWN ALERICA. Well, if that’s what you all wanted, you got it!

Of COURSE this had NOTHING to do with that other guy who couldn’t “spel” America – you know, W, the man who made damned sure his successor would be facing the W Depression.

What a fucking moran you are, “cornLies”.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:32 am

If this theoretical candidate wins the election, yes, of course he should be sworn in as President. Anything else would be a clear breach of the Constitution.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:32 am

If this theoretical candidate wins the election, yes, of course he should be sworn in as President. Anything else would be a clear breach of the Constitution.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:35 am

You actually got through college without knowing the difference between “it’s” and “its,” and you have the unmitigated gall to lecture to me? Add in your atrocious grammar and spelling, and your complete misreading of the Constitution, sir, and I question whether you went to college at all, let alone majored in political science.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:35 am

You actually got through college without knowing the difference between “it’s” and “its,” and you have the unmitigated gall to lecture to me? Add in your atrocious grammar and spelling, and your complete misreading of the Constitution, sir, and I question whether you went to college at all, let alone majored in political science.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:37 am

You also called me “ignorant” and “silly,” plus you insulted my intelligence.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:40 am

Please produce a source* written by a reputable historian that states, in plain English, that the citizenship of Chester Arthur’s father was a campaign issue. A photostat of a contemporary newspaper would be even better.

Otherwise, please stop. You are looking worse and worse with every entry you post.

*Wikipedia and right wing blogs don’t count. Sorry.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:40 am

Please produce a source* written by a reputable historian that states, in plain English, that the citizenship of Chester Arthur’s father was a campaign issue. A photostat of a contemporary newspaper would be even better.

Otherwise, please stop. You are looking worse and worse with every entry you post.

*Wikipedia and right wing blogs don’t count. Sorry.


Majyqman
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:40 pm

This, right here, is why you should reexamine your world view and perhaps question why you are so willfully being misled.

Your claims are obliterated, comprehensively, by logic, fact and citation.

Your response? To put figuratively put your fingers in your ear and yell “lalalalalalala I can't hear you!”.

Please, seek help.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:42 am

Guess that’s kind of like the answer Obama’s giving you birthtards.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:42 am

Guess that’s kind of like the answer Obama’s giving you birthtards.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

What the hell are you babbling about now, cretin?
Your job here is to entertain—stop being a boring goober and get back on stage NOW!


chrisjay
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:01 pm

'cept that's a lousy French accent, buckwheat


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:11 pm

Please stop spamming. I think your fryalator is overflowing.


Mary_Adams
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:12 pm

As usual, birthers SMACKED DOWN by FACTS. LOL!


Ellid
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:15 pm

What a fine, elegant, well-mannered fry cook you are!


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:17 pm

Does this surprise you? Orly is going to appeal. Even I expected that. What's really entertaining in her latest post is that she completely ignores the judges statements that she didn't argue the case properly and has attacked the courts who have dismissed her case. Rather, she's concentrating on addressing the depositions that were submitted to the judge that she had asked her witnesses to lie.

So we end another episode of as the birthtards turn.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:20 pm

Yo! Oldfartman666! You in here? Or are you off fuming in your backyard and yelling insults at the neighbor kids? Or perhaps you felt the need to visit a road side rest stop for a little R E C R E A T I O N?


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:23 pm

That's a good image. LOL!


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:29 pm

THE WORDS DIRECTLY FROM OILY TASTES' MIND:

As many of you know, Judge Carter has issued an order to grant the motion to dismiss.

Clearly it is not the end of the road. We will continue. I need some time to study this order and provide full answer point by point. I will not give a full analysis of judge Carter’s orders at the moment. Today I was inundated with phone calls from different media outlets. Interviews were given to different affiliats of FOX radio, CBS, WND, LA Times, LA Daily Journal, City report, I don’t remember all of them. One interview I remebered. It was with Jessica Rosenthal from FOX radio. She asked me, when will I give up? I asked her in turn: “Jessica, when do you give up on the Constitution of this country? When do you give up on your constitutional rights for redress of grievances, for your right not to be defrauded by the government, not be treated as a slave?”

While I will not address the legal aspects of the order today, I will address a couple of issues relating to me personally, as I can see a concerted effort to assassinate my character similar to what was done to Sarah Palin, when she joined McCain, when within a day McCain-Palin ticket was 12 points ahead of Obama. What did Chicago combine do? They assassinated her character. So I have to address some of those issues, because it appears that the media has named me a leader of this movement. I am the only attorney, who brought legal actions from plaintiffs with real standing. I brought actions from active duty military and state representatives. My opposition see me as a threat. What was done? Some puppets were used to defame me, slander me, write garbage letters to judge Carter.

First of all I need to point that I never did anything unethical and never told anyone to do anything unethical. I was horrified to see that Judge Carter has mentioned in his order some complete garbage that was in some letters that he received. Those letters were a complete defamation of character, I had no opportunity to address those allegations, those were not part of the record, and it is extremely prejudicial for a judge to include this complete garbage in his order. If anything, this is definitely something that can and should be addressed on appeal. I hoped that this judge had more integrity of character, I guess I was wrong.

Another point – Judge Carter state in court and in his order that I told people to call him This is not true. Who told it to judge Carter? His new clerk, fresh out of Perkins Coie, law firm, that represented Obama, in some 100 cases?


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:31 pm

Just my general thought… Orly isn't even worthy of a pimple on Sarah Palin's ass.


grndrush
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:43 pm

Fucking traitorous idjit.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

WOMP WOMP WOMP. All ya sound like to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUyLwXhqlWU


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 9:52 pm

Hey, I saw the video of you, on the other thread. Thought I'd post it here so everyone could see what ya look like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48DgA5xS914


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:02 pm

What the fuck is up with these threads. C'mon mannn, get the shit right!
Tryin to argue here…


Majyqman
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:05 pm

I don't care what I sound like to you, because that's not what is at issue. As my logic is sound and well presented, any problem in communication lies squarely with you. I know, it's hard to deal with the fact you have shortcomings… don't worry, this is one of the least of them.

What is at issue is your complete lack of logic, your disconnect from reality, and that you're dead wrong about your stated assertions…

You might need to learn how to deal with that in a manner other than sticking your fingers in your ears and hoping that the people exposing you to reality go away.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:14 pm

Fuck off would ya. Tired of seeing your emails come in, yapping away! Yur wastin yur time!


CauldronBorn
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:15 pm

Must be something with the website. All of their stories seem to be having this issue.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:24 pm

Had to switch to using FireFox because using IE, the page wasn't loading correctly.


Majyqman
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

Wait…

Are you contending that after having made outrageous claims in a public forum, you should not have to defend them in a logically sound manner simply because you do not wish to expend the effort to do so?

Impressive!

And why am I wasting my time? With every reply I am exposing the complete ridiculousness of both you and your assertions.

I know you are too far disconnected from reality for this to influence “you”. But I'm certainly hoping it will keep others, reality based but credulous, from being misled by your insanity.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:34 pm

OMG, I made outrageous claims? Where? When

LOLOL, calling you redundant is an OUTRAGEOUS claim? Mannn, tranny or whatever sex you are, you got some serious problems


Jim
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:38 pm

Sure will, in about 8 years he'll be gone. Then, you can claim you go rid of him in January of 2017. Of course, then you might have to start questioning Biden's BC…but you'll still be entertaining!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:40 pm

Even if he makes it through the next 3, more than likely NOT, there is no possible way it will happen again. Not having all of Acorns fraudulant votes, there is NO WAY!


buckaroni
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:49 pm

The proof would be in the pudding but, sadly, you have none.


Jim
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 10:57 pm

I think you've mistaken my point, that's what I want to happen. If we, the people, decide that someone else would be better at the job, we elect him by a majority of the Electoral College votes, minimum of 270. Not you, a minority of blowers, begging the courts to ignore the constitution and give you something you have no right to. Now, you DO understand that if he runs for re-election, you can bring the whole qualifying question up again, don't you? I mean, he would be a candidate then and, I assume from reading Judge Land and Judge Carter's opinions, you could claim the 3rd party harm to ask the court for proof. I personally don't believe you have anything but garbage that will never be able to overcome the Hawaii BC, but then you could possible get the hearing you have been wanting.


Jim
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 11:00 pm

Of course, before you do that, I would HIGHLY recommend that you get a real lawyer. Orly would mess it up for you so bad, you'd never get the Judge to have Hawaii send a BC to shoot you down.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:10 am

You insulted every one of the 69,000,000 people who voted for President Obama last November, plus the President himself. You also insulted ME by calling me ignorant and silly, and by claiming that I’ve somehow been led astray because I do not agree with your ridiculous contention that a little known Swiss philosopher’s writings from the 18th century have diddly squat to do with modern Constitutional law.

Sorry, but I’m not giving you a pass on this one.


Majyqman
Comment posted October 29, 2009 @ 11:11 pm

Your outrageous birtherism.

Claiming I was redundant wasn't “outrageous”, just pitiful. An entirely poor refutation in the face of logic.

(hint: logic and facts don't get worse with the repeating)

You have still provided no reason why we should place any validity in your contradicting sources other than to say that perhaps one of them “meant” something different than it actually said (because otherwise it would be wrong, and open up the possibility that your other sources, as I highly suspect, are also full of tripe).

Though the utter hilarity of you suggesting I have serious problems was worth the time spent posting.

Try something, look up the meaning of cognitive dissonance… reflect on whether it applies to you… curl up somewhere and cry… come back to us unchanged because your brain has the remarkable ability to override perception and logic in order to not have to deal with new evidence conflicting with your world view.

It is truly majestic to watch someone delude themselves so comprehensively.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:14 am

You’re still wrong. A dual citizen who is born on American soil is still a natural born citizen, which is Chester Arthur’s father is irrelevant.

Go ask a law professor about this. I dare you. Seriously. Put your money where your mouth is and go check with someone who actually knows the law and teaches it. Use exactly the same arguments you’ve used here.

I dare you.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:16 am

Please cite a single American law professor, judge, or legal scholar who agrees with Vattel on this issue. You cannot use Wikipedia or a right wing blog, but that leaves you with literally thousands of experts you can consult.

Unless and until you do this, I see no reason to take your preference for a pre-Revolutionary Swiss philosopher over the American legal code. Sorry.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:20 am

Wrong. John McCain was born to American parents in an American military zone. He was and is natural born.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:25 am

Well, if it’s about being right or wrong, then they are wrong and we are right. Obama released his actual birth certificate almost two years ago and the kooks just pretend it didn’t happen or it’s not real.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:28 am

Only begun? To what? You’ve been proven wrong. But please keep it up because every time you kooks carry on it gains votes for the Dems!


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:32 am

He wasn’;t adopted, chum, and even if he were, it is a *legal impossibility* for a natural born American minor to lose his citizenship in any way based on anything his parents do. Simply, it’s against the law to lose your citizenship rights as a minor.

And not the Pakistan canard again!! Haw haw haw!!! That was debunked over a year ago. It was NEVER against US policy or regulation to travel to Pakistan, not in 1981 and not ever. He had an AMERICAN passport. He couldn’t possibly have had an Indonesian passport. By 1981 he hadn’t been in Indonesia for TEN YEARS. He left there to return to Hawaii at age 10, sport.

No wonder you birfers are such luzers. You don’t even know the first thing you’re talking about.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:12 am

And it took a Congressional resolution to affirm that. There i question as to whether such a thing is even legal.


wayoutwest
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:14 am

I just read an interesting survey on birthers.
They don't vote.
They don't travel outside the US.
They don't read.
They don't believe in science.

They do believe in alien abduction.

I guess that explains Tracys paranoia, blame it on the anal probes.


Majyqman
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:29 am

There's probably no point trying to explain this to you, but to anyone out there tempted to buy into your utter disconnect from reality, here's a hint:

Voter REGISTRATION fraud could not procure a single extra vote for Obama.

Why?

Because eve if Mickey M. Mouse is on the voter roles, Obama doesn't get a single extra vote UNLESS MICKEY M. MOUSE ACTUALLY SHOWS UP TO VOTE.

And just a little aside, Acorn was actually legally required to hand over the voter registration forms, even if it strongly suspected that “Mickey M. Mouse” wasn't a real person.

Why?

Well, I'm guessing you don't want an organization like Acorn to be able to pick and choose which voters they register.

Think about why.

I'll give you a hint. “I” would start off by sorting registrations into two piles, one of them marked “R”. One of these piles will be going in the bin.

Really though? I wouldn't. Because I believe even idiots should be allowed to vote, but it's obviously not something you considered before spouting off your wingnut mouth.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:17 am

Hmmm… always before when I heard birfoons calling Obama an alien I had thought they meant from another country. This explains a alot of puzzling little things about the birfsquad though.

Anything on that survey about what percentage of them are married to siblings? That could, along with the anal probes, be a contributing factor.


Elizabeth
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:36 am

Interesting. There are usually a lot of birfers posting here when there is a new birfer article here at WI. I only see 1 birfer.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

I guess they are all in mourning. I guess they are all crying in their beer.

Game over, birfers. You are done. You were never going to succeed, but now your EPIC FAIL has been confirmed by a Federal Court. No case was ever going to succeed. Orly got farther than anyone, only to screw up so massively that the Judge was able to write an appeal-proof decision. She was always going to fail. But she gave Judge Carter enough rope to hang y'all for good.

I know, “Obama got to the Judge”; “Carter's law clerk was an Obama plant”; “the DOJ shouldn't have been representing Soetoro and it was unfair”; “I am a tax-payer and I have standing”; “Orly meant to lose so that she can get this decided by the USSC”; etc, etc, etc.

Now that birferism is dead, what will I do for entertainment?


Orly Taitz Smacked Down: Birther Lawsuit Dismissed - The Washington Independent.com | ByteBooth
Pingback posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:53 am

[...] one that got the furthest through the legal system — demanding proof of the president’s … Read Full Article (No Ratings Yet)  Loading … Word [...]


What Is It About No… « No Time for Trivia
Pingback posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:11 am

[...] Carter said before the ruling came down that his office was getting 40 to 100 calls from birthers urging him to back Taitz, after she asked for support on her website.also confirms that witnesses complained Taitz wanted them to lie on the stand. [...]


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:29 am

Dismissing the case on standing issue did not make Obama an NBC.
The eligibility issue did not go away.

There are several holes in Carter's ruling. If you read it carefully you will find them.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:37 am

An organization receiving federal money is not supposed to be a tool of any political party.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:42 am

No election can make Obama an NBC.

The only way to make him eligible is to change the constitution and remove the NBC requirement.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:51 am

Yet there is no long term birth certificate, Obama has been using a duplicate SS# issued in CT (state where he never lived), numerous reports placing his birth in three different countries? Two different Hawaii birth hospitals claimed by Obama and his sister, fake COLB posted on the web,…

Is that the logic you are talking about?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:35 am

What is the proof of Obama's Hawaiian birth? Fake COLB document posted on a friendly web site. How did “factcheck.org verify the document? They only mention having a physical document in hands – how do they know that it represents the data stored in Hawaii DoH?


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:39 am

Are you lost or something CaptianSteve. Oops, sorry. I thought that you were a different birther.

Where have you been hiding. The case was dismissed. Honestly take some time to read the reading. It could be really educational for you. It will show you everywhere your arguments were wrong and the reasons why.


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:40 am

Sorry CaptianSteve, you are wrong again. Just give it up.


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:46 am

“But, we WILL win, in the end! Get used to it!” That makes absolutely no sense. Why must be get used to something that has never happen. See what happens when you make illogical arguments.


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:47 am

What does ACORN have to do with whether Obama is a natural born citizen or not. Man you are confused.


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:50 am

Unfortunately, the courts have ruled on the legality of your position. It is over. I know how much you are avoiding reading the ruling, but take some time. It will should that every sentence you typed is utter nonsense.


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:53 am

Hey, CaptainSteve how are you. It must be a very hard day for you. Well it isn't the end of the world, and you can find something else to do.


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:57 am

What you don't understand. Or just fail to understand, is that your question is mute. However, if you actually took time to read the ruling you would notice that the judge did address the birth certificate issue. Let us sum it up for you easily. The judge ruled that he has better faith in the check and balance that America when dealing birth records than he has with Kenya. Actually, he stated that he believes the America is the absolute best.

Sorry, to crush the last argument you are clinging to.


grndrush
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 6:29 am

Umm….he's BEEN POTUS for nearly a YEAR. If he wasn't “eligible”, I BELIEVE that this would NOT be the case (IANAL).

The -racists- birthers really are out in force here, eh?


Oh, Orly birther, say it ain’t so (she did) « BaptistPlanet
Pingback posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:38 am

[...] David Weigel quoted from the ruling: [...]


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:18 am

I actually had to read you comment twice. The first time I thought it was nonsense. The second time I also thought it was nonsense, for a different reason. It is a well known fact that John McCain decided to take federal money for his presidential campaign. Honestly, what happened to logic and using the facts. Oh, I forget birthers threw that out when they became birthers.

Just one note: The courts a venue to try to make a political statement, which is based on a current court ruling.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:47 am

Oh really???
What about this:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?mave…

BUSTEDDDDDDDDDDD!

He is President BY FRAUD!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:51 am

Pfffttt Wrong…I don't think so. Once they get to the merits of the case, we will PROVE YOU WRONG!
Watch and seeeeeee!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:52 am

Hello IDIOT, comment to the right person, would ya!
Just because YOU are many accounts here, doesn't mean that I am. Just because you LIE AND CHEAT, doens't mean I do!

lololol


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:54 am

Geeez, what's Obama sending his kids here now, to fedend him. Learn how to write schmuck!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:55 am

Acorn has NOTHING to do with the NBC, but they have EVERYTHING to do with the USURPER!


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:15 am

Honestly. Go do something useful, like clean the streets. Or tell us the name, address, and URL of this restaurant you supposedly manage. How do we know you're telling the truth?


majyqman
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:16 pm

Are you another corntard, or do you have the capacity to understand the problems with your position as enumerated by the judges opinion on this case, should you bother to read it?

First hint: Obama is not the first president with a non citizen parent upon their birth.

Second hint: Centuries old opinion on international law by some european guy has slightly less bearing on the constitution than American courts. It would be amusing to consider whose rule you would be under otherwise.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:16 am

We have no proof that you aren't Sam Sewall. Please provide evidence of same.

Also, I'm still waiting for the name, address, and website of the restaurant you supposedly run.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:17 am

First, define “fedend.” It does not seem to be a word.

Second, I'm very likely older than you are. Wherever did you get the idea that I'm the President's daughter?


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:18 am

Anyone who claims that 69,000,000 votes are all or mostly fraudulent has clearly been snorting too many Big Macs.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:24 am

My first reaction to your post: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Carter's opinion shoved the birther's opinions down their throats. As they say, everyone has an opinion just like every one has an a* hole. The birthers have a lot of a* holes.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:34 am

The birthtards think their case wasn't dismissed on its merits. Carter states he believes that the BC provided (the Hawaiian) proves that Obama was born in the US. However, because that will never be satisfactory for you, by all means, keep up the fight cuz it is amusing.

Carter put it pretty simple and to sum it up. Birthtards want to disrupt the US government and have him kick Obama out of office with the swipe of his pen when he was elected by the majority of US voters.

Carter wrote he believes that the records of the United States are much more reliable than those that may be from another country like Kenya.

Carter wrote that Orly hurt her plaintiffs' case through rhetoric seeking to arouse the emotions AND prejudices rather than using the language of a lawyer seeking to present arguments through cogent legal reasoning.

Bye bye birthtards. Stick a fork in 'em. They're done.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:36 am

I'm sure they believe that the earth was created in 7 days.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:40 am

They will continue to muddle on. Before they're done, they'll have a lot of new conspiracy theories about Obama. It wouldn't surprise me if they tried to prove that he fought with the Taliban back in 2002.


majyqman
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:04 am

Wait, so 38 possibly fraudulent ballots in a city council election with absolutely no connection to the presidential election somehow “proves” Acorn managed to arange for at least

NINE POINT FIVE MILLION

people to double vote.

Busted nothing,

I would try to explain orders of magnitude to you, but I am thoroughly convinced you not just would not comprehend them, but do not even have the capacity to learn to comprehend them.

But let me spell out the conclusion for you.

Y.O.U. A.R.E. M.E.N.T.A.L.L.Y. R.E.T.A.R.D.E.D A.N.D. S.H.O.U.L.D. S.E.E.K. H.E.L.P.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:04 am

The case was dismissed, retard. If she tries to appeal again, she'll not only be sanctioned BIG TIME, her disbarment will proceed.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:06 am

They've all crawled back under their rocks for now, but like cockroaches in the south, they'll creep back out when the lights get turned back off. There are still flat eathers insisting the world is a disk and the oceans pour continually over the edge–birfoons, I'm certain, will be no less persistent in their delusions.


majyqman
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:10 am

Heh, birthtard, I don't usually harp on people making spelling errors. Heck knows I do it myself.

But when the only pathetic little thing you can muster in response to someone who points out how completely retarded your arguments are is a, entire baseless mind you, critique of their writing (it's not their fault if you have a condition which means you can't parse logic), then… well… making a spelling mistake in that post would make you look like, well, an utter idiot.

Or to put it another way:

PERHAPS YOU SHOULD LEARN HOW TO WRITE, SCHMUCK!


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:13 am

You keep using the word “usurper”. I told you when you were on your knees: “You a slurper”.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:14 am

The only hole is in your head.

“Plaintiffs have encouraged the Court to ignore these mandates of the Constitution; to disregard the limits on its power put in place by the Constitution … Plaintiffs have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution which set forth its jurisdiction. Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this Court is not unpatriotic. Quite the contrary, this Court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism.”

Judge David Carter


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:31 am

You didn't see in Judge Land's decision where he got letters claiming Obama was from another planet? That is the blowers in a nutshell, totally delusional.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:32 am

Well, if you visit Orly's website, you'll see they're running rampant and calling Judge Carter a traitor. But that is to be expected.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:33 am

HUH? Hawaii officials said it. Where have you been?


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:35 am

And round and round you go. Prove the COLB was fake. You have no proof. You have no standing. U R Dun….


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:15 pm

” . . . to fedend him. Learn how to write schmuck!

Thanks for the irony. Maybe two years of college wasn’t enough, Tracey.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:15 pm

” . . . to fedend him. Learn how to write schmuck!

Thanks for the irony. Maybe two years of college wasn’t enough, Tracey.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

You shouldn’t use big girl words that you don’t understand, Tracey.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

You shouldn’t use big girl words that you don’t understand, Tracey.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:21 pm

Evidently, logic and reason weren’t taught during the two years in college Tracey claims to have attended.

Most likely, the trailer trash failed out of clown college.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:21 pm

Evidently, logic and reason weren’t taught during the two years in college Tracey claims to have attended.

Most likely, the trailer trash failed out of clown college.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:23 pm

Illogical and irrelevant.

Our President is a natural born U.S. citizen from the state of Hawaii. Your irrelevant blather will never change this fact.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:23 pm

Illogical and irrelevant.

Our President is a natural born U.S. citizen from the state of Hawaii. Your irrelevant blather will never change this fact.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

Liar.

Long term? Is that for a 10 month pregnancy?

You are a lying traitor to the U.S.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

Liar.

Long term? Is that for a 10 month pregnancy?

You are a lying traitor to the U.S.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

How would a delusional, cowardly, bigoted, brain damaged waitress do that exactly?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:28 pm

How would a delusional, cowardly, bigoted, brain damaged waitress do that exactly?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:29 pm

And you are a pathetic, little, cowardly bigot.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:29 pm

And you are a pathetic, little, cowardly bigot.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

And the first motto on U.S. coins in 1776 was “Mind Your Business”.
Pretty funny!


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

And the first motto on U.S. coins in 1776 was “Mind Your Business”.
Pretty funny!


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:33 pm

Do you kiss your parole officer with that mouth?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:33 pm

Do you kiss your parole officer with that mouth?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

More irony from Tracey, the illiterate waitress.

Do you still wear knee pads to work, Tracey?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

More irony from Tracey, the illiterate waitress.

Do you still wear knee pads to work, Tracey?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

LMAO ! !


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

LMAO ! !


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:40 pm

That’s a weird thing to name your genitals.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:40 pm

That’s a weird thing to name your genitals.


darthtater
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:44 am

Someone stirred up the ant hill real good over there…rofl!!! Only the really crazy wingnuts are posting anywhere now, the rest are crying as they dig their bunkers deeper…


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:45 pm

You’re an arrogant prick and obviously much too stupid to understand why you’re wrong. Keep making shit up. It’s mildly amusing.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:45 pm

You’re an arrogant prick and obviously much too stupid to understand why you’re wrong. Keep making shit up. It’s mildly amusing.


darthtater
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:46 am

It was a thorough beat down…for your information, not having standing did make the issue go away. American birth documents trumping any foreign documents also made it go away…you really didn't read it did you?


darthtater
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:51 am

The Judge ruled on Standing which is the merit of the case, he also ruled that American documents trump foreign documents. With judges Carter and Land both issuing thorough smack downs, any new cases will be smacked down that much faster because legal precedent has been set.

Orly's appeals will fall on deaf ears because she has broken the law in order to further her frivolous cases and will be soon disbarred.


darthtater
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:52 am

Countdown clock is ticking… LOL!


darthtater
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:53 am

We want the long form documents… ROFLMAO!!!


darthtater
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:55 am

I haven't seen that ass, but I'm sure you are absolutely correct!


darthtater
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:57 am

Birther's have a strange but consistent immunity to the facts…quite entertaining if you sit back and watch all the flying monkeys zip around all agitated as they try dodging the “fact-swatter”


darthtater
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:59 am

Slaped with the facts and you still think you're correct. Seems to be a popular stance with the delusion of the Birthtards…


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:00 am

And in North Carolina, redneck mouth breathers like Tracey will be burning Bibles on Halloween.

“Marc Grizzard, of Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, North Carolina, says that the first King James translation of the Bible is the only true declaration of God’s word, and that all others are 'satanic'.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/reli…


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

As has been repeated ad nauseam, his dual citizenship like the drivel you’ve been spewing is irrelevant.

If you weren’t such a fucking, delusional birthtard and an arrogant prick, you would have also read:

“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.”

More importantly, the SCOTUS has never definitively ruled on the meaning of natural born and probably never will. The proof offered by the state of Hawaii has been accepted as legal, prima facie evidence of the President’s natural born, U.S citizenship.

Your paranoid drivel is meaningless.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:10 pm

I wouldn’t call you a bigot. Pathetic sophist, maybe.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:10 pm

I wouldn’t call you a bigot. Pathetic sophist, maybe.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:10 am

Go clean your trailer, Tracey.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:13 am

“Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”
- Abraham Lincoln


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:32 am

Oh heck, I forgot to give cornyliar and the rest of the blowers their victory meal.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6JPrNHnRVZI/SW5WXZh6s…

Enjoy!


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:32 am

It doesn't matter where he was born. The birthers have no standing and the court finds that American records are far superior to those of other countries. You are such a desperate loser. Go back to panhandling.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:33 am

That is so funny. Nobody cares. Keep copying and pasting. It's good therapy for trailer retards.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

Point already made but wort repeating. Check your editions of Vattel. The one the Framers had didn’t have the term “natural born citizen”.

And since Vattel also wrote that only the nobility should be allowed firearms, obviously the Framers weren’t that enthralled with him.

There’s your logic, birthtard.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

Point already made but wort repeating. Check your editions of Vattel. The one the Framers had didn’t have the term “natural born citizen”.

And since Vattel also wrote that only the nobility should be allowed firearms, obviously the Framers weren’t that enthralled with him.

There’s your logic, birthtard.


Attorney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

The Obama/Holder/DOJ loons posting in defense of Obama on every website that speaks against the administration are PAID WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS to blog, search “The Obama Justice Department’s Secret Blogging Team… Is it Illegal?” and see for yourself! Also search “TRACY RUSSO, DOJ BLOGGERS” and learn how “BIG” (ACTUALLY MASSIVE!) TRACY RUSSO and the DOJ are ILLEGALLY wasting OUR TAX DOLLARS TO SUPPORT THE TOTALLY EVIL MARXIST, GLOBALIST POLICIES of CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL OBAMA! OBAMA HAS ALMOST NO “GRASSROOTS SUPPORT”, THE FALSE IMPRESSION HE DOES IS BEING FOSTERED and FED BY THE DOJ PAID BLOGGING TEAM! HOW LOW WILL WE ALLOW OBAMA/HOLDER/DOJ TO STOOP BEFORE THE UPSTANDING CITIZENS of THIS NATION ARISE AND FIGHT?! THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS A TOTAL DISGRACE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM!


Attorney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

The Obama/Holder/DOJ loons posting in defense of Obama on every website that speaks against the administration are PAID WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS to blog, search “The Obama Justice Department’s Secret Blogging Team… Is it Illegal?” and see for yourself! Also search “TRACY RUSSO, DOJ BLOGGERS” and learn how “BIG” (ACTUALLY MASSIVE!) TRACY RUSSO and the DOJ are ILLEGALLY wasting OUR TAX DOLLARS TO SUPPORT THE TOTALLY EVIL MARXIST, GLOBALIST POLICIES of CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL OBAMA! OBAMA HAS ALMOST NO “GRASSROOTS SUPPORT”, THE FALSE IMPRESSION HE DOES IS BEING FOSTERED and FED BY THE DOJ PAID BLOGGING TEAM! HOW LOW WILL WE ALLOW OBAMA/HOLDER/DOJ TO STOOP BEFORE THE UPSTANDING CITIZENS of THIS NATION ARISE AND FIGHT?! THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS A TOTAL DISGRACE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM!


Attorney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:46 pm

Majority Will – You’ve been calling EVERYONE who disagrees with Obama a “bigot” for MONTHS, but it is YOU who is “bigoted”, you cheaply paid, FAT TRACY RUSSO/DOJ blogger! Now read and understand the LAW regarding “natural born Citizen” : E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758) (1759 first English translation); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and Fuller, C.J, dissenting confirming Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” ); Keith v. U.S., 8 Okla. 446; 58 P. 507 (Okla. 1899) (common law rule that the offspring of free persons followed the condition of the father was applied to determine the citizenship status of a child); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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. . . . ” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866)); Sen Jacob Howard (the framer who co-wrote the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause stating in 1866 that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded persons born in the United States who were foreigners, aliens, or who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p.2895, 2nd col.)) We requested that the Court enforce the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and, given that Obama was not born in the country to a mother and father who were themselves United States citizens at his birth, not allow Obama to amend the Constitution by usurpation. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

Now, we agree that the image on FactCheck proves nothing, but you’re asserting it’s fake with no evidence.

You can be pretty sure you’re going to be called on that BS whenever you try to pull it.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

Not the State of Hawaii. Just Dr. Fukino. She has mislead the public in the past. She continues to do the same when responding to UIPA law requests for public information.
I have challenged Obots to put both of her statements (from October 2008 and July 2009) on top of the thread and parse it carefully, the same way you parse my statements.

Nobody has taken the challenge so far. I guess it is easier to say – “you have no standing”

Let me ask you another question – who can protect third party candidates from having to run against ineligible candidates from major parties. What mechanism is in place to enforce the Constitutional requirement that presidential candidate must be an NBC in order to be placed on the ballot?

Even judge David the “Guard Dog” Carter admitted of having a hard time answering this question.


Progressive Nation » Blog Archive » Orly Taitz Smacked Down: Birther Lawsuit Dismissed
Pingback posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:11 pm

[...] Arti­cle: Orly Taitz Smacked Down: Birther Law­suit Dis­missed — Wash­ing­ton Independent Related Posts:CNN: Mul­ti­ple Bomb­ings Slowly Destroy US Soldier’s Brain — He Com­mits [...]


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:25 pm

Even more amusing. I enjoy commenting on birthtard videos on YouTube. Many of Orly's followers still believe the case is going to court on January 26, 2010. And that from posts less than an hour old at this time.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

Orly is posting comments on where Carter was wrong in his opinion and every part of it was wrong. I look forward to her appeal.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:32 pm

Carter has a word for the military plaintiffs that were represented by Orly but he's leaving it up to the military to define it. My harshest word would be they're traitors. At the very least, insubordinate. Personally, I say take away all of the benefits of those that are inactive. Give them all dishonorable discharges. They swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and yet they wrap themselves in and say they're protectors. What a farce.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:37 pm

I give Sarah Palin more credence that I ever would Orly and I find Sarah to be laughable. So, if there are any pimples on Sarah's ass, Orly isn't worthy of one of them. She is so insignificant and yet she believes she ranks up with some of the world's greatest people.


Attorney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:37 pm

The Obama/Holder/DOJ loons posting in defense of Obama on every website that speaks against the administration are PAID WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS to blog, search “The Obama Justice Department’s Secret Blogging Team… Is it Illegal?” and see for yourself! Also search “TRACY RUSSO, DOJ BLOGGERS” and learn how “BIG” (ACTUALLY MASSIVE!) TRACY RUSSO and the DOJ are ILLEGALLY wasting OUR TAX DOLLARS TO SUPPORT THE TOTALLY EVIL MARXIST, GLOBALIST POLICIES of CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL OBAMA! OBAMA HAS ALMOST NO “GRASSROOTS SUPPORT”, THE FALSE IMPRESSION HE DOES IS BEING FOSTERED and FED BY THE DOJ PAID BLOGGING TEAM! HOW LOW WILL WE ALLOW OBAMA/HOLDER/DOJ TO STOOP BEFORE THE UPSTANDING CITIZENS of THIS NATION ARISE AND FIGHT?! THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS A TOTAL DISGRACE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM!


xcott
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:38 pm

The Loch Ness monster didn't go away either; it was simply never there in the first place.

From the very start this was a fake controversy invented by some people on the Internet, along with all the other conspiracy theories. The only reason it got this far is that one of the believers was very motivated and could navigate the legal system.

That, and plenty of opportunists were happy to sell her fake documents on eBay. It's fascinating how these flare-ups are caused by people with the right combination of cleverness, skill and outright gullibility.


Attorney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:39 pm

Learn and understand the LAW regarding the meet and proper legal definition of “natural born Citizen” : E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758) (1759 first English translation); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and Fuller, C.J, dissenting confirming Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” ); Keith v. U.S., 8 Okla. 446; 58 P. 507 (Okla. 1899) (common law rule that the offspring of free persons followed the condition of the father was applied to determine the citizenship status of a child); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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. . . . ” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866)); Sen Jacob Howard (the framer who co-wrote the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause stating in 1866 that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded persons born in the United States who were foreigners, aliens, or who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p.2895, 2nd col.)) We requested that the Court enforce the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and, given that Obama was not born in the country to a mother and father who were themselves United States citizens at his birth, not allow Obama to amend the Constitution by usurpation. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.


Attorney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

AGAIN : The Obama/Holder/DOJ loons posting in defense of Obama on every website that speaks against the administration are PAID WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS to blog, search “The Obama Justice Department’s Secret Blogging Team… Is it Illegal?” and see for yourself! Also search “TRACY RUSSO, DOJ BLOGGERS” and learn how “BIG” (ACTUALLY MASSIVE!) TRACY RUSSO and the DOJ are ILLEGALLY wasting OUR TAX DOLLARS TO SUPPORT THE TOTALLY EVIL MARXIST, GLOBALIST POLICIES of CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL OBAMA! OBAMA HAS ALMOST NO “GRASSROOTS SUPPORT”, THE FALSE IMPRESSION HE DOES IS BEING FOSTERED and FED BY THE DOJ PAID BLOGGING TEAM! HOW LOW WILL WE ALLOW OBAMA/HOLDER/DOJ TO STOOP BEFORE THE UPSTANDING CITIZENS of THIS NATION ARISE AND FIGHT?! THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS A TOTAL DISGRACE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM!


Attorney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

UNTIL EVERYONE KNOWS : The Obama/Holder/DOJ loons posting in defense of Obama on every website that speaks against the administration are PAID WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS to blog, search “The Obama Justice Department’s Secret Blogging Team… Is it Illegal?” and see for yourself! Also search “TRACY RUSSO, DOJ BLOGGERS” and learn how “BIG” (ACTUALLY MASSIVE!) TRACY RUSSO and the DOJ are ILLEGALLY wasting OUR TAX DOLLARS TO SUPPORT THE TOTALLY EVIL MARXIST, GLOBALIST POLICIES of CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL OBAMA! OBAMA HAS ALMOST NO “GRASSROOTS SUPPORT”, THE FALSE IMPRESSION HE DOES IS BEING FOSTERED and FED BY THE DOJ PAID BLOGGING TEAM! HOW LOW WILL WE ALLOW OBAMA/HOLDER/DOJ TO STOOP BEFORE THE UPSTANDING CITIZENS of THIS NATION ARISE AND FIGHT?! THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS A TOTAL DISGRACE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:48 pm

No court has ever examined Obamas COLB. Fake image on factcheck.org proves nothing.

I have asked Obama supporters whether any government agency would hire a person who posts the eligibility documents on a web page? The response is usually – “you have no standing in courts”.

You are supporting an usurper in the White House.


Attorney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:48 pm

E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758) (1759 first English translation); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and Fuller, C.J, dissenting confirming Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” ); Keith v. U.S., 8 Okla. 446; 58 P. 507 (Okla. 1899) (common law rule that the offspring of free persons followed the condition of the father was applied to determine the citizenship status of a child); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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. . . . ” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866)); Sen Jacob Howard (the framer who co-wrote the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause stating in 1866 that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded persons born in the United States who were foreigners, aliens, or who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p.2895, 2nd col.)) We requested that the Court enforce the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and, given that Obama was not born in the country to a mother and father who were themselves United States citizens at his birth, not allow Obama to amend the Constitution by usurpation. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.


Attorney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

COMPREHEND THE LAW : E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758) (1759 first English translation); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and Fuller, C.J, dissenting confirming Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” ); Keith v. U.S., 8 Okla. 446; 58 P. 507 (Okla. 1899) (common law rule that the offspring of free persons followed the condition of the father was applied to determine the citizenship status of a child); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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. . . . ” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866)); Sen Jacob Howard (the framer who co-wrote the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause stating in 1866 that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded persons born in the United States who were foreigners, aliens, or who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p.2895, 2nd col.)) We requested that the Court enforce the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and, given that Obama was not born in the country to a mother and father who were themselves United States citizens at his birth, not allow Obama to amend the Constitution by usurpation. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.


Attorney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:50 pm

READ AND COMPREHEND THE LAW : E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758) (1759 first English translation); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and Fuller, C.J, dissenting confirming Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” ); Keith v. U.S., 8 Okla. 446; 58 P. 507 (Okla. 1899) (common law rule that the offspring of free persons followed the condition of the father was applied to determine the citizenship status of a child); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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. . . . ” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866)); Sen Jacob Howard (the framer who co-wrote the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause stating in 1866 that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded persons born in the United States who were foreigners, aliens, or who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p.2895, 2nd col.)) We requested that the Court enforce the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and, given that Obama was not born in the country to a mother and father who were themselves United States citizens at his birth, not allow Obama to amend the Constitution by usurpation. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.


Attorney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

OBAMA IS NOT A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”, HERE IS THE APPLICABLE LAW : E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758) (1759 first English translation); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and Fuller, C.J, dissenting confirming Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” ); Keith v. U.S., 8 Okla. 446; 58 P. 507 (Okla. 1899) (common law rule that the offspring of free persons followed the condition of the father was applied to determine the citizenship status of a child); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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. . . . ” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866)); Sen Jacob Howard (the framer who co-wrote the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause stating in 1866 that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded persons born in the United States who were foreigners, aliens, or who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p.2895, 2nd col.)) We requested that the Court enforce the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and, given that Obama was not born in the country to a mother and father who were themselves United States citizens at his birth, not allow Obama to amend the Constitution by usurpation. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

AGAIN: another blower spouting without proof. I guess Orly's upset with her latest loss so now she has to blame ordinary citizens who believe in our constitution and not the communist one she likes to cite.


Attorney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:52 pm

THE LAW WILL BE ENFORCED OR THE REVOLUTION WILL COMMENCE : E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758) (1759 first English translation); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and Fuller, C.J, dissenting confirming Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” ); Keith v. U.S., 8 Okla. 446; 58 P. 507 (Okla. 1899) (common law rule that the offspring of free persons followed the condition of the father was applied to determine the citizenship status of a child); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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. . . . ” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866)); Sen Jacob Howard (the framer who co-wrote the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause stating in 1866 that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded persons born in the United States who were foreigners, aliens, or who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p.2895, 2nd col.)) We requested that the Court enforce the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and, given that Obama was not born in the country to a mother and father who were themselves United States citizens at his birth, not allow Obama to amend the Constitution by usurpation. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.


ArthurB.
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:54 pm

Oh, silly, did you read Judge Carter's decision? He dealt with your Vattel-based citizenship theories rather deftly, I think.

Oh, you disagree with him, do you? Well, too bad, but he's the judge and you're not.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:55 pm

Let's see, who to believe…an anonymous message board poster who has no clue of our constitution and laws, or the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS? Boy, that's a tough one. I'll go with Chief Justice Roberts. Orly (attorney) has proven time and time again to be bat-sh*t crazy!


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:56 pm

Blather blather blather. Vattel never even mentioned the phrase “natural born citizen” so the idea that the framers got their definition of that phrase from him is not only far-fetched, it's literally impossible.

But don't let historical facts and reality interfere with your blathering. Please continue… ;)


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:57 pm

Blather blather blather. Vattel never even mentioned the phrase “natural born citizen” so the idea that the framers got their definition of that phrase from him is not only far-fetched, it's literally impossible.

But don't let historical facts and reality interfere with your blathering. Please continue… ;)


CauldronBorn
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:58 pm

Feel free to stop spamming the board any time now


xcott
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:58 pm

I Googled that phrase and found a blog post alleging that Eric Holder directed DOJ staff to post pro-Obama comments on blogs. Their “proof” was simply that another blog said so. The claim originated at a blog called The Muffled Oar, which presented it without evidence.

Apparently the dude at the Muffled Oar is peeved that everyone keeps asking him to back up his claims. He eventually wrote, “Conclusive evidence makes things easy for lazy people.”

But no matter, it's absurd to argue that the president's support is fake. Did the DoJ fake the 69 million votes?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 1:58 pm

Blather blather blather. Vattel never even mentioned the phrase “natural born citizen” so the idea that the framers got their definition of that phrase from him is not only far-fetched, it's literally impossible.

But don't let historical facts and reality interfere with your blathering. Please continue… ;)


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:00 pm

Really? I could be getting paid for this? Sign me up!!!!!


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:02 pm

Debunked ad nauseam.

Nothing to see here but spam and drivel from a lunatic birfoon claiming to be an officer of the court. HAH ! ! What an idiot.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:02 pm

I'd say there's no possible way you could be an attorney and be that ignorant… but then Orly is an attorney and is that ignorant, so I suppose it's possible. Did you get your law degree on the internet too?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
News Release
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
DIRECTOR
Phone: (808) 586-4410
Fax: (808) 586-4444
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009 09-063
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai?i 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.”
###


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:04 pm

The lying idiot birfoons reek of desperation.

And this one has definitely slipped down the rabbit hole.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:05 pm

Yes, they hand out free brown shirts and you get free training at your local FEMA camp.

Oily Taintz said so.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

Why don't you post her statement from October 2008 as well, and we can debate both statements because there are important differences that indicate her as being dishonest and trying to manipulate the public.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

And the birfoon replies to it's own comments. It must be the voices in the mirror barking instructions again.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:07 pm

Liar.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:07 pm

Gotta love the birfoons–”HERE IS THE APPLICABLE LAW : E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, ….”

Uh huh… Treatise by a Swiss philosopher is now “the law.” Right. It's especially funny since Vattel never defined “natural born citizen.” He spoke of “naturals or natives.” Never even used the phrase “natural born citizen” at all.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

How about the fact that the WH is using NEA as a propaganda tool for Obama. Google name Yosi Sargent.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

“Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).”

- The Honorable Judge Carter


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

What is the definition of an NBC?


ndangelk
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:12 pm

If that were true, then Chester A Arthur, who was also president, and had a foreign father, would not have been eligible for the presidency either. But, he was, so explain how this is any different?

Oh, and the 14th Amendment states that ” all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States” This was, of course, written for slaves to gain their freedom, but how does it not apply here? Please explain? And the latest you site is 1866, but the 14th amendment wasn't ratified until 1868!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:12 pm

COLB document cited as a proof of Hawaiian birth is a fake. The registration number is incorrect. The DoH refuses to release the index data related to that number.

Obama has been using fake SS# (a duplicate one from CT) – why would a person born in Hawaii, living in Hawaii have a SS# from CT?


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:14 pm

You have not exactly shown the capability to accurately interpret even what you “hear yourself.” You hear what you want to hear–are you certain you parsed the callers words carefully enough?


CauldronBorn
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:14 pm

For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008 08-93

STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO

“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.

“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.

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:16 pm

“Citizen at birth.” Duh. Why do you think they call it that?

Natural BORN means BORN a citizen. Thus the word BORN.
Natural-IZED means MADE a citizen. Thus the suffix IZED.

This aint exactly rocket surgery. You birfoons are trying to make it way more complicated than it is, and trying to turn it into some special extra kind of citizenship that has never existed. You are either BORN a citizen, or MADE one later. Those are the only two kinds of citizenship that have ever existed in this country. Stop trying to invent a whole new kind.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:16 pm

Now you're lying. What's your evidence that the COLB is a fake?

Hint: As usual, “I can't think of any other reason…” is not evidence.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

There you go. There's your statement from Oct 2008. Seems to be the original of what she said, word for word, in Jul 2009.

Oh, and “persons who do not have a tangible interest” actually DO include people who are just calling in to see the records. There has to be a legal reason for needing to see the records and just calling to pester and say “I want to see it” doesn't qualify.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

Which document? An image of the fake document posted on Obama friendly web page. Is that the American birth document judge Carter referenced?

If so, does it count as a legal precedent – can all of us use the same approach when submitting documents to government agencies – just post them on a private web page and submit a link to the government official where to find it?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

Which document? An image of the fake document posted on Obama friendly web page. Is that the American birth document judge Carter referenced?

If so, does it count as a legal precedent – can all of us use the same approach when submitting documents to government agencies – just post them on a private web page and submit a link to the government official where to find it?


CauldronBorn
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

The National Endowment for the Arts has reassigned former communications director Yosi Sergant, who had become the latest target of FOX News talk show host Glenn Beck.

Acting NEA communications director Victoria Hutter said Thursday that Sergant had left the communications post. The move came after he had come under attack from Beck, a conservative commentator who accused Sergant of attempting to use taxpayer money to fund art to support the president's initiatives.

The talk show host accused Sergant of arranging an August conference call with the White House Office of Public Engagement and United We Serve to recruit artists to create works in support of Obama policies. The NEA has denied that the call was inappropriate, and the White House has said that it did not force Sergant's reassignment.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:21 pm

Beat me to it!

Thanks.

This was funny:
“we can debate both statements”

As if I care for irrelevant spew from a paranoid, delusional birfoon.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

Sounds more like Sargent and everyone else was tired of Glenn Beck (from FOX News — what a surprise) yapping on and on and on like a dog that doesn't know when to shut up.

And, of course, you believed him. What a surprise there as well.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:23 pm

Do you have a reading comprehension problem or trying to mislead the public like Dr. Fukino?

Where in the October 2008 statement does she mention Obama's Hawaiian birth? Please parse her statement carefully.

She says NOTHING about the CONTENT of the original birth certificate.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:23 pm

And he thought only nobility should be allowed to own and carry firearms. The Framers disagreed.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

It's about as valid as the often repeated birfoon lie that the President has spent millions to hide records which started as an unsubstantiated claim from birfer/troofer Philip Berg.

Birfoons are desperate, pathological liars.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:27 pm

Here's the definition.

NBC is an American television network and former radio network headquartered in the GE Building in New York City's Rockefeller Center with additional major offices in Burbank, California.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:27 pm

Here's the definition.

NBC is an American television network and former radio network headquartered in the GE Building in New York City's Rockefeller Center with additional major offices in Burbank, California.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:27 pm

In October 2008 statement she mentions the original birth certificate (yet she does not confirm Hawaiian birth).

In her July 2009 statement she mentions original vital recordS (plural) and mentions Hawaiian birth.

She did not use the magic combination: Original Birth certificate and Hawaiian birth.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:27 pm

In October 2008 statement she mentions the original birth certificate (yet she does not confirm Hawaiian birth).

In her July 2009 statement she mentions original vital recordS (plural) and mentions Hawaiian birth.

She did not use the magic combination: Original Birth certificate and Hawaiian birth.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:27 pm

BWAHAHAHAHAHA…naturalnut, you just continue to crack me up. You just can't get rid of him and it eats at you to no end. She assumes that most of the country has at least a modicum of intelligence, but you blowers show you can't even read or understand English. BTW, do you know anything about privacy laws? Obviously not. LOL


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:28 pm

He also thought one of the main responsibilities of the Gov. was to administer a state mandated religion–something the framers specifically prohibited. Birfoons have clung to what they thought was Vattels definition of “natural born citizen” simply because it fits what they want to hear.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

Look at the date on that translation. It’sd in the preface. Grasp the
concept here–he never used the phrase.

And you’re right–the definition did pre-date Vattel. British common law
actually DID use that phrase. Read Blackstone. He used the phrase. Vattel
never did. And it NEVER in history meant what you claim it meant.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

If such a person could elected they would be eligible. That’s no different
from someone who was born on US soil to two citizen parents and who then
spent most of his life in Iran. IOW, you are presenting a nonsense argument.
Does it seem reasonable that the natural born child of a serial killer is
eligible? But the framers obviously couldn’t anticipate every possible thing
that might be objectionable. They left it up to the voters with the only
exceptions being what is enumerated in the Constitution.

Besides, Obama spent most of his life in America.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:31 pm

The question you posed was assinine. What does your scenario have to do with
the citizenship of the parents? Nothing. You are grasping at straws. If you
object to someone who’s spent most of their life in another country being
President then lobby your representative. As it stands such a person would
not be ineligible, and that’s true whether their parents were citizens or
not. It’s just as possible for someone with two citizen parents to spend
most of their life in another country. Your question didn’t even make sense
in the context of the discussion.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:31 pm

These birfoons are little, mad, barking dogs stretching their chains.

Pathetic attempts to micro analyze statements is a definite sign of desperation and mental illness. It reminds me of the moon landing idiots chasing shadows. These are sick, sad fools.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

Probably to complain about your 100′s of cats defecating in their flower
beds.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

I wouldn’t know. How does it feel to be covered in flies?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

For your explanation of an NBC, the word “natural” is not needed in the Constitution – yet it is there.

People who wrote Constitution obviously made distinction between the two phrases: “natural born citizen” and “born citizen”.

NBC = born in the country of citizen parents


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

By George I think you've cracked it! The “Vital Record” she was referring to must have been his death certificate! He's really a zombie! You've blown this case wide open! Oh! The humanity!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:37 pm

It is possible to amend the vital records.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:38 pm

Where in her October 2008 statement she mentions Hawaiian birth?


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

I can’t wait…Orly’s last dance as an attorney…LOL!


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

But her flying monkeys keep telling her magic mirror that all is well…LOL!!!


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:41 pm

Let me get this straight, you are so dumb that she had to make a second, even more clear statement to try and get through to blower idiots, and now you don't like it because she didn't realize how dumb you people are when she made the first statement?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:42 pm

What does that have to do with anything?

No no! You've really blown this wide open. “Vital Record” can refer to birth certificates, marriage licenses, or death certificates. Since he didn't get married in HI, and since she didn't specifically say “birth certificate” that proves she must have meant his death certificate! He's a zombie! Zombie President!

NC, you are a GENIUS! You've figured out the scam!


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

Sorry…but that tired argument isn’t going to work anymore today than it did last month…

His long form was certified…you were just not privileged enough to get to see it. And the COLB was not faked, it was legitimate as well…but keep on believing what you want, it doesn’t change the fact that Obama is still your President.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

Beck PLAYED the TAPE recorded by a person who participated in that call. I do not need Beck to tell me anything. I could hear it myself.

Using taxpayer funds to create propaganda for Obama is illegal.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

Where is the original long form birth certificate which would indicate Kapiolani as a birth hospital?
Various newspapers have reported Obama's birth in three different COUNTRIES!?

Obama used law firm Perkins Coie to fight for dismissal of eligibility lawsuits – he does not want us to know the truth about his birthplace.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:49 pm

Maybe it would have something to do with the fact that she's the State Health Director of Hawai'i. That would sorta clue a person in that she was looking at a Hawai'ian birth certificate. She would not have the authority to look at, say, a KY certificate since she doesn't sit on the KY State Board of Health.

Would you like to try again?


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:50 pm

If it amuses you all to play with naturalizedcrazy, the by all means do so. It's just getting kind of boring with NC's constant posting of the same thing over and over again. Arguing with him is akin to arguing with a shoe.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:52 pm

That pretty much sums it up. Naturalcrazy is just plain dumb like the other birthtards.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

My bet that this was written by Orly. She's come into our forum to educate us.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

Hmmm, what do you conclude from that?

Either he was born in three different countries … or newspapers are sometimes wrong.

Oh well, that's why we have birth certificates.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

For your explanation of an NBC you have to be a moron. “Natural born
subject” was the phrase from british common law, and it became “natural born
citizen” in America.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

By golly! I do believe this may be Orly. Surely has her writing style. GO BACK TO RUSSIA, BITCH!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

Baghdad Jim is back on the floor dancing like in good old days.
Please explain where in her first statement she confirms Obama's Hawaiian birth?

It was an attempt to mislead the public.

She refused to clarify her second statement, when people sent her request (under the UIPA law) whether amended birth certificate is on file with DoH.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:57 pm

Go back to Russia, BITCH!


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:58 pm

Actually, I consider it more like scraping the sh*t off the bottom of my shoe. Gotta scrape these losers away!


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:58 pm

LMAO ! ! !


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

GO BACK TO RUSSIA, BITCH!


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

Doesn't make any difference, idiot. Whether he was born in Hawaii, Kenya or on Mars, as long as his mama was an American citizen which she was, he is natural born. Judge Carter shot down your 2-parent Vattel theory like Cheney shooting a friend. Your “case” is over. You lost and Orly will be in an orange jump suit.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:00 pm

Who is Eligible to Apply for an Amended Certificate of Birth?

As provided by law (HRS §§338-17.7, 338-20.5), the following persons may apply for an amended certificate of birth:

A person born in the State of Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health and

has become legally adopted, or
has undergone a sex change operation, or
a legal determination of the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship for a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file has been made, or
previously recorded information in relation to the person’s surname and/or the father’s personal particulars has been altered pursuant to law.

A person born in a foreign country who has been legally adopted in the State of Hawaii.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

Wow! That should keep all Americans up nights with worry. What a fool!


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

And a paranoid fool.

Oops, I didn't specify which poster.

Well, some things are just obvious, aren't they?


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

And, again, you talk through your ass, NC. There was no amended BC, there was only the President's BC, No BC for Maya, and the marriage of the President's parents. They release it and since it doesn't say what you want, you ignore it. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!


CauldronBorn
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

As his mother was an American citizen, how, in any case, would the certificate need to be amended?


CauldronBorn
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:03 pm

And….ready for this?

SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:03 pm

I do believe that all birthtards were kicked in their heads by butterflies when they were kids.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

This is exactly what she wants US public – to assume things that are not explicitly said in her statement. This way she has a wiggle room from perjuring herself.

In her second statement (July 2009) she mentioned the Hawaiian birth but she avoided the original birth certificate.

It is sad when a government official in charge of DoH cannot issue a straightforward statement like this one:
“Obama's original birth certificate confirms that he was born in Hawaii”


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:06 pm

I seriously doubt that Dr. Fukino is a parrot like you. It is ludicrous for anyone to expect her to have verbatim statements over a period of 8 months. Sheeet! Had she made the exact same statement this year as she had last year, then you would still argue that she's hiding something.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:06 pm

Once again, she can only view the Hawai'ian certificate. She's not trying to wriggle out of anything.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:09 pm

NC: “It is so sad when a public official won't say what I want them to say when I say it.” BWAHAHAHAHA…like I said, no Public Official can anticipate the stupidity of the blowers…so that would be a no-win situation, except you blowers are the ones with no wins!!! LOL


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

Well, since she wasn't under oath, that wouldn't be perjury. Your arguments don't hold water. LOSER!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:13 pm

Index data released by DoH indicates only name (Barack Obama) , the data is insufficient to determine what is the content of the file. It could be just an affidavit that he was born in Hawaii.

More significant is the refusal of DoH to release the index data for certificate # posted on “factcheck.org”. This is the information that could either confirm COLB authenticity or destroy Obama's house of cards.

It is hidden from public and we know why: the number does not belong to Obama – they cannot release it.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:17 pm

You know nothing. And you continue to prove it. Don't like it…get the laws changed. But, you idiots don't know or understand anything about law and constitution unless it's on WND or Orly says it…which is definitely not US laws.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:19 pm

Poor lying, trailer trash Tracey.

Here’s a fun quote from a real person in a position to know the truth:
Paul Colford, director of media relations for the Associated Press: “The AP has never reported that President Obama was born in Kenya. In fact, AP news stories about the state of Hawaii have confirmed that he was born there. The Kenyan paper that you cite rewrote a 2004 AP story, adding the phrase ‘Kenyan-born.’ That wording was not in the AP version of the story.”


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:24 pm

She did not connect original birth certificate and hawaiian birth.

In 1961 it was possible to register birth based on an affidavit from a relative.
Dr. Fukino saw the original – and if it did not come from the Hawaii hospital, she would have to be very careful not to mention original birth certificate as proof of Hawaiian birth.
We can observe this behavior in her statements to the public.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

The discourse on here has become thoroughly pathetic.

Partisan politics has become a vile national team sport. Partisanship requires participants to defend policies and positions they would ordinarily diagree with or find some exception to – stifling intellectual discussion of the facts and reducing public discourse to name calling.

Obama supporters have bought the propaganda from “The Savior of Hope” hook line and sinker (with emphasis on sinker, as in our Republic is sinking right before our eyes). The Obama-ites take a partisan position – clearly willing to look past legitimate Constitutional issues that have been politically squashed. It's clear Libs and Dems alike would have taken a far different view of the situation if the tables had been turned. But you “feel good” about yourself because you were able to elect an “African-American” as President . . . rhetoric and rock concerts and all.

The neo-cons and GOP are a party without direction and true leadership, and party members have found it difficult to deal with such abysmal showing at the polls last election. The GOP has, of course, done this to itself. Nearly 2 years ago, Ron Paul had a remarkable grassroots up-swelling taking place, and as New Hampshire approached, Ron Paul had more in his war chest than any other Republican. But the “bi-partisan” thought police stepped in and prevented Paul from participating in ANY of the debates that mattered. Now they are in the political basement as neo-cons are sniping at mainstream Republicans and visa versa.

What we are left with is what we are seeing here . . . over-confident, arrogant “winners” squaring off against sore losers.

And whats worse is, some of those name callers in this forum are likely on the government payroll. I refuse to be talked down to and belittled by people who may be illegally participating in a propaganda campaign.

You want real change and progress? Let's get rid of political parties and install Instant run-off voting for starters.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

The original birth certificate might have been based on an affidavit from a relative.

That would explain Dr. Fukino's statements.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:26 pm

BS Prove it!!! Remember, you've tried pulling this one about 10 times already and been shot down. Can you remember why? Do you remember how it was explained to you? Did they change your meds…again? LOL


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

The proof is in the fact that DOH will not release the index data for registration number from “Obama's COLB”. They are violating the law.

2. SS# used by Obama is a duplicate from CT. Person born in Hawaii would have a legitimate SS#.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:36 pm

That is the voice of one Federal Judge.

This is not an issue of citizenship. This is an issue of Article II, Section 1. I and many others readily acknowledge that President Obama was born in Hawaii and thus a citizen at birth. But being a “native born citizen” as Obama calls himself is not the same as being “natural born”. That the Supreme Court has never ruled on it is neither here nor there. The Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, if not for partisan politics, is the more appropriate and preferred venue for this issue to be hashed out.

If this were Bobby Jindal that was elected and the Republicans were attempting to keep the legit Constitutional concerns suppressed, I'd be just as passionate and vocal about my disgust.

Dems and Repubs alike need to get past partisan ignorance and start looking at things from a non-partisan vantage point. Those of us that have been independent most of or all of our adult lives find this behavior repugnant.

Politics isn't a sport. And the name calling here is pathetic.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:43 pm

If it ever is Bobby Jindal, I hope the challenge is made at the candidacy stage. Once he's elected, confirmed by the Congress, and inaugurated, it's too late.

Don't like it? Tell it to the judge.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:44 pm

The Director Health for any State is not an authority on the Constitutionality of a person's Presidential eligibility. Dr. Fukino's declaration that President Obama is a “natural born American citizen” is no more authoritative than if any of us made the same statement. The only part of the Dr.'s statement that has any bearing is that she confirms that she has seen his original birth record and that is on file. Fine. President Obama is a “native born citizen” as he claims. I'm on board with that. I'm not on board that he is “natural born”. US Law does not govern UK citizenship. Obama, whether he has a current passport or not has never stated that he has formally renounced his claim to British citizenship. And as many people have cited the UK definition of native born, Obama still has claim to British citizenship any time he cares to renew it.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:46 pm

1. “Guard Dog” Carter cannot change the Constitution.

NBC = born in the country of citizen parents

2. According to the law in 1961, Obama's mother had to be a US citizen at least 10 years, five of those after the age of 14 to pass him her US citizenship automatically in case when baby was born in another country and father was not a US citizen.

If Obama was born in a foreign country, his mother had to be at least 19 years old to pass him US citizenship automatically She was 18 at the time and in this scenario he could not be a US citizen at birth. He would have had to go through the naturalization process.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:49 pm

No proof but wild theories and forged documents. All you've ever had and why you're now 0-41 in these suits.


Dr. Maloney
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

Wrong again, fool. His mama was not legally married to his daddy. Therefore, she only had to be in this country ONE YEAR. You are so DUMB!!!


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 3:58 pm

I know I'm not being paid to be here. However, I will defend my choice for president to the end and I will not have some right wing nuts decide my vote did not count.


majyqman
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

Good one! create a false equivalency, then simply call one party imcompetant while accusing the other of malfeasance!

Hint: There were no constitutional issues.

Hint: If they were, they were JUDICIALLY quashed, with no political involvement from the left at all. And, ummm, that would be the courts job. I believe we could have had a discussion about how things turn out when there is partisan involvement in the judicial process… around 9 years ago.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

“likely on the government payroll”
Paranoid blather. Provide credible evidence other than an anonymous, fright wing blog or Whirled Nut Daily.

“I refuse to be talked down to and belittled . . .

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out and good riddance to rubbish. Are you really that thin-skinned?

Birfoons deserve derision for being traitors, for mocking the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the U.S., for stubbornly refusing to understand the concept of providing credible evidence and for the utter disrespect of the Office of the President.

“But you “feel good” about yourself because you were able to elect an “African-American” as President . . . rhetoric and rock concerts and all.”

Spare us your blatant bigotry and asinine assumptions. A clump of moss could have beaten McSame and Failin' Palin.

“The discourse on here has become thoroughly pathetic.”

An excellent description of your whiny post.

“reducing public discourse to name calling.”

And yet you do the same, hypocrite. – “over-confident, arrogant “”winners'” is name calling.

“Obama supporters have bought . . .”

You presume to know them all? Pretty bold generalization there, Skippy.

But do you feel better? That's all that matters.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

No more so does British citizenship govern US citizenship. IE even if he were still a British citizen that has nothing to do with his status as a natural born US citizen. That whole argument is perhaps the weakest among a field of incredibly weak birther arguments. Nothing anywhere in the constitution, and no legal arguments whatsoever, support the claim that dual citizenship disqualifies him. At least the “two citizen parents” argument has _some_ credible historical support, but the dual citizenship argument is something birthers _completely_ have pulled out of their asses.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:07 pm

Where do we get our checks and a fresh, clean brown shirt?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:14 pm

I think it's the voice of something like 41 judges at this point…. but birfoons are too stupid to accept reality. As for the name calling, this has long since gone past the point where there's any obligation to be polite to you whackjobs. You don't know what you are talking about. You continue repeating ignorant lies. When your mistakes are pointed out to you it makes no difference.

Try to grasp the concept–you are attempting to invent a whole new kind of citizenship that has never existed, and doing it solely in a strained attempt to argue Obama is not eligible to be President. You are pissing all over the Constitution even as you self-righteously pretend to be supporting the Constitution. You are not entitled to be treated politely. You are an ignorant dishonest nutjob.

Sometimes you just have to speak the truth, even if the truth isn't polite.


majyqman
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:18 pm

Hint: We have a presidential precedent.

Hint: Even if we didn't, this would seem to be something to which you should just STFU:

“”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, 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.”"

But no, you're going to continue to spout your bullshit without mentioning Wong, hoping people buy it. All while claiming to be oh so ever concerned and bipartisan.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:22 pm

Damned right! If they're paying others to be here to defend Obama, then I should get mine. GIMME GIMME GIMME!


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

The instant run-off voting is a good idea even if impractical. You'd have to get all 50 states to go along with it, and that's not a real possibility.

The blather about anyone being paid is just that–blather. However, if I'm wrong and there are Gov. jobs doing this… call me. I could use the money.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:30 pm

What a loser. You wrinkle your brow, raise your nose and announce how trans-partisan you are, with your accusations that bloggers here are “on the payroll”. and somehow engaged in some illegal activity——what a snot-nosed little prick! Ron Paul?
I didn't know Paultards were such morons! I mean, I had SOME idea—after all: Ayn Rand? LOL
I guarantee you that as long as you make juvenile, petulant, nonsensical statements like this one above you'll be condescended to. Who the fuck do you think you are?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

Not only British law, but the citizenship laws of the states also defined it prior to the ratification. Georgia for example–

http://books.google.com/books?dq=%22article%20I…

“and returning to and from the same Also we do for ourselves and successors declare by these presents that all and every the persons which shall happen to be bom within the said province and every of their children and posterity shall have and enjoy all liberties franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects “

It was a commonly understood phrase.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

Enough already with your hackneyed and phony airs of superiority to us lowly “partisans”
You are suffering under a mighty delusion if you think this tack of yours is how to launch a 3rd party—-which I'm all for, BTW.
Under the bs you're just another Birthtard


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:49 pm

Majority Will, thank you for reinforcing every point that I have made.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:50 pm

Then what was the purpose of the press release other than to mislead the public?

Original birth certificate could have been based on AFFIDAVIT from a relative, thus insufficient to determine the actual place of birth. Hawaii had very loose rules regarding registration of births.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:51 pm

Oh, and I most certainly did NOT vote for McCain, nor did I vote for Bush or Dole. So leave you simple-logic pot shots at the door.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

Listen the TAPE, do not spread the Obot propaganda.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 4:57 pm

I was just as outspoken about the mess that was Bush V Gore. The common thread here that the Obama supporters fail to grasp is there are two political parties that have usurped the phrase “We Are The People”. They make backroom deals that first and foremost based on self-preservation. Did you ever ask yourself why Gore backed down when he clearly would have won if he chose to proceed? There are those of us that need no political party allegiance to get our cues from as to what position we should take on an issue.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:59 pm

She was trying to shut up functional illiterates who have no idea what they’re talking about.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

I prefer no parties. Political parties are set up to influence and make deals in the name of political self-preservation. They long ago ceased to represent the people they are supposedly elected to serve.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:02 pm

Was Vattel even alive when the Constitution was written? And how is his work at all relevant to American law? I’m still trying to figure that one out since he was SWISS.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

Does this mean I can sue the government for back wages since I haven’t been paid for countering Orly’s illiterate screeds?


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:06 pm

Orly, dear.

You’ve already posted this. You’ve also tried it in court. You have always lost and you always will.

Please, please, PLEASE stop. You are risking your law license and possibly your husband’s government contracts. You are wrong, and are closing in on pure paranoia. For the sake of your children, please stop.

Thank you.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

The fatal flaw in all of your positions is continuing to link Article II, Section 1 with the 14th Amendment. There is simply no logic to that argument.

Furthermore, I HAVE MENTIONED WONG, several times, and I am hardly alone in recognizing that it has nothing to do with Article II, Sec. 1.

FURTHERMORE, your Presidential precedent is no precedent at all. Chester Arthur LIED about his Father's naturalization status. It wasn't until many years later (after Arthur was voted out of office as arguably one of the worst Presidents in history) that it was discovered by an Arthur biographer that Arthur's father didn't become a citizen until many years AFTER Arthur was born. Now ask your self, WHY would Arthur lie about the date of his Father's naturalization?! Oh, and you better go back and hit the history books, because Arthur's Vice Presidency and Presidency was just shortly AFTER Wong Kim Ark. Meaning – Arthur and Washington were very aware of the actual intent of Wong Kim Ark.

Hint: It had NOTHING to do with defining “natural born citizen” as in Article II Sec 1.

Oh, and an unrelated but interesting side-note there is considerable circumstantial evidence that suggests Arthur conspired to have Garfield assassinated, so that he may assume office.


majyqman
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

I have only your word on how outspoke you were…

Which, along with the rest of your post, doesn't actually address any of the points I made…


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:12 pm

Your writing is somewhat in the style of Charles Lincoln III. Just an observation…


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

“Chose to proceed?” SCOTUS put a stop to it–just how was he supposed to “proceed?”

Besides that, you are sashaying into non sequitars. “We The People” elected Barack Obama, whether you like it or not. The two major parties don't have a monopoly on that phrase, but neither do third parties or no parties. And whether you like it or not, he is eligible to be President, he is in FACT President, and there's nothing you or anyone else (other than Congress) can do about it until 2012 when you will have a chance to vote against him. That's how it works. All these attempts by birfoons to short circuit the system and convince a judge to overthrow the rule of law, the Constitution, and the principle of separation of powers, are the pathetic thrashings of sore losers who can't accept reality.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

If you have come here for a civil debate, then you're in the wrong place. I will only speak for myself and I have no use or respect for Orly Taitz since she has taken it upon herself to use every legal angle she could find to attempt to have the courts unseat the president elect whom I voted for. To me, she's worth nothing. She is nothing. Some of the recent posts lead me to believe that she or one of her minions has decided to come over here and change our minds. She started the 'war'. We'll finish it.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:25 pm

Call names if you wish, it's your credibility that takes the hit, not mine. And I resent being lumped in with the likes of Orly Taitz, Gary Kreep and that whole “dream team”. Taitz is a sick woman who grew up in a Totalitarian regime. She may have a law degree, but she clearly lacks an understanding of the Federal Judiciary process.

The issue of Constitutional qualifications should have been dealt with prior to inauguration – in reality prior to nomination. But the bi-partisan Two-Party Party monolith didn't want to rock the boat, so they ignored an issue as clear as day and obscured the truth to the point we are now – with a bunch of hack neophytes regurgitating propaganda.

It's actually up to the citizens of each State to demand better accountability from the of office of Secretary of State as to who is allowed on the ballot and who isn't. There were 7 States that allowed a Nicaraguan born to two Nicaraguan parents onto the ballot as a candidate for President, including my own state of Connecticut. When a challenge was filed in State court, the State Attorney General's office intervened on behalf of the Secretary of State's office.

The State Constitution explicitly States that the AG's office exits to protect the interest of the Citizens of Connecticut. The AG should have demanded an accounting of how Calero was allowed onto the ballot, but instead represented the SOS in court with a motion to dismiss. Calero remained on the ballot, illegally. Just like Obama.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:26 pm

If you think Wong has nothing to do with article II section I then you've never read it.

You're problem is you are still trying to invent a new kind of citizenship that has never existed before. “Natural born” is simply an archaic way of saying “native born.” It's no coincidence the words “natural” and “native” are etymologically related. There have only ever been two kinds of citizenship–you are either a citizen at birth, or you are made a citizen later.

Natural BORN means BORN a citizen. That's why they call it that.

Natural-IZED means you are made a citizen later. That's why they call it that.

Never in history has “natural born” referred to a separate third kind of citizenship. Read the decision in Wong Kim Ark–they explicitly talk about the meaning of “natural born.”

IOW there is NO distinction between a 14th amendment citizen and a natural born citizen. That's purely garbage invented by birfoons in an attempt to change the meaning such that Obama won't be eligible.

The citizenship of Obama's father is no secret. No one other than birfoons think it makes him ineligible.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:27 pm

And the phrase “natural born citizen” appears ONLY in Article II, Sec 1. and no where else in the Constitution. Now given what we know about this countries origins, do you not think the Founding Fathers wanted to implement a safeguard that prevented a British national, for example from making a bid for the Presidency?

The one issue that NONE of you Constitution-as-you-see-fit types can answer is why does the phrase only appear in Article II, Sec 1 and NO WHERE ELSE?!

Talk about idiocy.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

You have no credibility to lose. You think there's an “issue” that is “clear as day.” That makes you a delusional idiot. Calling a delusional idiot a delusional idiot doesn't lose me any credibility. Sorry if you think it does.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:32 pm

I didn't imply you did. And I really don't care. It was a general statement about the election but your pomposity makes you assume everything is about you.

And you obviously don't have a clue for what constitutes logic or fallacy.

But you are an amusing, self righteous prick.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:34 pm

You're going to need a lot of cheese for that whine.

Feel better now, little puss puss?


majyqman
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

These truths I hold to be self evident.

1. You made no mention here of wong before my post.

2. Chester A Arthur DIED THREE YEARS BEFORE the Wong decision

3. You are an idiot (see 2, at the very least)

4. The wong decision does most definitely lay out what it means to be natural born… taking its cue from the term used in english common law. Something I think the framers “might” just have been aware of when chosing their wording.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:37 pm

Where's your credible evidence of posters being on the government payroll?

<crickets>

Yeah, I thought so. You shouldn't make accusations you can't back up. That's something the birfer's can't seem to grasp.


Orly's Birther Lawsuit Dismissed | luna-canus.com
Pingback posted October 30, 2009 @ 6:38 pm

[...] http://washingtonindependent.com/65703/orly-taitz-smacked-down-birther-lawsuit-dismissed Please make this embarrassing woman go back where she came from, or lock her up in an institution, , one of the two. Comments (0) [...]


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

Marriage status is not relevant.

According to the law in 1961, if the baby was born abroad and one parent was a foreign citizen, other parent had to be US citizen for 10 years (5 of those after the age of 14) for baby to get an automatic US citizenship.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

LMAO ! ! Nice catch.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:43 pm

” . . . the only constitutional requirements for being elected president are that one be at least 35 years old, reside in the U.S. for 14 consecutive years prior to election and be a natural-born citizen. Obama was born in Hawaii. And he lost his Kenyan citizenship around the same time Don Johnson created a minor crisis in the sock and the razor blade manufacturing industries.”
- Posted by Joe Miller, 9/3/09, factcheck.org

“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. 4,1984.”
- Posted by Joe Miller, updated 9/3/09, factcheck.org

“UK Law does not govern US citizenship.”

FIFY


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:49 pm

That’s about the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard. You are seriously
reaching for it, way too far. It appears there and nowhere else because
President is the only job where you are required to be a citizen from birth.

And you are the one trying to rewrite the Constitution, not I. You’re the
one using arguments like “Don’t you think they would have wanted…” I’m the
one saying “This is what they said.”


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

Sorry, but there ARE no Constitutional questions. The President was born in Honolulu. That makes him a natural born citizen.

Case closed.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:54 pm

You're in Connecticut?

*runs to fortify the Massachusetts border*


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:56 pm

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible…”

-Chief Justice John Marshall, Majority Opinion, Marbury v Madison.

Meaning . . . Article II, Sec 1 is written the way it is for a reason. And nothing subsequent to it, not Won Kim Ark, not the 14th Amendment has any direct effect on Article II, Sec 1.

It is that reason that you will NEVER hear President Obama, the great Constitutional Scholar claim to be a Natural Born Citizen. Because OBAMA knows that he is not, and can’t claim to be. Obama’s challenge would have been that the 14th Amendment had a direct effect on Article II, Sec 1 – but Chief Justice Marshall would have rejected that out of hand.

You’re very wrong. Accept it.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:57 pm

1. Wrong. “Natural born” means EITHER “born to American citizen parents” OR “born on American soil. Otherwise there would be no problem with the children of undocumented workers born in America being American citizens, and thus entitled to stay in the country when their parents are deported.

2. Not relevant. He was born in Hawaii, which has belonged to the United States since the late 19th century.


Ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

Again, not relevant since the President was born in the United States.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:01 pm

You are seriously daft. It’s written the way it was for a very good
reason–because it says what it means! The framers required the President to
be a citizen from birth. “Natural born” was common usage for that meaning,
and that’s how they wrote it, because that’s what they meant.

I’d ask you why you are trying so hard to get it to mean something other
than what it says, but I know the answer to that.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

In the course of one sentence you acknowledged the credibility of my position and then discredited it.

If you don't have two citizen parents, then you have a person who is born with dual loyalties. Obama, as President or private citizen has claim to be a British citizen. Today, the President could apply for British citizenship and more than likely receive it, as the UK allows Dual Nationality, while Kenya does not.

Someone born of two citizen parents would not have that option. The person who is elected to be Commander in Chief and the Chief Executive should have no other immediate claim of nationality.

My issue is not with the individual, it's with the system. I disagree with much of President Obama's positions (as was the case with Bush), but I do not believe him to be a sinister character. Misguided perhaps,but not the agent of another state. I am purely concerned with the dangerous precedent that is being set.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:05 pm

I think I’ll trust the framers more than you…that’s why they allowed amendments to the constitution. Not so the amendments could be ignored by blowers like you, but so the constitution could become a living, breathing document able to change with the times. Besides, Obama doesn’t have to claim what he already knows to be true, as does the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. You remember him, don’t you? He swore Obama in and knew, as everyone in the country who was paying attention, where and to whom Obama was born. You lose, again.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 6:13 pm

And in the world of reality, where I reside, and you aspire to be accepted, I can follow the chronology and logic of what separates the requirements outlined in Article II, Section 1 from the 14th Amendment and subsequent associated cases.

And I do this all without calling names and turning to the likes of the DailyKos, Olberman and The Nation for my talking points.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 6:18 pm

Massachusetts is a mess, as is Connecticut. And what do those two states have in common? Generations of Liberal-leaning Democrats and Republicans spending wildly, even in the face of virtually un-Constitutional unfunded and funded mandates. Rell had her honeymoon, now she is in for a rude awakening. The same can be said for Patrick. But “real change” (the Dems empty buzz phrase for the last 20 years) won't come until the either/or trap is broken.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 6:27 pm

I'm sure you can invent some rationalizations for this “chronology and logic,” but what you don't seem to grasp is no one cares. You don't get to just make things up and declare them to be what you think is logical. The fact is there has never been a distinction between 14th amendment citizen and natural born citizen. Neither the history nor the the law supports such a distinction. You might think there “should” be such a distinction, but there isn't, and you don't get to decide.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

BTW, even if “Natural born” had meant what you are weirdly trying to twist
it into meaning, the 14th amendment would most certainly change it. That’s
why they call it “amending” the constitution.

You would flunk Jr.High civics. You are *that *dumb.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

I'd be interested to hear your thought process. Please explain.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:06 pm

I'm somebody who can attempt to discuss issues without using insults, sophisms, pseudo-facts and rhetoric as the only basis for my position.

I'm not trans-partisan – whatever that is, as you apparently just invented it. I doubt you know anything about Ayn Rand, and even if she was an influence of mine, she'd hardly be the only one. I'm not into pop-politics. You are.

Finally, you among others are the juveniles. I've been able to defend and cite the facts behind my position. All you and your ilk know how to do is make blanket statements, supported by disconnected logic and sprinkle in curse words and insults.

Believe you me, I can insult with the best of them, but then I don't view this issue as lightly as you.

My regards as you go down with the ship.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

Notes on “natural born.”

One thing birfoons try desperately to do is to redefine the meaning of the phrase “natural born.” It's already been pointed out that the phrase comes from British law (as all our words and phrases come from the Brits) and that according to British law anyone born on the soil was a “natural born subject.” British law ALSO held that the child of a subject, if born off the soil, was still a natural born subject. So for the Brits, even as it is for the US today, it was either/or–born on the soil OR citizen parents.

By todays usage “natural born” in reference to citizenship is archaic, but I did want to point out that there are surviving uses. For example, we might use in today in “Bob is a natural born leader.” (or any other quality) It refers to a quality which is innate. “Innate” is, not surprisingly, etymologically closely related to the words “natural” and “native.” And it means, not surprisingly, “something you are born with.”

A natural born leader is someone who was born with the quality of leadership. A natural born citizen is someone who is born a citizen. That's all it ever meant. Through the years there have been disagreements over who is and is not a citizen at birth, no one has ever, until the birthers, tried to turn “natural born citizen” into a special third kind of citizen. In this country we are either born as citizens, (natural born) or we are made citizens later (naturalized.) That's it. Those are the only distinctions.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:11 pm

If you think Wong has something to do with Article II, Sec 1, then you aren't aware of Chief Justice Marshall's Majority opinion in Marbury v Madison, where he clearly stated:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible…”

Wong Kim Ark was not a case about Article II, Sec 1. It was a case about citizenship when born within US borders to two alien parents. Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen and was not eligible to run for President. He could be a Senator or Representative, but President he could not.

As the passage is written in Wong Kim Ark, I can understand how someone with a 5th grade reading comprehension could mistakenly view it as redefining Article II, Sec 1, but luckily our SCOTUS Justices aren't as illiterate.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

Actually, it was also the accepted definition of the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. You remember him, don't you? If he felt Obama wasn't a NBC then he would have been going against his oath of office when he swore Obama in. Of course, now you'll make up something else to cover that, but it is all you blowers have…your delusions.


Shisousha
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:15 am

Why bother post her original statement form 2008. You have repeatedly demonstrated that any facts that are presented that dispute your position that you reject. Additionally, if you took time to read the the document you would notice that she stated she verifies that Barack Hussein Obama “is a natural-born American citizen.” This document just re-enforces Dr. Chiyome Fukino position on the facts.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:15 pm

Saying you have the reading comprehension of a 5th grader would be generous.
Wong was not about Art.II, it was about citizenship at birth. In the course
of it they talk about the meaning of “natural born” Explicitly. Seriously.
The Sylvan Learning Center. Look them up. They have programs for people like
you.


Shisousha
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:20 am

Did you honestly take time and read the court ruling. Many news outlets had highlighted the main points, include the issue of natural born citizen. Stop making things up, the court ruling was very explicit about why your conspiracy theory is just ill conceived.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:20 pm

I mean seriously, try VERY HARD to grasp that they didn't just make up the
phrase “natural born” just for article II. The phrase had an existing
meaning. That meaning did NOT come from Vattel as Vattel never even used
those words. It came from the same place all our words and phrases came
from…the Kings English.

Get it?


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:23 pm

And I can man up and admit when I've been in error. In my haste to reply I confused Minor v Halperstadt with Wong kim Ark. Minor took place in 1873. In the subsequent years, Arthur became VP, when he succeeded to the Presidency he appointed Justice Horace Gray to SCOTUS. Grey wrote the majority opinion on Wong Kim Ark. As we know now, Arthur lied about his fathers citizenship because if Arthur's Father wasn't a citizen at the time of Arthur's birth, there would have been doubts as to whether Arthur was even a citizen, with the way the law was being applied at the time.

Even still Wong Kim Ark never touched Article II, Sec 1. I can understand how someone could read the closing paragraphs and mistakenly make that assumption, but it just isnt the case.


Shisousha
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:24 am

The court ruled that based on the evidence presented that Obama was born in America. Second, that he has the utmost confidence in the safe guards America has in place to protect it citizens. I would accept that the court ruled indirectly at Obama is a “natural born citizen”

Are you unpatriotic?


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:25 pm

Here's a silly question JBL, where did you find that Arthur lied about his father? According to the NY papers, it was well know at that time about Arthur's father. So, show me where you're coming up with that BS, or disown it.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:28 am

Not in the least.

I would appreciate if you and others ceased in attempting to lock me down to some sort of stereotype of thought.

I know its a stretch for the partisans, but just try and realize that there are many of us who very easily separate race from politics. And who accept everyone on their own merits.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:29 pm

Marbury v Madison preceded Wong by about 80 years. The passage I cited above is still precedent of meaning that is applied to cases today. It would have been no different for Wong.

Wong WAS NOT ABOUT Article II Sec1 in any way shape or form. Article II is about Executive Powers.

The 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark are about Citizenship.

Wong Kim Ark, the person, was not seeking to run for President. He was simply seeking the citizenship that he was due for having been born in the United States.

Wong is not a blanket redefining of the entire Constitution. It had and has NO RELEVANCE to natural born citizen clause as stated in Article II, Sec 1. For if it was it would have been in direct conflict with Chief Justice Marshall's statement:

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible…”

et it through yer thick skull. Just because you say something is, doesn't make i any more real than the Easter Bunny or the Great Pumpkin.


Shisousha
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:30 am

No, Attorney is just a name like Anteni.

It is quite interesting that “attorney” seems to have left out some court rulings. Specifically, more recent court rulings.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:31 am

Well, clearly the lawyers in 1898 thought that citizenship at birth was the same as natural born citizenship.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:31 pm

You know so little, but talk so big. Sad existence that you lead.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:34 am

And again you’re reading something that simply isn’t there.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:36 pm

Get it through yer thick skull–you don't get to redefine the meaning of
“natural born” no matter how hard you try. And all your non-sequiters are
just that, non-sequiters. Wong was about citizenship at birth. That was the
whole point. Wong Kim Ark was born on US soil but his parents were not
citizens. So the qestion was did that qualify him as a citizen at birth?

A “natural born citizen” is a citizen at birth. The justices pointed out
that the framers immortalized that phrase in the Constitution, and that the
same phrase had been used for CENTURIES in Britian where anyone born on the
soil was a citizen at birth. Therefor they concluded that Wong also was a
citizen from birth due to being born on the soil.

Wong didn't clarify the meaning of “natural born,” that was already known.
What they clarified was who did and did not qualify.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:37 pm

Coming from an idiot that couldn't even pass Jr High civics and has the
logic skills of a toadstool I'll take that as a compliment.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:38 am

JBL, it was well known. Your got that information from the NJ lawyer’s web site. We know that because it has already been round debunked. You do NO research, you just read blower sites and consider them a fine source. Ambulance chasers are not a good source.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:41 am

I don’t understand how you can tie that passage in with 200 years of SCOTUS decisions.

And Vattel is well known to have influenced the thinking of the Framer’s which isn’t to say they used everything or even anything that Vattel wrote word-for-word.

The term Natural Born Citizen, as it it is designed into Article II, Sec 1 was a new implementation, a stroke of genius by the Framers to ensure there was a little something extra that would prevent the notion of a foreign agent from occupying the Executive branch. That is not to say that is what Obama has done. Because I DO NOT believe that to be so in any way shape or form. But what he has done, and what the DNC and RNC have allowed to happen is a callous afront to the Founding Fathers.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:42 am

“being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:43 am

If no one cares, then why have you spent two days responding to my posts? Please save it.


majyqman
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:44 am

See, you don’t have to man up and admit you are in error. I put it right out there in black and white and you had no choice.

Now given that was a rather large part of your citationless assertion regarding an apparent presidential conspiracy only you’re aware of… why should we give any of the rest of your tripe any credence without, you know, some evidence?

And others have already pointed out, there are so many ways you’re wrong over Wong it isn’t even funny.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:44 am

A steady A student in government and majored in Poly Sci in college, thank you.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:47 am

Apparently you can’t even count. Two days? Lol!


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:48 am

Right. That’s like someone who doesn’t know what H2O is claiming to have
majored in chemistry. Sure, I believe you.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:49 am

You’re wrong about Wong and wrong about Arthur. It was well known at the time of the 1880 election that Arthur’s father was not yet a citizen at the time of Arthur’s birth. The entire controversy was about the rumor that Arthur had been born in Canada rather than Vermont. His father’s citizenship status was not at issue, only the location of Arthur’s birth.

Wong of course settled it. Birth on US soil, even with illegal alien parents, makes one a natural born US citizen. This is not even in dispute.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:52 am

The second statement by Joe Miller is actually taken from the Fight The Smears website, if I recall correctly.

And all it means is, that President Obama didn’t swear an allegiance to Kenya by his 23rd birthday. Kenya does allow dual citizenship. And the only reason Obama had it in the first place was because of his Father being a Kenyan national and British subject.

Obama still has a very real claim to British citizenship to this day if he chose to apply. In fact, if after Obama leaves the office of President, he chooses to become a citizen ofthe UK and it is granted , he then moves to the UK and runs for Parliament, then was elected Prime Minister there is nothing in his way on the British side of the law that I know of.


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

We all know that birthers arguments are based on conjecture after they have disregard any facts that disprove their arguments. However, they will even reject additional facts that are later found, or pick specific wording to try to support their position. Thank you for the information.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 7:57 pm

” . . . but your pomposity makes you assume everything is about you.But you are an amusing, self righteous prick.”

This criticism coming from the person who goes by the name “Majority Will”.

You're a real gasser.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:58 am

Oh yeah…don’t you recognize who JBL is? There’s really only a few blowers on here, after they get beat down, they pop back up under another name. It’s all they have left.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:02 am

And again that’s where your lack of any substantive civics comprehension shines like the sun in the middle of July . . . .

The 14th Amendment was written to clarify and augment the aspects lacking in Article 4 Section 2 – that would be the section that originally discussed ‘citizenship’. The 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with Executive branch or the requirements to hold the office of President.

Article II, Section 1 – Executive Branch

Article 4, Section 2 – Citizenship –> 14th Amendment –> Minor v Halperstadt –> Wong Kim Ark

Are ya starting to get it yet? Refer to my posting about Chief Justice john Marshall’s poignant statement in the Majority opinion of Marbury v Madison.

Amendments are written to deal with very specific changes to the Constitution, they aren’t written to change the meaning of the entire document.


Mountain Jack
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

Dude, you are really an uppity fool. Natural born citizen, by your definition means born of two citizens, but only if you follow the dictates of Vattel.

“Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).”

In fact, Vattel was written in French and never used the term “natural born citizen”. You rely upon Vattel but the Framers would never have done so. Vattel wanted only royalty to have access to firearms.


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:03 pm

You talk about propaganda. That is the nature of the birther movement. Honestly, even Bill O'Reilly has stated birther are nuts. Everyone knows that Mr. O'Reilly is not a support of Obama. There are many more conservatives, independents and people who are of different political ideologies who think birthere are nuts. Honestly, you are just another fraud.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:07 am

Full citation of your source, please.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:07 am

I get it–you don’t. The 14th has nothing to do with requirements to be
President. I don’t know why you keep bringing up non-sequiters other than
that you are so confused you don’t know what else to say. The 14th has to do
with citizenship, specifically in this context, who is a citizen at birth.

Art II has to do with requirements for the Presidency, and relevant in this
context is the requirement the President be a citizen from birth–a natural
born citizen. You see how those two interact? The 14th is about citizenship,
Art II is about Presidential requirements, which includes a citizenship
requirement.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

Only crazier, wetter, tighter, hotter . . . .

LOL


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

Let us pull out our thesaurus shall we.

“Native” is the same word as “natural.”


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

And if you put your knee-jerk reactions aside for a moment, you'll note that I have stated that Barrack Obama is President and that the only recourse now is to make sure now that our SOS are held accountable for who they place on the ballot the next Presidential election cycle. We had a foreign born, to foreign national parents Candidate on the ballot in 7 States during the last election cycle.

Either that or home that the District Attorney for the District of Columbia decides to do something about it . . . but we all know that will not happen.

And please spare me that the Two-Party Party doesn't have a monopoly on the phrase “We The People”. The national office holder that goes to Washington to do the People's business is few and far between these days. We elect deal makers that are largely in the business of protecting their own ass first. This mentality has led to unprecedented Federal power and scope. This nation was founded to be a union of individual states who were free to make their own laws within the construct of the Constitution. Today we have one Federal mandate after another bankrupting some States and making others struggle mightily. This big brother federal monstrosity simply isn't what our forefathers shed blood for.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

Only a total hack would assume that the closing paragraph is the only pertinent part of a legal decision.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You got robbed, JBL, go back to that college and demand your money back…LOL


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:13 am

Ah, I see. You are unhappy that you do not live in New Hampshire. Might I put you in touch with friends of mine in Penacook? There’s some very nice land up there, cheap, and I’m sure you’d find plenty of like-minded folk to sit around and complain about how unfair it is that your superior intellect and education is not evident to the unwashed masses.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:17 am

I see that they teach 19th century rhetorical and writing skills at your alma mater, as well as 19th century racial and political attitudes. How sad that it’s the 21st century.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:17 pm

Hey, JBL, should I assume that your “Arthur lied” statement is not true? Then, we have a precedence for a President who was not born of 2 citizen parents. Which, of course, makes all your statements suspect. BWAHAHAHA…I love idiot blowers who are so dumb they can't realize there is something more important than WND and Orly blatherings…the constitution and laws of our great nation!


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:17 pm

The two words are not synonyms.

And no one has yet answered my challenge.

If the phrase is “natural born citizen” in Article II, Sec 1 and native means the same as natural, then why does the President insist on referring to himself as “native born”?

Call me all the names you like, but deep down you know there is something strange about it.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

“Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen and was not eligible to run for President. He could be a Senator or Representative, but President he could not.”

Hmmm, well it seems that the central argument from the written brief of the attorneys who opposed the Wong Kim Ark decision (and lost) was that if he was found to be a citizen by birth, then he would be eligible to be president, which was unacceptable to white, Anglo-Americans.

“— —
For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing lineage.

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?
— — —

Is this your position as well?


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:20 pm

I have nothing in common with nor do I care for Charles Lincoln or his misguided leader Orly Taitz, I believe they have down irreparable harm and made a joke of the singular issue that I and many others remain correct on.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:21 pm

Call me all the names you like OK, you are a sophist.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:23 pm

Hey Jim, I don't read World Net Daily, nor do I care what they have to say in the least. I do not support Orly Taitz in any way shape or form. This sort of simple minded knee-jerk partisanship is part and parcel to the pop-politics that Olberman, Maddow, O'Reilly'Limbaugh and the ilk disseminate. It's nonconstructive and damaging our very fabric.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

I think there's been a lot of confusion about this, and I'm conjecturing to a certain extent as well, but it's the only definition that is consistent across all uses. British law used “natural born” and said anyone born on the soil OR anyone who's father was a subject, were themselves a natural born subject. But I don't take it as that they were defining “natural born subject” rather, they were defining who did and did not qualify as a subject from birth. If they, let's say, changed the criteria to require BOTH born on the soil and a subject father, they then would have called THAT a natural born subject.

Similarly, IIRC, NY states citizenship laws prior to the ratification required both born on the soil and a citizen father, and they called it “natural born.” Georgia, on the other hand, called anyone born on the soil period “natural born.” I don't think that means they disagreed on the meaning of “natural born” I think they were simply expressing different requirements for who was a citizen from birth. They had different requirements for who was entitled to citizenship from birth, but whatever those requirements were, anyone who met them was a natural born citizen–a citizen from birth.

The framers didn't specify who was entitled to citizenship from birth, but they did require the President to be a citizen from birth–a natural born citizen. Apart from that they left it up to Congress to fill in the details. And like I said, the first Congress would not have felt free to fill in those details if they had believed the framers meant something more specific by the term. If the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean “born on the soil of citizen parents” as birthers would have it, then Congress could not have extended that meaning to those born off the soil with a mere congressional act–they would have needed a Constitutional amendment.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

Well Phil, at least we can both agree that Orly's nuts.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:27 pm

Answer the question JBL, where do you get that Arthur lied? Or did you just make it up because it is inconvenient to your delusions?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:27 pm

In the latter part of the 19th century, the United States, in one of its less glorious moments, enacted a series of laws known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts. The point of these laws was that Chinese laborers were welcome to come to the U.S. and work but they were denied the perks of U.S. citizenship.

In the Wong Kim Ark case, the son of a Chinese couple, who was born in San Francisco left to visit China. When he returned, he was refused entry at the port of San Francisco. He sued, claiming that he was a citizen under the 14th amendment.

Wong Kim Ark won the case in the lower courts and the U.S., represented by a Mr. George Collins, appealed the decision, they lost and it was appealed again, all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts decisions and ruled that Wong Kim Ark was indeed a natural born citizen.

Of note is the argument that Mr. Collins presented to support his case in the Supreme Court. In his written brief, his last and best argument against giving Wong Kim Ark the status of citizenship by way of birth went as follows:

— —
For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing lineage.

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?
— — —

How many of you can see the same tired, racist, arguments being made by the birthers?

Note also that Mr. Collins clearly concedes that if he lost this case (which he did), then being born in this country as a citizen was enough to qualify one to be president.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:32 pm

Jim it wasn't well known, there was a singular reporter for a NY paper that had raised the issue that Arthur was a British national and not even a US citizen. It wasn't until years later that it was discovered that that NY reporter was onto something. He was wrong about Arthur's citizenship status as Wong Kim Ark would later affirm, but he was right that Arthur's father was not a US citizen at the time of rthur's birth.

And it came from research, my friend.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:34 am

LARPing? Forgive me for asking…


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:34 pm

Thanks. I am not going to comment on birthers motives, other than Mr. Collins comments were acceptable in the time he lived.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

I'm starting to think we initially had Orly in here posting as Attorney and now Charles Lincoln is in here posting as JBL. Just a feeling…


majyqman
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:36 pm

the perhaps one of the first thing you did here shouldn't have been to accuse already participating posters of illegalities amonst calling them names.

By the way, interesting that you're a follower of RP but not Rand…. but still, RP revolutionaries is “not” pop politics?

Whatever, my regards as the ship keeps on sailing just fine an we wave to the blathering idiot on the iceberg he's christened S.O.Somalia.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

An interesting fact about Mr. Collins: In 1905 he was convicted of perjury and bigamy and sentenced to the penitentiary wher he was put to work in the jute mill.

I guess what comes around goes around.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

Why do you want to complicate things? Ellid stated his or her thoughts. He or she believes Obama is a natural born citizen. That's pretty simple. Why do you need to know the thought process that brought this conclusion?


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:39 pm

My guess is that JBL is (Phillip) J. Berg, Lawyer


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:43 pm

It is a lie that court ruled about WKA being a natural born citizen. He was granted CITIZENSHIP.

You are using a dramatic quote from an attorney who lost the case to support your opinion. It has no legal weight.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

The Court clearly define citizenship at birth as being the same as natural born citizenship.

You lose.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

Further corroboration: Encyclopedia.com lists an archaic definition for “natural born” as “having a position by birth.”

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-naturalbo…


CauldronBorn
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:46 pm

He is a native-born Hawai'ian. Nothing strange about it.


majyqman
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

Please provide proof of this.

I'll save you the trouble, there's a very specific process you have to go through to become naturalised. You will not find any evidence of WKA undertaking this process.

The court ruled that he had been a citizen since his birth.


majyqman
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

In addition to this, you fail at logic, because if the lawyers arguments had been correct, then surely he would have won the case!

He lost… so what does that say about his arguments?

Actually, you're right, it says they have no legal weight!

But they're the same argument as yours…

IDIOT.


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:50 pm

What are you talking about please get a thesaurus.

Synonym – a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language.

Both “native” and “natural” are English words.

Let us look at a dictionary.

Native – A person born in a specific place or associated with a place by birth.

Natural – in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

Natural-born – have a specific innate characteristic or ability (having a particular position by birth i.e. a natural-born citizen)

reference: Oxford Dictionary of English.

The only thing that is strange is your insistence on manipulating English to put forth a categorically false position.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:51 pm

Did you not see they were arguing that Wong, if counted a citizen by birth, would be eligible for the Presidency?


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

What I enjoy about birthers is they challenge reasonable people to honestly do research and think. Honestly, I have learned a lot even the term for the scientific condition for birthers.


majyqman
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

It's telling. the ones they don't respond to ;)

Because, yeah, outright claiming, without a shred of evidence, that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America knowingly violated their oath of office…

That's a biggy.

And their entire argument falls down around it.


ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 8:58 pm

Wrong. The Court ruled, by a 6-2 margin, that Wong Kim Ark had been a natural born citizen from the moment of his birth because he was born on American soil. The citizenship of his parents had nothing to do with it.


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:00 pm

Wrong. The quote was used to express the racist position that Mr. Collins took.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:01 am

All you folks – wondering where the Orly clan is? I have a strange feeling we’ve been speaking with her right here . . . as NaturalizedCitizen.


ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:01 pm

My thought process? Very simple:

President Obama was born in America. People born in America are natural born citizens regardless of their parents' status. Therefore, President Obama is a natural born citizen, qualified to be President, and the birther movement is full of hooey.

I hope this helps.

*thanx and a tip o' the hat to buckaroni*


ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

You have cited a great many irrelevancies and ignored American law and precedent. You are not logical.

Please do something useful with your time, like tutoring at an adult literacy clinic.


Continued rundown « Dispatches from the Republic of Letters
Pingback posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

[...] previously here, and one of the people in that Jon Stewart clip, Orly Taitz, the Birther Lawyer, remains determined to make a laughing stock of herself before every judge she’s appeared before. After they [...]


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:03 pm

What is interesting about that argument is that it was the final argument in the brief. In other words, it was their best argument.


ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:03 pm

Same here. I haven't gotten a penny from this and never will.


ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:05 pm

You really are a pompous bloviator, aren't you? I swear, this is like reading my ex-husband's “editorials” for a bad LARPing magazine.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:05 pm

the latest Orly crapolla from her blog:

–”Another point – Judge Carter state in court and in his order that I told people to call him This is not true. Who told it to judge Carter? His new clerk, fresh out of Perkins Coie, law firm, that represented Obama, in some 100 cases?”–

She is such a putz


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:08 pm

I'm still waiting for my checks from debunking chemtrails and truthers.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

1. Subject and citizen is not the same. Brits did not have to be concerned that a “natural born subject” will become the commander of their military. The king/queen could not have been replaced with a “natural born subject”.

2. In USA, framers of the Constitution were worried that a foreigner could become a commander of US military. That is why they added phrase “natural born citizen” to the eligibility requirement. It is national security issue.

If they wanted to make anybody born on US soil eligible for US presidency, they could have used the phrase “born citizen”. Yet they did not do it. They wanted to avoid dual loyalties that come in play when parents are not US citizens.

3. The naturalization act of 1790 gives “natural born citizen” status to children of US citizens (plural) who were born outside the USA. The law was repealed in 1795 and children of US citizens born abroad were given citizenship status.

NBC – Born in the USA of citizen parents.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:16 pm

What's amazing is how often all those are found in the same person. True story: birther the other day cites a “forensics expert” who has determined Obama's COLB is a forgery. I google him up and he's got a website with articles on 911, birtherism and chemtrails as well. Out of curiosity I click the article on chemtrails. He's got a solution. We need to telepathically contact sylphs to help us clean up the chemtrails. Apparently sylphs are some kind of air fairy.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:17 pm

Explain this then, NC, why did the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS swear him in? It was no secret who Obama's parents were. Is it because he knows what a Natural Born Citizen is better than you?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:20 pm

That is correct – citizen at birth – not a natural born citizen. There is a distinction between the two.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:21 pm

Explain this then, NC, why did the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS swear him in? It was no secret who Obama's parents were. Is it because he knows what a Natural Born Citizen is better than you?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:23 pm

1. “Subject” is the British word for “citizen.” “Natural born” means the
same in front of either word. To suggest that “natural born” means something
different in front of “subject” than it does in front of “citizen” is
asinine.

2. Yes, which is why they required the President be a citizen from birth. No
one uses the phrase “born citizen.”

3. Yet the 1790 act was not unconstitutional. And removing the phrase
“natural born” was simply because it wasn't necessary.

NBC Citizen from birth.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-naturalbo…
(No way you get “two citizen parents” requirement. Birfoons have just
completely made that up.)


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:23 pm

Explain this then, NC, why did the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS swear him in? It was no secret who Obama's parents were. Is it because he knows what a Natural Born Citizen is better than you?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:24 pm

“…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?”

Which part did you not understand? The only distinction between the two is in the wishful thoughts of birfoons.


Anteni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:25 pm

Actually, I was able to find “Natural-born – have a specific innate characteristic or ability (having a particular position by birth i.e. a natural-born citizen)” in an English dictionary. Thus, this further supports your arguments.

This has been very educational.

Your have been very informative.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:29 pm

That's why I enjoy doing this in my free time. It's educational and entertaining at the same time. The blowers have made me look at and understand the constitution more than I ever thought about since HS (or was that jr hs?) civics. It has been excellent to remember why I love being a citizen of this country so much.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:31 am

I cited Ron Paul as a recent example of the tyranny of the majority stifling a grassroots movement. In this case a movement from within the Republican Party that opposed the absurd and damaging course that the religious right and the neo-cons have taken the party in over the last 20 years.

And in my opinion Ron Paul and his supporters are far from having pop-culture status. Paul’s brand of Conservativism rebukes the neo-cons, calls them what they are (pathetic, opportunistic and self-serving) Paul is legitimately anti-war unlike Obama who played up his Johnny Come-Lately opposition to the Iraq War during the campaign, all while downplaying and even being ignored on his support for the expansion of the Afghanistan occupation.

And if you really must know who I have supported most recently, it’s none other than every Democrat psuedo-Progressive’s best friend – Ralph Nader, also legitimately anti-war, and recognizes that mutli-national corporations should not EVER have more rights, power and influence than the individual citizen. A concept that is foreign to the power-hungry Two-Party Party, the American Oligarchy, the Republicrats and Demoplicans, since campaign finance laws and ballot access is tailored to them and their corporate donors.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

Orly Taitz is a sylph


Antibirther
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:34 pm

Reading comprehension was never their strong point.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

As I am learning about “lawyering” techniques – Roberts can always claim that he assumed that Obama was eligible.
There is no official requirement that Chief Justice must review evidence (prior to sworn in ceremony) that the president-elect is indeed eligible for office. He had no “standing” to stop the ceremony.

Yet, he fumbled the oath. His conscience did not allow him to perform the ceremony correctly.

It destroys one of “Guard Dog” Carter's arguments that Orly's lawsuit was filed few hours late.

We can only speculate on Roberts' opinion about the NBC definition. The only way to know for sure is that a case is accepted by the SCOTUS and official ruling made.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

Reality comprehension was never their strong point.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:40 pm

Where does it mention the birth place or parents?
You missed critical arguments in your explanation.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:40 pm

You are assuming prosecutorial techniques of only taking one side…a very tenuous one at that. You know, I know, all these readers know that Chief Justice Roberts knew who Obama's parents were and their citizenship status. We also know that if he delivered the oath of office, he was breaking HIS oath of office and WOULD be impeached. The straight answer is he knows better than you what a Natural born citizen is and Obama qualifies.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

It doesn't. That's the whole point. “Natural born citizen” means citizen from birth. That's all it means. The details of who is and is not a citizen from birth is a different question. In this country you are a citizen from birth if you are born on the soil OR if you have a citizen parent. We could change those rules if we want, but whatever the rules, the President has to be a citizen from birth.

You really aren't very bright.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:46 pm

Same here. :)


Steve_X
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:46 pm

As a lawyer that actually went to an accredited law school, it always cracks me up when birfers try to “interpret” the Constitution, then get upset when the judge has to remind them that case law from the Supreme Court of Birferstan isn't binding on the United States.

Luckily for us sane people, Orly is waaaaayyyyyy too stupid to quit now. For her, the mere threat of disbarment isn't enough; she won't stop until the State Bar of California burns her law license on national television…right before they use her “law degree” for toilet paper. We should have enough free comedy to last us the next couple of decades.


pgobrien
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:49 pm

I'm tempted to wonder if you're not too bright, Mr. Naturalizedcitizen. According to the above, Wong Kim Ark was not “granted citizenship.” The court recognized him as having been born a citizen. That's what he had been arguing — that he was entitled to return to the US, the country of his birth and citizenship. So you're arguing that the courts decided to give him something he claimed he already had? Nonsense. Our constitution says you're a citizen if you're born here. Like Barack Obama was.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:50 pm

It satisfies all requirements by the federal government for BC's. It is also used by many states in the union, including Missouri. Funny story about that. Earlier this year, the pubs in Missouri were talking about an amendment (HR 34 I think) where a “Long form” bc would be required to run for nationwide office in Missouri. That didn't last too long. Seems Missouri uses the same type form as Hawaii and because of the 10th amendment, the law would actually just prohibit any person born in Missouri from running for national office in Missouri. Blower intelligence at it's best!!! LOL


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

In the past citizen father = citizen mother because citizenship was granted automatically upon marriage.

If the framers intended that anybody who was born citizen would be eligible for US presidency, they would have used the exact phrase “born citizen” in the Constitution. They did not. It means that they considered that phrase “natural born citizen” has different meaning than “born citizen”.

The only eligibility definition, that does not require any debate whether person has a dual loyalty at birth, is the one where person was born in the USA of citizen parents. Only in this case there is no ambiguity, no need for speculation, debate or arguing whether person is eligible to be CIC.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:58 pm

NC, did you ever happen to read any Shakespeare?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:59 pm

You are correct. He was not naturalized. Court determined that he was citizen at birth.
But not the natural born citizen. The WKA case did not define who the NBC is.

As for Obama – I would agree with you but only after I see the long form birth certificate indicating birth in the Kapiolani Hospital.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 9:59 pm

You seem to be under the impression that you can just make stuff up an
people will listen. That makes you a typical birther.

As for your attempt at logic–nice try but baloney. “Natural born,” as has
already been demonstrated to you repeatedly, was the commonly used phrase.
“Born citizen” was not. They used the commonly used phrase. By your logic no
one would ever use the phrase “natural born” since they could always just
use “born” instead. You're not even close.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

LOL – funny stuff.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:06 pm

Uh huh. And you think that Wong Kim Ark set forth that all people born in the United States are natural born citizens, right?

Cuz you left that part out.

And if that is the case, I would like you to humor me and point out the relevant passages of Wong that make that so.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:07 am

Live action role playing. Basically, D&D with costumes and props


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:07 pm

You guys are arguing all the time that nobody has standing to challenge Obama's eligibility.

Is there a procedure for Roberts to officially challenge Obama's eligibility? How would Congress and Administration react if Roberts tried to stop the ceremony.
Separation of powers in government? “Guard Dog” Carter mentions it in his ruling.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:09 am

Please show where it *doesn’t* state that someone born in the United States is a natural born citizen.

Also, where in Connecticut do you allegedly live? I’d like to avoid that area the next time I drive through the Nutmeg State.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:09 pm

Actually, I thought it since the President's parents were no secret for many years and Chief Justice Roberts felt comfortable enough to swear him in. Why, what makes you uncomfortable?


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:12 am

Ok. Haven’t done any D&D since college. My kids came across my old books and asked about it. They couldn’t understand where the fun was with no joysticks! Made ME feel old…LOL


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:17 pm

And now is where I really have fun smacking you around. If Chief Justice Roberts was uncomfortable with Obama's birth…he'd gone right to congress. Because, then it becomes a political question. But even more interesting than that is the thousands of Constitutional Scholars (people that know a heck of a lot more about it than you or I) would have LOVED to have a long, drawn out talk whether or not Obama was eligible. Again, it was NEVER a secret and it would have made a wonderful case for all those scholars to argue over. You don't understand this country. We love open discussions…not the backroom junk that you blowers adore. That's why you're here…because of these freedoms that allow a minority to air their concerns and worries…and their paranoid delusions. But, they know he is a Natural Born Citizen. And our President.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:18 pm

Yes, before he was sworn in his eligibility could have been challenged, and indeed was, but unsuccessfully and not by anyone with any credibility.


littybell
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:21 pm

Where is Tracey? The nutter bean is late for her looser party, My guess is she had to go get a booster shot of birther crazy before she can come her and restate the same old rants.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:27 pm

Ahhhhhh Finally….

Sorry, wasn't ignoring you shitheads, I was boycotting the site, cause it was screwed up!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:28 pm

Nahhhh, if you read up, you will see why. I'm sure you had the same problems with comments being cut off, so you know that I am not LYING!

Pfftttt!


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:31 pm

Does it cut you off at around 200 messages? I don't think their software was designed to handle this kind of traffic.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

“NBC – Born in the USA of citizen parents.”

That's gotta be my favorite. Mainly because it's wrong.

There's actually an issue being addressed by homeland security currently, and I quote:

“There are many US citizen children born to illegal aliens parents (thanks to an interpretation of the 14th Amendement)…”

Currently, thanks to the 14th, born in the United States (unless otherwise claimed by the parents) equates to natural born citizen.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:35 pm

Yuppppp, they get their people in no matter what. This dude, Siddarth Velamoor, is the newest law clerk for Judge Carter. Velamoor is from the law firm Perkins Coie, the same law firm of Robert Bauer – top lawyer for Obama, Obama's presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's Organizing for America – and the same Washington, D.C., lawyer who defended President Obama in lawsuits challenging his eligibility to be president.

Just a little tooooo close for comfort! You all think this is RIGHT?

He had a facebook page and a myspace page up, but has since been scrubbed!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

lolololol


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:38 pm

Cauldron, you're a GENIUS!!! You've just given the blowers another conspiracy to check out! Let's see how long it takes for the bloggers that come here for ideas can come up with some wild theory and tie it to your statement…

“Currently, thanks to the 14th, born in the United States (unless otherwise claimed by the parents) equates to natural born citizen.”

ALL RIGHT FOLKS!!! Which theory do you think AXJ will come up with first.

1) Parents claimed he was a Kenyan Citizen

2) Parents claimed he was Indonesian

3) Parents claimed he was Alaskan (blowers sometimes forget)

4) Parents claimed he was from Alpha Centauri


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:38 pm

Hi Tracey!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:38 pm

I thought it was the other hostipal he was born at. He said one and his sister said another. OOOPS!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:39 pm

Why did Chief Justice have a case erased from the docket, that would hve brought up the subject and had it PROVEN?


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:41 pm

I know it isn't true. She opening advocated through her posts that people should call and write the judge.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:41 pm

What case is that corny?


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:43 pm

The major birthtards are back. NaturallyCrazy is one of the finest of the birthtards.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:45 pm

Nothing was erased from the docket. It was an issue with the database that was fixed. Paranoid freaks.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:45 pm

Nothing was erased from the docket. It was an issue with the database that was fixed. Paranoid freaks.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:46 pm

Federal judges typically hire their clerks at least a year in advance, which would place the time of the hiring well before the case was assigned to Judge Carter.

In addition to which, this is hardly a novel event. The legal community is finite in size, and it happens from time to time that a clerk is hired who might have a potential conflict of interest over a case. There are detailed guidelines for how such situations are to be handled, and if Judge Carter followed the rules, there shouldn't be a problem.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:48 pm

Birthtards have no strong points.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:51 am

No, you’re willfully ignoring the intent of the ruling and spouting birther talking points.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:52 am

Birfers are compulsive fabricators: their lies must be replaced constantly, as the frequency with which they are debunked demands a ready supply.
Pakistan, circa 1981, is one of their more pathetic projects


buckaroni
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

But, without conspiracies, where would Oily Taste be?


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:58 am

That is patently absurd. First of all, I din’t create any such thing. The Founding Fathers intentionally built in an additional safeguard as a qualification to be the Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief. Hardly reasonable.

The notion that being a natural born citizen is somehow a separate class of people is disingenuous at best. We are all citizens with equal protection under the law, but to ascend to the highest office in the land, a job that one person gets every 4 years, by popular election (not by hereditary fiat as you suggest), the Founding Fathers built in one additional unique safeguard – you must be a natural born citizen born of two citizen parents on US soil. There is nothing unreasonable about that especially given the modern job description of the President includes the key codes to a nuclear arsenal.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:00 am

And where do you get the 2-citizen parents from? As you said, it’s not anywhere written. Where is your interpretation coming from…the air?


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:03 pm

That is wrong. If you are born on this soil, you ARE a citizen, but not necessarily a Natural Born Citizen. If your parents have sworn their allegiance to another country, which is passed down to you, then you are at best, a dual citizen, at that time. But, at adulthood, you need to make a choice as to whom your allegiance is sworn to, considering some countries don't recognize dual citizendhip, like Indonesia or Kenya and the fact that he went to Pakistan in 1981, it's more than likely that he was on Indonesian passport, NOT an American one!

Show your passports Obamacorn!


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:04 am

Jim, I’m tired of the circular arguments. I prove one point definitively and you bring up a previously proven point in another area of this forum. Go read up for yourself. Stop being a follower and learn to think for yourself.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:04 pm

Hmmmm, GOOD NEWS!
Washington DC, here we come!

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:05 pm

Then what kind of citizen are you corny?


ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:06 pm

You know even less about the British monarchy than you do about American law. There have been *numerous* British military officers, including First Sea Lords and high ranking generals, who were not born in Britain or whose parents were not British. Most notable are the Mountbattens, who were German and changed their name from Battenberg due to anti-German sentiment during World War I. There have also been several British sovereigns who were not born in Britain, most notably George I and his son George II, both of whom were born in Hanover.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:06 pm

I dunno, but I hate it when I want to reply to someone and it doesn't go to the comment because it's 4 pages down.

Yo, upgrade this thing, would ya Wash. Ind!


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:07 am

Did I mention that you are easily the most sanctimonious Birfer I’ve heard from in days?


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:07 am

I know the paragraph you are referring to and although it is cited among the considerations the majority had in deliberating their final decision, the only relevant passage for the purpose of discussions is the final paragraph where Justice Grey declares Wong Kim Ark a citizen of the United States.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:08 am

Thanks for the endorsement.

Only I’m not a ‘birfer’ or birther in any way shape or form.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:08 am

Why are you tired of it? I’m sitting here reading KWA and all about how they came up with Natural Born Citizen. It is a wonderful history of British Common Law, which our government was formed after. Do you want the part that says your wrong?


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:09 pm

Some of us DO have to work, you know. We can't just sit around on the couch like you eating Doritos and expect Obama to just take care of us with free healthcare and unlimited unemployment benefits.

This country is going to SHIT!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:09 pm

FU NO E


ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:10 pm

Sorry, wrong. Go back to Hamburger University.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:11 am

Keep reading for the context. There is a passage where they point out that British common law while it certainly had an influence prior to ratification it serves no purpose as it pertains to the post-ratified Constitution or interpretations thereafter.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:12 am

Paragraph? Wow, you really don’t read anything but what agrees with what you think, do you? It goes on for many paragraphs. Discuses all the uses and conditions and precedences. Really, you should read rather than assume.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:13 am

Oh and you miht like to know that Justice Grey was appointed by Chester Arthur who lied about his fathers naturalization. For that reason and many others, Wong Kim Ark, though correct in its declaration of Wong Kim Ark as a citizen, remains a highly controversial decision, even amateurish in its approach to its final declaration.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:16 am

Jim,

It’s a fine read, but ultimately it’s not relevant to the decision as you will see at the end.

The majority punted on attempting to apply the term “natural born citizen” in Wong Kim Ark. There isn’t a legal scholar worth their reputation that would tell you otherwise pro-Obama or not.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:18 am

JBL, running out of space. Let’s Continue here. Your last:

“Oh and you might like to know that Justice Grey was appointed by Chester Arthur who lied about his fathers naturalization. For that reason and many others, Wong Kim Ark, though correct in its declaration of Wong Kim Ark as a citizen, remains a highly controversial decision, even amateurish in its approach to its final declaration.”

Sorry, wrong again. It was well known that Arthur’s father was not a citizen when Chester was born. In fact, it was well established. The only question was if he was born in Vermont or Canada. But, that’s what happens when you get your news from an ambulance-chasing lawyer’s site.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:19 pm

And where in Wong Kim Ark does it explicitly state that he was a “natural born citizen”?

THIS is the concluding statement to the Majority Opinion in Wong Kim Ark:

“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.”

Wong Kim Ark is a **citizen** of the United States by virtue of his birth here and not being a child of a diplomat, and having never renounced his allegiance to the United States.

THAT is what Wong Kim Ark decided and not the imagined or superimposed retro meaning that Obama and your ilk have attempted to attach to it.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:19 pm

“One of the finest of the Birthtards”
That's an absolutely precious turn of phrase LOL


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:21 pm

JBL, what kind of a citizen is Mr. Ark then?


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:22 am

So your saying that lawyers and Judges that use different parts of the opinion are wrong to do that, that they have no meaning? You obviously don’t practice law…I mean they’ve been using parts of Judicial opinions for over 200 years.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:24 am

What a bizarre statement to make. Chief Justice Roberts has/had an OBLIGATION to swear Obama in. It’s not like Roberts could decline to do so.

And what makes me uncomfortable, about what?! If you making some veiled reference to me somehow being uncomfortable because of the color of President Obama’s skin, then I’m offended to say the least. I resent your insinuation and I suggest you grow up.

My problem isn’t with the man, so much as the precedent that he is knowingly setting, and what it could lead to in the future. And in that regard I am uncomfortable with the notion of a guy like Rupert Murdoch, for example suddenly deciding that he wants to run for President. Was he born here? no, he wasn’t, but now that the first layer of security has been knocked down, it won’t be long before someone challenges the next layer. Wait and see.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:24 pm

Hmmm…Perhaps you are mistaken…
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/v…

“Bottom line: One of the 2009-2010 clerks for Judge Carter (Barnett/Keyes v Obama) is Siddharth Vijaykumar Velamoor previously of Perkins Coie = Robert Bauer = barry’s lawyer. Clerkships are set up months ahead of time. One comes on in August (Lindsay Lutz) and one in October (Velamoor).”

from link:
http://citizensagainstproobamamediabias.wordpre…

The oddest part of the whole thing — it appears he went to Mercer Island High School, where barry’s mom went. Somehow that seems too tidy. But again, there’s nothing nefarious I ran into. Maybe others have found something.

Other curiosities on Mercer Island – Velamoor not being a common name: A TRISHNA Velamoor also went to MIHS (younger sister?). And a SESH Velamoor (father?) hails from Hyderabad, India, lives on Mercer Island and works at Foundation for the Future as Trustee & Director of Programs.

AND another coincidence…During his 1981 trip to Pakistan, one of the thug-in-chief’s side trips was to… (drum roll, please)… … Hyderabad, India.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

“superimposed retro meaning”
christ, what a dolt.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:29 pm

Sorry, I don't see the contradiction.

Is there reason to believe that Velamoor was hired subsequent to Carter's being assigned the Barnett case?


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:30 am

But, his parental situation was know for many years. It wasn’t a secret. And, you would assume since you are so adamant, that the Chief Justice of SCOTUS would absolutely know that Obama wasn’t qualified. So, it would have been brought to congress’ attention long before the election. By uncomfortable I meant about Obama being qualified, nothing else needed to be read into it.


Ceejae
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:33 pm

He went on a US Passport you idiot that was issued in 1967. Here is your proof that Americans could travel to Pakistan in 1981 with their US Passports

NO. 81-33A

Travel Advisory
Passport Services/Bureau of Consular Affa[irs]
Department of State/Wahington. D.C. 205__

AUGUST 17, 1981

TRAVEL TO PAKISTAN

BEFORE TRAVELING TO PAKISTAN, AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE FOLLO[WING] UPDATED VISA REQUIREMENTS: 30 DAY VISAS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAKISTANI AIRPORTS [FOR] TOURISTS ONLY. AS THESE VISAS ARE RARELY EXTENDED BEYOND THE 30 DAY TIME PER[IOD,] TOURISTS PLANNING TO STAY LONGER SHOULD SECURE VISAS BEFORE COMING TO PAKIS[TAN.] ANY TRAVELER COMING INTO PAKISTAN OVERLAND FROM INDIA MUST REPEAT MUST HA[VE A] VALID VISA, AS 30 DAY VISAS ARE NOT REPEAT NOT ISSUED AT THE OVERLAND BOR[DER] CROSSING POINT AT WAGHA.

ANY NON-OFFICIAL AMERICAN WHO IS IN PAKISTAN FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS MUST REGIS[TER] WITH THE GOVERNMENT’S FOREIGNER REGISTRATION OFFICE. EXIT PERMITS ARE REQUI[RED] FOR THOSE WHO HAVE STAYED LONGER THAN 30 DAYS BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LE[AVE T]HE COUNTRY. ALL AMERICANS TRAVELING TO PAKISTAN ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS OR [FOR] PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A VISA BEFORE ARRIVAL, AND, AS [THE] GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN’S CLEARANCE PROCESS IS OFTEN QUITE LENGTHY, WE WOULD URGE TH[OSE] COMING TO APPLY AT THE NEAREST PAKISTANI EMBASSY OR CONSULATE AS FAR IN ADVA[NCE] OF THEIR SCHEDULED ARRIVAL AS POSSIBLE.

THIS SUPERSEDED REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN DEPARTMENT PUBLICATION M-264, ["VISA] REQUIREMENTS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.["]

EXPIRATION DATE: INDEFINITE.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:33 pm

Jim, your question is nonsensical.

You are either a citizen or you are not.

But some citizens are not “natural born citizens” as required by Article II, Section 1 to be eligible to serve as POTUS.


ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:33 pm

First, the President hasn't attached any meaning to this case, at least publicly (he may well have taught it when he was adjunct faculty).

Second, you are wrong. Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. So is the President. All the bloviation and obscure Swiss philosophes in the world won't change that.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:35 pm

ChrisJay, I'm a dolt?

Haven't you stated several times, like many of the other intellectual retards in this forum, that Wong Kim Ark was determined to be a “natural born citizen”, case closed?!

Am I somehow mistaken?


ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:35 pm

No, Jim's question is legitimate. You just said that Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen. What kind was he, then? There are only natural born and naturalized citizens under the law. If he wasn't natural born (despite being born in California), then what was he?


ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:36 pm

I think the Great Cornholio is a natural born citizen of McDonaldland.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:36 pm

So, what your saying is we fought a revolutionary war to get away from monarchy to create a different monarchy?


chrisjay
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:36 pm

Everybody should know that Corny has no E in it !


Mountain Jack
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:37 pm

You are so dumb. You have no chance relying upon Vattel. NONE.

“Plaintiffs presume that the words of Emmerich de Vattel, John Jay, and John Armor Bingham alone empower this Court to define the natural born citizen clause. The Complaint conveniently chooses to ignore Congress’ long history of defining citizenship, whether naturalized or by birth. See Charles Gordon, “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 7-22 (1968) (contrasting 150 years of active Congressional legislation against judicial restraint).” – Judge David Carter

U.S. Immigration Law CLEARLY states that only ONE parent need be a U.S. citizen in order for his/her child to become a natural born U.S. citizen by birth. Obama's mama was a born and raised native of Kansas, which was admitted into the Union as a state on January 21, 186. She was a U.S. citizen.

Since ONE parent is a U.S. citizen, the child automatically acquires U.S. citizen upon birth. Therefore, since President Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen, he acquired his U.S. citizenship via his mother. It's called citizenship by “Acquisition.”

Thus, even IF he was born in Kenya, Hawaii, or Krypton, he is STILL a natural born U.S. citizen, which citizenship passed from his mother to him.

You are like a pimple on an elephant's ass, trying to use Vattel over British common law. This book by a Swiss philosopher written in 1787, didn't have the term “natural born citizen” in it. Vattel believe that ONLY nobility should be allowed firearms.

And since Vattel also wrote that only the nobility should be allowed firearms, obviously the Framers weren't that enthralled with him. You guys are tripping if you think any court will not laugh you out again.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:40 pm

ellid, I'm pointing out what SCOTUS really held in Wong Kim Ark, which is in complete disharmony with what you and ChrisJay, Jim, MajorityWill and the rest of the lot have been repeatedly and erroneously stating all over this forum.

Wong Kim Ark is a citizen by virtue of his birth. It is no coincidence that Justice Horace Gray avoided employing the term “natural born citizen” in the concluding paragraph of the majority opinion.


Mountain Jack
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:40 pm

Who cares? Did anyone investigate his specialty? I did. Product liability. Another birther wet dream.


pgobrien
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:41 pm

That's just ridiculous. So a citizen at birth is not a “natural born” citizen? Hey, if the doctor used forceps, does that mean not “natural born”? How about Cesarean Section? What about in vitro fertilization? Um, induced delivery? What about being born on a US military base overseas? What if only one parent were a citizen and that parent died before the baby's born? What if the baby is born in a swimming pool? What if it's born feet first?
I'm having trouble thinking of things that might mean “not natural born” to someone whose BRAIN IS NOT ENGAGED!
A natural born citizen and a citizen at birth are the same thing. Go ahead and tell me it was “never decided.” Gad, it was “never decided” because it was “not in contention.” It was understood that a citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. Until now. When crazy people have decided to wonder what a perfectly rational phrase in American English means. Augh! My head hurts.
Maybe Barack Obama wasn't really born at ALL. Maybe he's a figment of our imagination. Maybe someone knew all the way back in the sixties that they were going to pass a fake black guy off as a candidate for US president, so they announced his birth in the newspapers even though he wasn't real. OH, NO, I know what … they didn't put that announcement in the paper because they knew back then … they discovered that announcement a few years ago and just used it! They decided to pass off this fake person as the real Barack Obama whose birth announcement they found. That must be why there's all this evidence that SOMEONE NAMED BARACK OBAMA was a real citizen back then. I wonder what they've done with that real guy? Some dungeon somewhere, do you think? Sure, that's the ticket. A dungeon. Prove it isn't so.
Gad.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:41 pm

You are insufferably pompous and you are a Birther:
that makes you imminently mockable;
deal with it


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:43 pm

Huh?

We don't have a monarchy, that would require a King or Queen. Over the last 100 years or so we have devolved into a virtual oligarchy, on the other hand . . . although we initially didn't set out to do so.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:44 pm

You're creating a separate class of citizenship. Then only allowing that royal class to ascend to the thrown. That is a monarchy. Doesn't matter what you call it then, you've got a ruling class and an underclass.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:47 pm

Ellid, you must be kidding right? I've linked the complete text of the Majority Opinion in Wong Kim Ark. You can read it for yourself. But the relevant passage to the issue we have been bloviating back and forth about is the one that I cut and paste word for word right from the Justice Grey's majority opinion, the final concluding paragraph that states that Wong Kim Ark is absolutely 100% a US citizen by virtue of his birth.

NOWHERE in that majority opinion of the final declaration is Wong Kim Ark stated to be a “natural born citizen”: NOWHERE.

What's that faint sound I hear? Oh look! Your House of Cards is crumbling.


Jim
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:50 pm

Did you happen to read the whole thing JBL? There is a wonderful section on natural born in there for you to enjoy. Instead of just taking the last paragraph, you should really try reading the whole thing…it would make you proud to see how our constitution is used to overcome bigotry.


JBL
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:50 pm

Whats the matter, can't debate me on the facts anymore?

Only intellectual lightweights resort to calling names when they run out of baseless facts to hurl.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:51 pm

He also thought the state should mandate and regulate religion. From book 1 chapter 12–

“In religious affairs a citizen has only a right to be free from compulsion, but can by no means claim that of openly doing what he pleases, without regard to the consequences it may produce on society.(52) The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority. If all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation, in her national capacity is doubtless obliged to serve and honour him (Prelim. § 5), And as this important duty is to be discharged by the nation in whatever manner she judges best, — to the nation it belongs to determine what religion she will follow, and what public worship she thinks proper to establish.”

Obviously Congress wasn't following his opinions.


ellid
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:52 pm

I'm not kidding. I am, however, going to bed.

Have fun in Frog Hollow, or wherever you live.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 30, 2009 @ 11:56 pm

A Birfer talking about baseless facts: now there's a subject you can sink your teeth in!


Mountain Jack
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:00 am

If you had any intellect it wouldn't do you any good anyway. You can't separate fact from fantasy. Vattel was a Swiss philosopher who didn't want the people to have firearms at all. Do you really think the Framers adhered to his philosophy over the country from which they came? Childish and stupid.


JBL
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:02 am

ChrisJay,

Did you not make a statement to the effect that Wong Kim Ark was declared a “natural born citizen” as many of your other fellow comrades?

It's OK, to admit you are wrong once in a while.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:03 am

The only definition of NBC that does not require any laws to be considered in determination of child’s citizenship is the one that includes birth in the country of citizen parents.


chrisjay
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:03 am

Shall we discuss your accusation that there is “illegal propaganda” occurring here?


chrisjay
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:05 am

You are confused. I never weighed in on Wong Kim Ark.
You're confused about a lot of things


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:06 am

Actually, you’ve got that wrong too. It wasn’t us who claimed it, it was Collins…the losing attorney. You see, even back then they understood what a natural born citizen was and they were bigots who didn’t want chinese-americans to be able to become president. Why do you ignore that fact?


Shisousha
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:22 am

Did you honestly decide to take some time to read the tread.

A reasonable person will always look at the general case and take time to understand the facts relating to that case. Then they will look a more specific cases if it is required. What is being discussed is the general case.

However, you have continued to look a specific case and attempt to try to make the facts support your position. The problem with this is that reasonable people will always look at the general case, and then let conspiracy theorist know where they are wrong.

This is a simple concept that you fail to understand.

Through the process of continual debunking of misinformation we have gotten a better understanding of the issues. This is what has happened, and you seemed to have missed it.

naturalizedcitizen it is over, you have lost.


Shisousha
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:30 am

A reasonable person would try to determine what the words meant within a historical context.

However, you have a more serious problem. You fail to realize that a lot has changed in the over 200 years, since the constitution has been enacted.

Please read this about dual citizenship.

http://www.consular.canada.usembassy.gov/dual_citizenship.asp

You continue to attempt to make the facts fit your opinion. Unfortunately, that is not how it works.


majyqman
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:39 am

It didn't have to. Because there's only two types of citizen. Natural Born, or Naturalized. This has been constantly pointed out to you, and your inability to parse that people never actually had to cater to a made up category just for you smack of delusion of the highest order.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:42 am

So how's the other side doing? Don't pick on us too much! LOL


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:50 am

Is this still more of birther misinformation or just a blatant lie. The ruling of the case is stated as above, it has been dismissed. One would have believed that you would be “soaking in your sorrow” after having yet another frivolous birther case being dismissed. Your disillusioned is so sever that you are will to actually believe something that is overtly false.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:51 am

In 1790 US Congress passed a law declaring the children born abroad of US citizen parents are “natural born citizens”.
That law was repealed in 1795 and such children were declared as citizens.

“Natural born citizen” phrase means that child has loyalty to only one country at birth. It is not necessary to examine any law to determine the citizenship of that child.

The only definition that fits this description is a child born in the country of citizen parents.
No law either US or foreign one is necessary to determine the citizenship at birth for such child.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:58 am

Naturalizedcitizen: “The only definition that fits this description is a child born in the country of citizen parents.”

Why is it the only definition that fits? Where does it state in the law or constitution that YOUR definition is the correct one? Or, are you just assuming and have nothing to back that up?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:58 am

Obots have talking points. When discussing the NBC issue – WKA is their bible.
Regardless of how many times you point out to them what was the issue resolved by WKA, they will come back and claimed that WKA is an NBC.


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:02 am

It seems the deep you go down the fugitive “rabbit hole,” the more things that you have to make up to support your disillusion “Stevie.” Anyways, it is kind of amusing watch your disillusion. We are waiting to read more of your writings. Too bad your writing will only relieve that you are having difficult grasping one simple fact that our president was born in Hawaii.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 6:08 am

Wrong.

According to your logic, I can quote Orly’s opinion as settled law.

Collins probably exaggerated the situation trying to influence the court by playing the prejudice card. His opinion has zero legal weight in courts.


wayoutwest
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:11 am

I think we are seeing how the birther mind works from Tracy's rant about Judge Carter's clerk.

This is how the wheels and gears in their heads grind out birther logic.

Judge Carter hires a clerk.

The clerk's father is from Hyderabad.

President Obama visited Hyderabad.

The President is a thug.

This must be true because the Thuggee cult started in Hyderabad.

How can you argue with this bear-trap logic.

Resistance is futile.

When they finally come to get Tracy, whomever he or she is, the little springs and gears will be spilling out onto the keyboard.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 6:12 am

I didn’t say anything about settled law. I said a brilliant attorney was arguing that if they gave citizenship to a chinese-american, that he could become president…even though his parents were not US citizens. Now, nowhere is that contested. Why? You like to plug in things, why don’t you think that was challenged? Maybe because it was true and a smart lawyer knows the laws better than you? Unless you’re some kind of legal or constitutional scholar, I would have to take that man’s opinion over yours.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:20 am

Hey, JBL, NaturalizedCitizen…how about we restart here. Unless you're through bending laws and making up stuff. If so, I may have a solution to your dilemma on how to get to the next step to get discovery. And, I'll bet it can even work…if there are enough of you.


Steve_X
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:54 am

Seeing as how both Judge Land AND Judge Carter smacked the birfers down harder than Ivan Drago beat down Apollo Creed in Rocky IV, that's probably a good idea. You may want to stay down for a while, just to be on the safe side..


Steve_X
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:55 am

In two words or less?

“Pathetically hilarious.”


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:59 am

That is the only description that fits the national security concern that framers had in mind when deciding the eligibility requirements for POTUS.

It is the only definition that ensures that person does not have dual loyalty at birth.

It is the only definition that does NOT NEED any LAW to determine which country can claim the child as its citizen.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:01 am

Judge Roberts did not have “standing” to question Obama (separation of powers).
I am sure if a case comes before the SCOTUS that he will speak out and let us know what his legal opinion is. Until that time you are just assuming things.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:05 am

And yet, you cannot point to anywhere that spells that out. You can only assume and speculate. But, why is your speculation any better than mine? I can speculate that it means born in the country and say that the only loyalty they have is to the place providing the protection…therefor natural born citizen of the country.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 7:19 am

He could have said it because of the following possibilities:
1. He believed it
2. He did not believe it but thought that tactic might be useful to sway the court towards his argument (that WKA not be declared as a citizen), even if he had to embellish his claims and play on prejudice towards a Chinese.

I do not know how good lawyer he was – but he lost that case.

Regardless of the whether assumption 1 or assumption 2 is true, it is just one man’s opinion – this opinion was not confirmed by a court’s decision.


Ceejae
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:19 am

You didn't read Judge Carter's ruling very carefully did you – this has already been dismissed in the District of Columbia court which is why Ms. Taitz re-filed in the Federal Court of California – and if she refiles – it will be dismissed again.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:20 am

But wait a minute, your whole assumption is that Obama can't be president because his father was Kenyan. Are you saying that it's a big secret? That, long before the election was held, Chief Justice Roberts knew the constitution that he swore to uphold could be breached and he'd of said nothing to anybody in congress? Wow, what kind of a vacuum do you live in?


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 7:24 am

He could have also said it for the best reason of all…it’s true. Note how you always leave the most obvious answer out of your list. But, that’s neither here nor there because all you’re left with is congress. Good luck on that, they think you all are nuts too. Goodnight.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:24 am

That's what I thought…we do aim to please!!!


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:31 am

Your definition of NBC allows the Congress to change the Constitution by changing the citizenship rules.
It does not make sense from national security standpoint – children of foreigners born in the USA have dual loyalty and are not suitable to command the US military.
Your definition could have been expressed in a simpler phrase: “born citizen” than the one used by Constitution.
My definition does not rely on speculation that person born in USA of foreign parents will be loyal to the USA only.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:36 am

But, you assume that they spoke the same way back then as we speak now. Back then, natural born citizen could just be their fancy way of saying the same thing as born citizen. Do you remember Shakespeare? Does anyone nowadays speak like that? So all you have are your assumptions, which do not make you correct.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:48 am

No, this is not my whole assumption. I think that Obama is not eligible because of two reasons:
1. Not born in the USA
2. His father was a foreigner.

One of the reasons used by Carter to dismiss Orly's case was separation of powers.
Looking at decisions made by numerous judges involved in eligibility cases – they are more interested in following the process than discovering the truth. In addition, they do not want to deal with a “hot potato” issue, unless they have to. I would not be surprised if Roberts was doing the same.
He will deal with the issue only if he has to – when there is a case in front of SCOTUS.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:04 am

Well, the separation of powers came up because Orly was having one of her snit fits and didn't get filed in time. And, that was tenuous for the candidates anyway since they weren't on enough ballots to have a chance to win.

1) yeah, now I remember. You like to call state officials liars and crooks with no proof. That, and twist words so hard they'd snap if they could. But, as Judge Carter said, American records are the best in the world. So, if you'd believe some forgeries over Hawaii, it just shows your agenda.

2) We have precedence on that…Arthur's dad wasn't a citizen when he was born. So, as you can see, this has not been a problem until now, when some with an agenda decided they didn't like Obama.

Judges, unfortunately for you, tend to prefer to follow the constitution and laws…not delusional rantings of a beach-blond communist (see hearing comments). The truth has been out there all along, you just don't like it.


RedGraham
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:07 am

Dr. Taitz response in part: Citizens seem to have no voice, they have no standing to bring any legal actions in face of any fraud. They only have standing to pay taxes and pay for the judges, clerks, congress and senate who never address any issues. They should have no concerns about an inhabitant of the White house sporting 39 social security numbers, some are the social security numbers of the deceased. How long will it take for those citizens to revolt? Washington Post has written that 8 out of 10 Americans know about this issue. According to AOL-it’s 85%. This number is growing. How long will those people be silent? 4,5 million marched on Washington DC on September the 12th. How many will march next time around, when so many loose their jobs (half a million jobs every month officially) and probably double that number unofficially. When they loose their homes at a rate higher then the rate during great depression. When they become numb from hatred against this fraudulent usurper in the White House, corrupt politicians and corrupt judges. Who will stop them?


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:11 am

Yawn…better question, when will Orly figure out how to be a lawyer?


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:19 am

1. I am just using common sense. When a person’s birth is reported in three different COUNTRIES, and the COLB image is posted on the friendly web page, I am suspicious.

It would cost Obama nothing to produce the long form birth certificate showing Kapiolani as birth hospital. After all, Obama friendly web sites (like snopes.com) have reported both Queens and Kapiolani as birth hospitals thus adding to the confusion. His sister was the source for Queens hospital birth.

No college documents are available to public.
DoH index data for certificate number shown on the “factcheck.org” is hidden from public.

Statements from Dr. Fukino that were designed to mislead the public. Legal opinion form AG Bennet (used by Fukino to issue press release in July 2009) is hidden from public. There are too many little things that make no sense for someone who claims Hawaiian (USA) birth.

All of the above and many other suspicious details about Obama’s birth could have been resolved in no time.

Honolulu Advertiser published the long form birth certificate for Nordyke twins several months ago. There was nothing in that document that would violate anybody’s privacy.
Kapiolani Hospital did not complain, neither did the attending physician. Obama could have done the same – there is no privacy protection issue here.

I am not aware of the fact that judge Carter had Obama’s birth certificate in hand. He is just speculating that COLB image posted on the web represents truthful information.
I have asked before and have to ask again: Can this be used as a precedent, all of us can now post documents on the web and ask government officials to take them as valid documents?

The point of comparing USA and foreign documents would be valid only in case that judge Carter had physical copies of both in his hand. In that case we could say that USA document trumps the foreign one.

2. Just because one usurper succeeded, does not mean that the Constitutional requirement has been changed. I would like to see the SCOTUS debate the issue and rule on it. It is time to make it crystal clear to everyone what the meaning of the eligibility rule is.

Orly is not a communist – she grew up in a communist country and is familiar with totalitarian regime’s court system.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:24 am

I am curious about the claim of 39 different SS numbers. According to the report from private investigator (which was submitted to judge Carter) there was only one SS# (a duplicate from CT) used by Obama?

Where did you get the number of 4.5 million marchers on Sept 12?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:47 am

Perhaps, but keep in mind that Shakespeare predates US Constitution by almost 200 years.

I think that the length of the Constitution, if today's Congress were to write it from scratch, would be an order of magnitude bigger than the existing one. Today's generation would be more likely to add extra words where not needed.

I doubt that framers of the Constitution put meaningless fluff into such an important part of the Constitution as eligibility for POTUS.

Phrase “born citizen” requires interpretation of citizenship laws, “natural born citizen” does not. It is not susceptible to changes in the law.
The only way to change the eligibility requirement is through the amendment process (sufficient number of states have to ratify it) not just a vote in Congress. This would also explain why the naturalization act from 1790 (defining children of US citizens born abroad as NBCs) was repealed just five years later. The 1790 law changed the eligibility requirement – thus violating the Constitution since proper process was not followed.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:56 am

She's been allowed to bring all those frivolous law suits. And her statement is illustrative of her level of honesty–for example her own investigator only confirmed one number that was actually used by Obama, and also said it's not uncommon for other numbers to become “associated” with a person for a variety of reasons. Yet she's back to claiming that he was “sporting 39 social security numbers.” Perfect example of the way she, and birftoons in general, like to twist the truth.

Then you've got even people like Lucas Smith and Larry Sinclair–not exactly Obama lovers–saying she asked them to lie in court. These are two people who would do just about anything to get Obama, so when they make accusations like that I tend to think there may be something to it. They certainly have no motivation to lie about Orly–quite the opposite.

When are the barfsquad going to start asking themselves why the only people on their side are all liar and scumbags of one sort or another? Why aren't there any credible people taking up their cause? How many lies do they have to buy into, only to be exposed later, before they stop believing everything they read on a birther blog?

I suspect the answer is there will never be an end to their insanity. That's one of the signs that it is in fact insanity. Only medication and years of therapy will bring burfoons back to reality… and that's assuming they were ever in touch with reality in the first place.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:28 am

What recourse do 3rd party candidates have when ineligible candidates from major parties are placed on the ballot? Secretary of state ignores the issue, Congress ignores the issue and courts dismiss cases for the lack of standing.
Who is protecting the rights of minority party candidates to participate in fair elections?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:31 am

Their rights were not infringed in any way. He was an eligible candidate, and even if he hadn't been that's not an infringement on their rights. They were able to participate. They never had a chance in hell of winning, with or without Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:39 am

I am asking you about the process to challenge eligibility of a major party candidate – not about your interpretation of past events.


mystylplx
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:42 am

They could probably file cases prior to the election to prevent his (or her) inclusion on the ballots. They could certainly publicize any evidence they had proving him (or her) to be ineligible.


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:23 am

The third party candidates have a big problem, they just didn't run in enough states “even to hope that they could gain the requisite 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency or Vice-Presidency of the United States (page 14)” Thus, they have not been harmed. You should honestly take some time to read the ruling.


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:31 am

Why would you use Orly Taitz as a reference. We all know that they botched the case. Every mistake that she made is in the ruling. This include encouraging supports to attempt to pressure the courts. Trying to get witnesses to lie. Not correctly filling out the her legal documents. And, the list goes on.

However, all citizens have a voice. They had a voice during the election.

Orly Taitz has exposed herself as a person who is willing to distort the facts for her “political gain.”

As many birther continue in their deception we will consider what you have provided as just another deception.

It is over, actually it was over the day Obama released his birth certificate.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:47 am

Lets talk about hypothetical 3rd party candidate who runs in all 50 states. What process would this candidate use to question the eligibility of Bobby Jindal who is a GOP nominee?


mystylplx
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:17 am

Jindal is a natural born citizen. Try a different example.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

Show me the US passport, THEN I will believe you!


Mountain Jack
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:47 am

4.5 million shot out of Orly's mouth. What a nut.

Why would anybody accumulate multiple social security numbers? What possible advantage would somebody like Obama, with a high public profile, gain from collecting social security numbers? Is he going around applying for loans, telling bank officers that, oh no, he's not THAT Barack Obama, he's a different Barack Obama? This particular bit of Birther lore is so unfathomably nuts that it, alone, should tell anybody who's paying attention that the movement is guided entirely by wingnuts.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:51 am

The time to address that issue is BEFORE an election, not after.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:53 am

Furthermore, as a “third” party, this implies that there are TWO other parties.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:59 am

There are ample means available to challenge the viability of any candidate BEFORE an election. People do it all the time.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:02 am

I think that Orly believes that anyone with the last name “Obama” is actually one of Barack's phony aliases for getting a SS number.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:06 am

“Washington Post has written that 8 out of 10 Americans know about this issue. According to AOL-it’s 85%.”

At least 9 out of 10 Americans know about Santa Claus as well.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:11 am

yeah, there is a black hole after about 200. Sometimes everything is over on one side of the page and half there also.

Also, my other computer does not handle pages with scribd.com embeds in it well. If needs an upgrade.


majyqman
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

Seriously… what is it like?

This fantasy world, where whatever the crap you want to make up “is” reality to you no matter how many times it’s comprehensively debunked?

I imagine it must make day to day interactions with people who are not batshit insane difficult…


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:22 am

Last right, redcommie. Just keep singing this song and urging your Queen Bee to file her useless lawsuits.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6s8C2DvfGo

Your numbers are off. While 8 out of 10 people 'know' about this issue, 8 out of .0004 disagree with you. As fars the numbers you claim that marched on 912, that number is ridiculously large. They showed photos of the march compared to that of when Obama's inauguration day and you might have had about 15,000 people.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:23 am

That's one of the things that birthtards can't get through their heads. The issue was raised BEFORE the election and resolved.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:26 am

More like 15,000 marchers. As far as the social security numbers, believe it or not, there are other men named Barack Obama. Whoa! They're all just grasping for straws and making up lies and it makes it that much more fun when they're shot down in court.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:32 am

Hmmm, BigGuy…SMALL MIND!
The chips are soo stacked against you guys.
More and more you can see, that this is all tied together!

To many things, point to YOU ALL BEING WRONG!


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:37 am

From a OT Birthtard mind – copied from Oily Taste's website. Quite amusing to read their thoughts and the responses from Orly – the MASTER ATTORNEY.

Rick Stone Submitted on 2009/10/30 at 9:41pm

I think that some got to the Judge Carter thru threats, bribes or blackmail. The people behind the people that put Obama in office simply don’t want the truth to get out. They are very serious about protecting their investment and will do anything to that end.

I am very angry…

Submitted on 2009/10/30 at 8:15pm

Then you mean to tell me that Judge Carter does not care that he is eligible. We have had presidents ousted before and lived through it. It is going to be much harder to live through the kings reign than to elect another president. I think that if a judge is not going to uphold the law of the land and the constitution he should be impeached. I would think more kindly of him if he would just resign. I am very angry over this dismissal. We have a right to know the truth.

ju.bailey@comcast.net

Judith Bailey

Answer

I think that being defrauded by a judge is the most hurtful part of it . I could’ve appealed his refusal to grant me default judgement, this case could’ve been in the 9th circuit court of Appeals on July 13. We wasted three and a half months, Obama has caused so much damage to the Nation during that time. I relied on Carter’s promise to hear the case on the merits. Please see the transcript. I stated that I am not obligated to serve US attorney, as I sued Obama as an individual for fraud that he committed as an individual. I said that I am concerned that if I serve US attorney, they will play games and will try to have the case dismissed on a technicality, on jurisdiction. In Court Carter assured me that it will not happen, that there is jurisdiction here and the case will be heard on the merits. He ended up shamelessly lying to me, to 50 people present in court, to all the military plaintiffs, to the whole country, as he ended up dismissing it 3 and a half months later specifically on the lack of jurisdiction and attacked me. You really expect some integrity from a judge, particularly a district court judge. I have no words to describe my anger, my disgust, my outrage. What is the point of going to court? Keep in mind, appeals can last years. Circuit court of appeals has no requirement to provide a resolution within any specific period of time. If this regime wants to kill the case, they can simply sit on it indefinitely in the court of appeals, Obama can finish 2 terms before they move and do anything. So, what do you do, when your government, your congress and your judiciary defraud you and, to add insult to injury, they assassinate your good character and threaten you as Land did? What do you do when the country does not have free press, when the country does not have a system of Justice? What do you do? Where do you go from there?

——–

What Orly is really stating in her response is that she is a really bad attorney. She should have appealed the denial for default judgement so they would be in the 9th Circuit of Appeals and have their case dismissed there as well. Until this woman is disbarred, it's going to be entertaining.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

Again, that is YOUR assumption. You have no basis in fact. And, as I have continually stated, your opinion is not law. And that is why Obama is a natural born citizen and legally our president.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:44 pm

Oh yeah, real proof there. You going to call his sister as a witness to an event that happened before she was born?


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:23 am

Orly's song sung to the tune of Daughtery's (It's Not Over)

Orly's Song (Sung to the tune of It's Not over)

I was blown away
What could I say
It just didn't make any sense
You've taken away everything,
And I can't deal with that,
I try to make the facts in life
But my facts in life are hard to find
They'll blow 'em away, blow them away,
Well, I'll try to do it right next time around.

Let's sue over,
I'll try to do it right this time around.
Let's sue over,
'Cause part of my brain is dead and in the ground
This prez is killing me
But he's the only one,
It's not over.

Taken all I could take,
And I can not wait
We've wasted too much time
Being wrong, holding on.
To the lies that I have said.
My lies with you mean everything,
so I won't give up that easily,
They'll blow me away, blow me away,
Can I make this something good?
'Cuz I'm always misunderstood
We'll, I'll try to do it right this time around.

Let's start over.
I'll try to do it righ this time around.
It's not over.
'Cause part of my brain is dead and in the ground
This Prez is killing me
And he's the only one.
It's not over.


BigGuy
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:32 pm

Great answer. It makes it perfectly clear just how rational and well-informed you are.


Shisousha
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:32 pm

That was 1790 and this is 2009. What has happened between then and now. You seemed to have ignored the point of Antibirther. Why don’t you just go around telling women that they can’t vote because of a law from 1790 or earlier. That is what akin to what you have done. Honestly, I can think of a more illogical example for your position.


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:37 am

Hypothetical. That is what you entire position has been a hypothesis, but it has been utter void of facts. You can't bring a lawsuit based on a hypothesis. I would assume that even you would understand this simple fact.


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:18 am

Orly Taitz is an incompetent lawyer. Having Ms. Taitz explain her actions in front of the California Bar Association, should be enough to have her end her actions. What Ms. Taitz seem to not understand is that there is a difference between a criminal and a civil case. She consistently believes that she is part of a criminal case from reading he comments. Orly Taitz doesn't realize that no criminal activity is suspected. Also, She nor any of her clients have any legal standing. However, what makes her strange is her conspiracy just doesn't make any sence and seem to become more complicated as time passes.


Mountain Jack
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:08 pm

I DEMAND that Orly Taitz release the following documents:

1. The LONG FORM certificate proving she was born somewhere on Planet Earth.

2. The LONG FORM certification of her US citizenship.

3. The LONG FORM certification of her sanity.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:45 pm

It was, there were numerous lawsuits, and courts did not want to get involved.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:47 pm

Third party in this context = Not Dems and Not GOP but a minority party.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

Describe it.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

There is obviously a disagreement.
What would the process look like for minority party candidate to challenge the eligibility of a major party candidate to be placed on the ballot?


BigGuy
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

They “did not want to get involved”?

I bet they gave some reasons for not getting involved, and I bet those reasons involved the facts and the laws.

Don't you think?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:53 pm

Obots are slow today.

Just describe the process regardless of what the name of the candidates are. A minority party candidate wants to challenge the eligibility of a major party candidate. What is the proper process for doing it?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 12:58 pm

Now you are lying by reducing the number by an order of magnitude.

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads…
Once the picture uploads you can magnify it for better view.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:01 pm

Could you explain Obama's use of single SS# previously assigned to somebody in CT?

Why does a person (who claims that he was born in the USA) have a fraudulent SS#?


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

Well, here’s how it is defined by the US Government:

Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen.

• Anyone born inside the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which exempts the child of a diplomat from this provision

• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe

• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:17 pm

I recommend you read Judge Carter's opinion. He gave you a wonderful roadmap…but first you have to become a viable candidate. So, before the next election, you need to gather up all the blowers and get enough signatures to get on the ballot in enough states so that you could conceivably get 270 electoral votes. Then, when you ask the court and Obama shows his Hawaii BC, you can feel better.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:18 pm

Really, NC, instead of assuming all the time, like you do, and only getting your information from WND and Orly, you might try reading actual legal opinions.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

Can you prove he used that SS#? No? It was just a computer search with no proof he ever used it? Isn't that amazing, he needs to prove a non-fact, and yet when presented with true facts, you ignore them because it doesn't fit your needs.


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

Hey everybody. I just downloaded Google Chrome and all the problems I was having with firefox have disappeared. If you're frustrated with your browsers, give it a try.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 6:35 pm

Well, let’s see what US Code says:

Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen.

• Anyone born inside the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which exempts the child of a diplomat from this provision

• Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe

• Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

• Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year

• Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

• Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

Looks like the first one covers anyone born on US soil. So, does that carry enough legal weight for you, or do you still not believe in US laws?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

Birther movement leader Orly Taitz is planning a protest in New York City this weekend against a television personality who refuses to air her insane conspiracy theories — Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.
The protest is set to take place on Veterans Day, November 11th outside FOX headquarters in Midtown.
O'Reilly dismissed the birthers in July, saying he had investigated and settled the issue.
“That theory has been around for a while. The Factor investigated, found out it's bogus. But Mr. Dobbs is still engaged…

Again, we found out that President Obama was born in Hawaii.. we were sent the documents. And what are you gonna do? I don't know why it's still around…”
The host later called the birthers “stupid.”

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/orly-t…

Oily Taintz's paranoid plans for 11/11 is a disgrace and dishonorable to all U.S. veterans.

Birfers are disgusting traitors.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:43 pm

LOL ! ! The shortest long forms ever.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

Yes, it is sad.

More proof of her paranoid delusions filled with unsubstantiated claims, lies and outright stupidity.

It won't be long now before she is sanctioned again and then disbarred.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:06 pm

One of the birfers' biggest problems is that these brain damaged blowers and bigots think there is some magic legal formula to retroactively apply and thereby oust a legally and democratically elected President who has proven sufficiently to be a natural born citizen of the U.S. meeting the necessary requirements of the Constitution.

Sane people know better. And arrogant, petulant Oily is just setting herself up to be a martyr. More sanctions must be imminent.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

“We have had presidents ousted before and lived through it.”

Eh?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

I think it's funny that you think you can make demands while calling people slow.

Who the fuck are you? Is that you Sewer Mouth Sewell or is it Nance-y boy?

Describe this, birthtard.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:13 pm

Where's the credible evidence?

Anyone could claim you're an incestuous pedophile and since you think it's o.k. to make baseless claims, it must be true.

Explain that, idiot birfoon.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:32 pm

And what type of controls were used? What kind of verification of the data happened? What were the follow-up steps to make sure that the program they were using was accessing correct data. Who verified the accuracy of her conclusions? A signed affidavit is not proof, just ask the gentleman who signed one in Georgia claiming the AG was in Georgia when he was in California.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:33 pm

Don't try to inject you stinking facts and laws into the the issue. The issue is not about fact and laws, it's about the damned n*****r in the white house.

;)
{/sarcasm}


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:53 pm

Where is the long form birth certificate. Has anubody examined the physical document (other than Obama bots)?


Steve_X
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 3:55 pm

My guess is that she was referring to either Andrew Johnson or Richard Nixon. In any event, I would hardly call the Constitutional process of impeachment an “ouster.” Of course, I'm not a completely incompetent batshit-crazy loon that has no grasp on established law or procedure.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

Just like the other affidavit’s Orly asked witnesses to sign and commit perjury in court?

The affidavit that Obama foe Larry Sinclair claims to have filed in a California court, in which he accuses birther Orly Taitz of trying to get him to lie on the stand, is available right here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19784205/090915-LWS-Affidavit-Reducedpx

How embarrassing when the Queen of Birferstan can’t get lowlife, liar Larry to commit perjury for her.

You STILL are incapable of understanding the meaning of credible evidence. I’ll even sign an affidavit swearing it.

Idiot.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

Hmmmmm
Kool
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/c…


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

Why yes, nice of you to ask. State officials, including the Governor, have examined the records and have announced that Obama was born in Hawaii. And even better, these officials are Republican and in no way associated with Obama…why do you ask?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:09 pm

Thanks, Tracey. Your head doesn’t have a brain it either. Do you keep your Stormfront brochures in there?


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:13 pm

YOU are the traitors, giving our country away and trampling all over the Constitution!

Oh and defacing the flag…How disgraceful
This is a fucking FINALIST!
Hellooooo, WAKE UP!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY1g0jwWM24


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:15 pm

“Of course, when you keep in mind that all of the members of the opposition have the combined IQ of an odor eater, it starts to make more sense.”

At least Odor Eaters have a useful purpose.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:23 pm

Hmmm…my head doesn’t have a brain it either?????….really?
And yours DOES?

lolol


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:23 pm

Citing anonymous, fright wing blogs is desperate and pathetic, TracEy.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

Private Licensed Investigator SIGNED an affidavit that was submitted to the court.
Are you saying that it is impossible to verify SS#, a person used throughout his/hers life?

All those credit card, bank, mortgage applications contain a field called SS#. How do credit rating agencies do their job if they cannot obtain SS# associated with credit applications?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

New set of knee pads, Tracey?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:34 pm

What you are is a fucking hypocrite and whiny freak for dishing out insults but crying foul when they are hurled back at you.

Where’s your proof posters are paid by the government?

Put or STFU, birthtard.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:40 pm

Hmmmmm . . . posting anonymous birfer blogs is pathetic and meaningless. Poor trailer trash Tracey.

Case and idiot birfers dismissed.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:43 pm

Governor Lingle has not examined the records (at least I have not read any reports that she did).

Dr. Fukino never connected original birth certificate and Hawaiian birth.

Where is Obama's equivalent of Nordyke twins birth certificate?
You cannot show something that does not exist.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:44 pm

Walter and Leonore Annenberg were Obama supporters? That's like saying Reagan was a liberal Democrat.

Are you truly that stupid or just a paranoid liar? I'm guessing all of the above.

Carefully parse the words, birthtard.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:47 pm

And John Kerry is spending Heintz money. What is your point, again?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:47 pm

Blah, blah. blah. You're still a delusional, paranoid, pathological liar deserving of derision.

You've offered no credible proof that our President is not a nutaral born U.S. citizen. Your paranoid ramblings are irrelevant.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:49 pm

You really are a blithering idiot if you can't figure that out. It's like arguing with a drunken toddler spewing non-sequiturs.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:51 pm

I see that you do not want to address a single question. If you are only interested in mud slinging and insults say so, I do not want to waste my time with you.


Guest
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:52 pm

Exactly. Being on the ballot in California, Florida and Colorado, as Alan Keyes was, gives you at most 91 electors. That wasn’t Obama’s fault. Keyes tried for the Republican nomination, lost. Tried for the Constitution Party nomination, lost. Then formed his own party. Not the best strategy for becoming President, and none of it is Obama’s fault.

But the birfers won’t read Judge Carter’s opinion because they just “know” he is wrong and there can’t be anything to learn from his reasoning.


Guest
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:52 pm

Exactly. Being on the ballot in California, Florida and Colorado, as Alan Keyes was, gives you at most 91 electors. That wasn’t Obama’s fault. Keyes tried for the Republican nomination, lost. Tried for the Constitution Party nomination, lost. Then formed his own party. Not the best strategy for becoming President, and none of it is Obama’s fault.

But the birfers won’t read Judge Carter’s opinion because they just “know” he is wrong and there can’t be anything to learn from his reasoning.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

Actually, it's been YOU who refuse to answer questions. Every time we answer and prove you wrong, you just ignore it like it never happened. Why is that NC? What are you hiding? Why are you refusing to answer us?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

“I do not want to waste my time with you.”

Thank the Lord of Birthtards for granting small favors.

What are you hiding?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

You are slow – do I need to draw it for you?
Heintz was a Republican senator . Upon his death his widow inherited it – and John Kerry married Republican Senator's money.

The same is true with Obots using Annenberg money. Money is being used to support a different political view than those who earned the money wanted.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

“I am just using common sense.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ! ! ! ! !

No, you’re an idiot with more spare time than common sense.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:04 pm

“I am just using common sense.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ! ! ! ! !

No, you’re an idiot with more spare time than common sense.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:04 pm

It might be considered cruel to tease such a deranged fool. Then again, birthtard blowers keep begging for it. S & M?

What are they hiding?


BigGuy
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:05 pm

Leonore Annenberg actively chaired the Annenberg Foundation until her death in March of this year. She was in charge all during the election.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:08 pm

Identity thieves like you aren’t entitled to view private records.

If you think privacy laws are silly, post your SSN and home address.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:08 pm

Identity thieves like you aren’t entitled to view private records.

If you think privacy laws are silly, post your SSN and home address.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

Poor, little Tracey.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

Go up this thread – I answered your question directly. Gov Lingle did not publicly say that she examined Obama's birth records.
Do you have any links to support your claim?

I also mentioned that Dr. Fukino's statements have been designed to obfuscate the truth. She is giving US public a typical run around.

A simple statement – combination of her October 2008 and July 2009 press releases should have looked like this:

“I Dr. Fukino (director of Hawaii DoH) have examined Obama's original birth certificate and verified that he was born in Hawaii.”


Guest
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:12 pm

Absolutely right. The clerk was probably offered the position at least a year ago.

In addition, Perkins Coie is an international, 700-lawyer firm. Mr. Velamoor worked as a product liability attorney in the Seattle office, whereas Bob Bauer works in the Washington, D.C. office. Unlikely they have ever worked together.

And the notion that a law clerk, who has been in the office a few weeks, is going to influence an experienced federal judge on a high-profile case — laughable.

Finally, it is interesting how the birfers substitute their conspiracy theories for any actual critique of Judge Carter’s reasoning.


Guest
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:12 pm

Absolutely right. The clerk was probably offered the position at least a year ago.

In addition, Perkins Coie is an international, 700-lawyer firm. Mr. Velamoor worked as a product liability attorney in the Seattle office, whereas Bob Bauer works in the Washington, D.C. office. Unlikely they have ever worked together.

And the notion that a law clerk, who has been in the office a few weeks, is going to influence an experienced federal judge on a high-profile case — laughable.

Finally, it is interesting how the birfers substitute their conspiracy theories for any actual critique of Judge Carter’s reasoning.


Guest
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:14 pm

Ooooh! Good News!!!

Birfer dope springs eternal.


Guest
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:14 pm

Ooooh! Good News!!!

Birfer dope springs eternal.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

So what you're saying, NC, is that because Dr. Fukino didn't realize how stupid you blowers were the first time, and had to make a second statement to further clarify, that what she said is suspect? And who made you the grand-poobah of official statements?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:17 pm

Insults like this, you fucking hypocrite?

“Obots are slow today.”

What are you hiding?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:21 pm

You're wrong, a liar, possess zero credibility while incapable of comprehending simple concepts, paranoid and a vile, pathetic traitor.

You're not contributing anything but delusional, irrelevant, erroneous opinion.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

“I’m somebody who can attempt to discuss issues without using insults . . .” – JBL

“Haven’t you stated several times, like many of the other intellectual retards in this forum . . .” – JBL

Thanks for proving you’re a liar and hypocrite but then you had no credibility to lose.


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

You mean, poor little USA…


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:25 pm

NOPE…


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

Then you must be an intellectual lightweight.

Your words:
“like many of the other intellectual retards in this forum”

Go look up hypocrisy.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

Then you must be an intellectual lightweight.

Your words:
“like many of the other intellectual retards in this forum”

Go look up hypocrisy.


bearclaw
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:32 pm

Your reasoning is circular, NC. You define as an “Obama bot” anyone who says the Certificate of Live Birth is genuine, even based on physical examination (factcheck.org examined the document firsthand). Then you ask, “Has anyone other than an Obama bot examined the physical document?” Under your definition, the answer is “no.” Everyone who has physically examined it says it is genuine, therefore, they are all by your definition “Obama bots.” Just like any judge who rules against you is crooked, stupid, a traitor, bought.

Where is the certified birth record from Kenya?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:36 pm

No, Tracey. We know reading is not your strong suit.

And citing YouTube is a real trailer trash move.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:37 pm

Now you’re blathering on about nicks, “JBL”?

Isn’t that nick-picking?

Pun intended.

Where’s your proof posters are paid? You made accusations you can’t back up. Pretty cowardly.

It also figures that the concept of majority will is above your pointy head.

What are you hiding?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:37 pm

Now you’re blathering on about nicks, “JBL”?

Isn’t that nick-picking?

Pun intended.

Where’s your proof posters are paid? You made accusations you can’t back up. Pretty cowardly.

It also figures that the concept of majority will is above your pointy head.

What are you hiding?


bearclaw
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

85% know about this issue. 84.9% think you birthtards are barking-at-the-moon crazy.

Haven't you moved to Somalia yet?


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

Annenberg's are Obama supporters???

THE CHICAGO ANNENBERG CHALLENGE (CAC) was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001 that worked with half of Chicago's public schools and was funded by a $49.2 million, 2-to-1 matching challenge grant over five years from the Annenberg Foundation.

The three co-authors of Chicago's winning Annenberg Challenge $49.2 million grant proposal were:
1.William Ayers…hmmmm
2.Anne Hallett
3.Warren Chapman

Barack Obama was a founding board member and a final board member, when it was shut down!

CHAIRMAN Obama & Chairman Ayers:
http://www.muckety.com/Chicago-Annenberg-Challe…

Obama's other ties to FRAUD with Annenberg:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/van…


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:43 pm

Factcheck.org…you mean upobama's ass.org!


ObamacornLies
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

Right here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/BoycottCentral#p/u/…


bearclaw
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

Another “OMG!” moment. OMG! Orly actually is accusing Judge Carter of defrauding her (and it hurt her feelings, poor thing). She actually believed that Judge Carter had promised her that the case would go to trial. That is stupidity of epic proportions.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:47 pm

I understood your paranoid blather, dumbass. Your “proof” is any unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that soothes your incredibly painful cognitive dissonance. You “parse” official statements claiming non-existent meanings.

Your bullshit is still a non-sequitur unless you're going start connecting the dots of your delusions to everything imaginable as long as it fits into your narrow fantasy world. Pareidolia isn't real, John Nash.

“Obots using Annenberg money” is more of your paranoid, unsubstantiated bullshit.

“Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”
- U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:48 pm

“Call names if you wish, it’s your credibility that takes the hit, not mine.”

Hypocrite, but you never had any credibility.

Your words:
“Haven’t you stated several times, like many of the other intellectual retards in this forum . . .”

“And I can man up and admit when I’ve been in error.”
Once. And only when your cognitive dissonance isn’t throwing you into fits of agony.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:48 pm

“Call names if you wish, it’s your credibility that takes the hit, not mine.”

Hypocrite, but you never had any credibility.

Your words:
“Haven’t you stated several times, like many of the other intellectual retards in this forum . . .”

“And I can man up and admit when I’ve been in error.”
Once. And only when your cognitive dissonance isn’t throwing you into fits of agony.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:49 pm

So, Orly thinks the Judge made a promise that would give cause for the defense to ask for (and most likely receive) a mistrial? What on-line school did she go to. I'm going to make sure never to do any kind of business with any graduate of THAT diploma-mill.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:50 pm

Hypocrite, but you never had any credibility.

Your words:
“Haven’t you stated several times, like many of the other intellectual retards in this forum . . .”


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:50 pm

Hypocrite, but you never had any credibility.

Your words:
“Haven’t you stated several times, like many of the other intellectual retards in this forum . . .”


Doubtful
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

And yet Leonore Annenberg supported McCain for President.

If FactCheck had uncovered the fraud, McCain would have been a shoo-in.

How odd that she would support McCain but keep her mouth shut as the election was being stolen from him! (Come to think of it, McCain kept his mouth shut too.)


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

“And whats worse is, some of those name callers in this forum are likely on the government payroll. I refuse to be talked down to and belittled by people who may be illegally participating in a propaganda campaign.”

Where’s your proof? What are you hiding?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:52 pm

“And whats worse is, some of those name callers in this forum are likely on the government payroll. I refuse to be talked down to and belittled by people who may be illegally participating in a propaganda campaign.”

Where’s your proof? What are you hiding?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:54 pm

Look up Walter and Lenore Annenberg, dipshit.

You're confused again. And repeating birfer lies doesn't make them magically true, Tracey.

“FactCheck.org, which is nonpartisan, also receives funding from the Annenberg Foundation. But we are in no way connected to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which finished its work long before we came into being in late 2003.”


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:56 pm

Big talk?

“And whats worse is, some of those name callers in this forum are likely on the government payroll. I refuse to be talked down to and belittled by people who may be illegally participating in a propaganda campaign.”

Where’s your proof? Pretty insulting and cowardly.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:56 pm

Big talk?

“And whats worse is, some of those name callers in this forum are likely on the government payroll. I refuse to be talked down to and belittled by people who may be illegally participating in a propaganda campaign.”

Where’s your proof? Pretty insulting and cowardly.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

“FactCheck.org, which is nonpartisan, also receives funding from the Annenberg Foundation. But we are in no way connected to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which finished its work long before we came into being in late 2003.”

Don't let facts bite you on that fat ass, Trailer Trash Tracey.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 6:01 pm

Oily received her law degree from Taft Law School which “specializes in 'distance learning law programs to qualified students around the world'”, and is not accredited by the American Bar Association. In 2002, she passed the bar exam in California. She obtained a real estate broker's license from the State of California that expired in February 2008.
During her residence in Israel, Taitz completed a dentistry degree at Hebrew University.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 6:07 pm

Ok, here's my next question, Will. Did she get her dentistry degree first or second? In other words, Did she become a lawyer because she was going broke from being sued, or did she become a dentist to create work for her as a lawyer?


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 6:15 pm

You know, NC, I was thinking about it. You may be right and she should have said what you thought. However, I don't think any state official can anticipate how truly challenged some people are. So, I was wondering, could Hawaii send an official to come and test you to see how much they need to dumb down their statements?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

We cannot trust a partisan site like “factcheck.org” to be objective. In addition, Leo Donofrio proved that their claim of Obama's Kenyan citizenship expiration in 1982 was incorrect. They do sloppy work – how many other errors did they make?

1. How do we know that several images (posted on factchek.org) showing COLB details come from the same document?

2. Did factcheck.org do any cross reference check with DoH? For example did the verify that certification number on COLB matches Obama's name in DoH index data? How abut filing date listed on the document? Do they have any confirmation from DoH that this is genuine date?

3. Did they ask DoH if a COLB was issued in June, 2007? This could prove if the COLB was issued by DoH or not?

4. Why does Obama's “fightthesmears.com” still covers the registration number? How do we know that it is the same document as shown on “factcheck.org”?

5. Kenyan birth certificate submitted by Luka Smith was submitted to Carter. Nobody would signed an affidavit regarding Obama's COLB.
I wonder how Carter could determine that an imaginary US document trumps the physical document from another country with a signed affidavit of its authenticity?


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

The enforcement of Constitutional eligibility hinges on the assumption that minority party candidate be registered on the ballot in sufficient number of states?

This is a typical run around that you would get in a communist state where government bureaucrats and judges could point to another office as the next step in you complaint process.

Judge Carter’s “roadmap” is worthless. He is just kicking the can down the road. There is no guarantee that his suggestion would be accepted by any court.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:25 pm

The enforcement of Constitutional eligibility hinges on the assumption that minority party candidate be registered on the ballot in sufficient number of states?

This is a typical run around that you would get in a communist state where government bureaucrats and judges could point to another office as the next step in you complaint process.

Judge Carter’s “roadmap” is worthless. He is just kicking the can down the road. There is no guarantee that his suggestion would be accepted by any court.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

Really? So you DON’T have the 12.5 million followers you claim? Because, if you did have what you claimed you’d be able to accomplish it easily. Besides, you still don’t understand anything about our constitution and laws. I bet you could start collecting signatures today.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

Really? So you DON’T have the 12.5 million followers you claim? Because, if you did have what you claimed you’d be able to accomplish it easily. Besides, you still don’t understand anything about our constitution and laws. I bet you could start collecting signatures today.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 6:32 pm

I will be happy to answer each and every question…when you PROVE the state of Hawaii was lying when they said Obama was born there. Until then, you are only conjecturing.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 6:44 pm

Please read her 2008 statement with the same parsing mind you use to read my posts.
It is clearly designed to mislead people into thinking that she verified Obama's Hawaiian birth.
It is sad that ordinary citizens have to parse government offical's statements to figure out what they said.

80% of her statement is totally unnecessary – fluff.

July 2009 statement is more dancing around the issue. In that one she confirms Hawaiian birth but mentions vital records not the original birth certificate.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:54 pm

I am sure Obama would have standing to quash any signature lists as he did in 1996. LOL.


Anonymous
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:54 pm

I am sure Obama would have standing to quash any signature lists as he did in 1996. LOL.


Shisousha
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:58 pm

Please read. It is hard to understand what you wrote has to do with the facts. Even Keyes even won all the electoral votes in the states he ran in he wouldn’t become president. It is simple math. With the top three have 55,34 and 31 the sum isn’t even half of 270.

You continue to be deceptive. Do honestly believe that people wouldn’t research anything that you wrote.

Your argument is a kin to a person losing the Governorship of California wanting to challenge the Governor of New York. You just don’t understand this simple fact.


Shisousha
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:58 pm

Please read. It is hard to understand what you wrote has to do with the facts. Even Keyes even won all the electoral votes in the states he ran in he wouldn’t become president. It is simple math. With the top three have 55,34 and 31 the sum isn’t even half of 270.

You continue to be deceptive. Do honestly believe that people wouldn’t research anything that you wrote.

Your argument is a kin to a person losing the Governorship of California wanting to challenge the Governor of New York. You just don’t understand this simple fact.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 6:58 pm

If you search the civil database under “taitz” you will find all of hers and her husband's cases going back 15 years.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

Nixon wasn't impeached, he resigned on his own.


Antibirther
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 7:04 pm

Check this out.

I was looking at Orly's civil case history and I decided to look into her criminal case files.

It seems she got a speeding ticket back on October 12 for driving faster than 100 MPH.

Batship out of hell crazy as well

http://visionweb.occourts.org/Vision_Public/Dis…


majyqman
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:12 am

Wow, just wow.

Do you even know what you just did?

You told someone off for lying due to a order of magnitude.

Yet you blindly follow someone who would do the same!

Incidentally, the estimated crowd size from the fire department was 60,000.

So the poster here was out by a factor of 4, and Oily Taste out by a factor of… hrm… SEVENTY FIVE.

Almost two full orders of magnitude.

I know facts and figures and such wont pierce your delirium… but I hope they penetrate just far enough to make you twitch a little.


majyqman
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:12 am

Wow, just wow.

Do you even know what you just did?

You told someone off for lying due to a order of magnitude.

Yet you blindly follow someone who would do the same!

Incidentally, the estimated crowd size from the fire department was 60,000.

So the poster here was out by a factor of 4, and Oily Taste out by a factor of… hrm… SEVENTY FIVE.

Almost two full orders of magnitude.

I know facts and figures and such wont pierce your delirium… but I hope they penetrate just far enough to make you twitch a little.


msdaisy
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

It absolutely defies logic that these birthtards continue to think that they are “on to the truth”, and continue to think that every judge that smacks them down is a traitor or has been bought off or bullied by brown shirts.

Every one of the lawsuits that they have brought trying to remove President Obama has been slapped down and the reason is not because the judges are corrupt, it’s because the Birthers are dumb as a box of rocks. It has to be because they just cannot fathom a black man sitting in the White House. They can’t come right out and say they don’t want that Ni#$%r running this country so they “invent” all sorts of BS and claim it as fact.

They have never presented one scrap of actual evidence on any claim they have made, and the reason for that is because they don’t have any! They have never gotten past the he said she said line of shit that proves nothing.

Well, Judge Land slapped Taitz w/20K, Carter has now kicked her ass to the curb just as we all said he would. And the bottom line is every thing else they take to court will also be thrown out just like the rest of the garbage they’ve spouted has, at least until their little birthtard queen gets disbarred for complete incompetence.

In the meantime they are nothing more than a comedy sideshow. And the funny thing about that is that they are too stupid to even realize it!


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

NC: “80% of her statement is totally unnecessary – fluff.”

Where have you been living? Read statements from all over the country. That's how governments talk, are you really that stupid?


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:35 am

We’ve never had a President “ousted.” Several have failed to be re-elected, Nixon resigned, and Andrew Johnson and Will Clinton were impeached but not convicted. This statement makes no sense.


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:35 am

We’ve never had a President “ousted.” Several have failed to be re-elected, Nixon resigned, and Andrew Johnson and Will Clinton were impeached but not convicted. This statement makes no sense.


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:38 am

I do not blindly follow anyone.

I challenged the first claim of 4.5M as well as the claim of 15,000.

Did you look at the picture?
I do not need anybody to tell me that the crowd was much bigger than 60,000. I have watched the time-lapse video of the march down the Pennsylvania avenue. Only a person with an agenda can claim that just 60,000 people attended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwoCJjH4gwQ&feature=related


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:38 am

I do not blindly follow anyone.

I challenged the first claim of 4.5M as well as the claim of 15,000.

Did you look at the picture?
I do not need anybody to tell me that the crowd was much bigger than 60,000. I have watched the time-lapse video of the march down the Pennsylvania avenue. Only a person with an agenda can claim that just 60,000 people attended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwoCJjH4gwQ&feature=related


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:38 am

Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Lousiana. Since he is a natural born citizen, why would a third party candidate challenge his eligibility to run for President?


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:38 am

Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Lousiana. Since he is a natural born citizen, why would a third party candidate challenge his eligibility to run for President?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

We have been through this discussion. T
he sate of Hawaii = Dr. Fukino's misleading statements.
Did she or anybody else from the State of Hawaii confirm that COLB posted on factcheck.org was indeed issued by DoH on June 7, 2007?


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:41 am

Official estimates, photographs, plus testimony by people who were at the teabagger rally pretty much all concur that there were, at most, 70,000 participants. They were rude to transit workers, left their ugly, racist signs tossed beside the overflowing trash baskets, and generally left a mess on the Mall.

The pictures of the huge rally that appeared on-line were from a Promise Keepers rally in 1997. Sorry.


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:41 am

Official estimates, photographs, plus testimony by people who were at the teabagger rally pretty much all concur that there were, at most, 70,000 participants. They were rude to transit workers, left their ugly, racist signs tossed beside the overflowing trash baskets, and generally left a mess on the Mall.

The pictures of the huge rally that appeared on-line were from a Promise Keepers rally in 1997. Sorry.


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 7:43 pm

The birther movement is now part of our culture and will not be going any where soon. They will continue to pollute the internet with misinformation and propaganda. That is all they have going for them.

The funny thing is that they have made claims in the week leading up to the dismissal that were suspicion, and were found out to be lies.

They lack credibility. They will never and should never be believed.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 7:46 pm

But, as far as I know, only you, Orly, and WND, along with their bloggers, claim the statement is misleading. How come a vast majority of people believe it is straight forward and can't believe they even HAD to release a second statement. Does every governmental statement have to go through you to make sure they are dumbed down enough? Do you realize that all you're doing is making yourself and your movement look dumber than the Beverly Hillbillys?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

This is an example of a report by a “serious independent organization” called factcheck.org:
“…We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.”

LOL.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

Oh, yeah, you lost all seriousness a loooooooong time ago. Now you're just the butt of jokes. Haven't we been obvious to you about that? Or, like Hawaii, do we have to spell it out in direct, small words so you can understand?


MN_independent
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 7:58 pm

I agree. It's the same old, white, southern we want our country back” teabagger crowd we saw this past summer and that we watched last fall at the Palin rallies in the run-up to the 2008 election.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:01 pm

Why don't you use the same parsing mind than you show on this blog and apply it to Fukino's statements?

Then get back and tell me where she claims that the original birth certificate (on file with DoH, according to state regulations,…) confirms Obama's Hawaiian birth.

There are only two statements to analyze – it is not that hard.


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

Why are you calling CaptianSteve Tracy? Or, are they one of the same. Could Tracy be NationalizeCitizen.


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:07 am

Open your eyes and see it for youself.
Two links I provided are from the Sept 12, 2009 protest.

You can claim whatever you want, those pictures tell that the number of people who attended the protest was under reported by the main stream media.

I will leave it to your imagination what would have been a media estimate, had this been a pro-Obama rally.


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:07 am

Open your eyes and see it for youself.
Two links I provided are from the Sept 12, 2009 protest.

You can claim whatever you want, those pictures tell that the number of people who attended the protest was under reported by the main stream media.

I will leave it to your imagination what would have been a media estimate, had this been a pro-Obama rally.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:08 pm

It is amazing that Obama allows such a distraction to his agenda.
The birthplace issue could be resolved in no time by providing the same type of document that Eleonor Nordyke gave to Honolulu Adveriser: Long form birth certificate for a baby born in Kapiolani Hospital.

I know, I know, it is such a difficult requirement. LOL.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:11 pm

And yet, you continue to make it difficult. You keep showing that Jethro was the smart one in your family.


AlCum
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:11 pm

It's online. For nearly two years.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

Your link is not showing any data just a blank form.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:12 pm

Obama does not need to break any law. He could authorize the release of the original document – there is nothing in that document that warrants hiding behind a phony privacy protection issue.

I did not hear that anybody protested publishing of Nordyke twins documents. Neither hospital not attending physician cared about it.

What is so special about Obama's long form birth certificate?


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:13 pm

Kool? Interesting? No. Kool? Misinformation? Yes. Honestly, the case has been dismissed. We know that you birthers will be around for much longer. However, you continue to lie, distort the facts, and spread misinformation.

The Nile is a river in Egypt. The sooner you learn this the quicker you can leave the rabbit hole.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:15 pm

So tell me, do you expect the President to go around the country and show a BC to over 300,000,000 people? How would he do that to your satisfaction?


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:17 pm

Honestly, the president doesn't care. That is the reason that he has lawyers working on this issue. You nationalizedcitizen specifically and the birther movement generally have continue to prove yourselves as being dishonest. Who in their right mind would prove you with any information. A simple authenticated birth certificate should have ended this, but it hasn't for birthers. Reasonable people just view you guys as nuts. However, there are other who feel it is important to challenge your misinformation.

So, you must be Tracy. The person everyone is talking about.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:18 pm

Yeah, Kerry married her because he fell in love. LOL.


AlCum
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:19 pm

Wow, you're really crazy. No, I mean *really.* You need to get out more.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:19 pm

Very special and unmedicated. The perseveration of birfer mental cases like NC is a sign.

Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

It must be hard, to be so cynical and paranoid. How do you function in everyday life when you see conspiracies everywhere?


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

It must be hard, to be so cynical and paranoid. How do you function in everyday life when you see conspiracies everywhere?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:21 pm

Send it to judge Carter, let it be entered as an official court document – then everybody can see it.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:21 pm

“a phony privacy protection issue.”

Then post your SSN, home address and phone number, dumbass.

Put or STFU, birthtard.

Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:23 pm

There's no need because there is no legal issue. Your delusional, paranoid lunacy is irrelevant.

Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:26 pm

Your feeble attempt at logic is specious, fallacious and thoroughly irrelevant.

Nothing satisfies a conspiracy lunatic. It's the nature of your diseased, paranoid mind.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:27 pm

You're really putting down a box of rocks. They're dumber than a sack of dog mess with credit going to Whoopi Goldberg for calling Glen Beck one.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

Take one point from my post and prove me wrong. Can you?


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:28 pm

As I stated before the president doesn't care about the concerns of people like you. Your disillusion is over Tracy.


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

No, he didn’t. To protect their respective fortunes, they did what most rich people when they marry: they signed a prenuptial agreement keeping their assets separate.

Also, whether the marriage was a love match or not, Kerry didn’t need it. His family is wealth in its own right, with a pedigree stretching back to the 1630s. The idea that he’d need to marry a rich widow to fund his campaigns is ludicrous.


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

No, he didn’t. To protect their respective fortunes, they did what most rich people when they marry: they signed a prenuptial agreement keeping their assets separate.

Also, whether the marriage was a love match or not, Kerry didn’t need it. His family is wealth in its own right, with a pedigree stretching back to the 1630s. The idea that he’d need to marry a rich widow to fund his campaigns is ludicrous.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:29 pm

The majority of America doesn't care.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:29 pm

Your delusional, erroneous opinion is irrelevant.

Dumbass.

Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:30 pm

Specious bullshit and irrelevant.

Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where's the proof only a mental case would demand?


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:31 am

Sorry, but I’ll stick with the DC parks estimate, which was 70,000, as well as the live-time coverage.


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:31 am

Sorry, but I’ll stick with the DC parks estimate, which was 70,000, as well as the live-time coverage.


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:31 pm

Why would the president trust conspiracy theorists. He is using his lawyers to protect himself from crazy people like you, and any reasonable person would do the same. Honestly, who would give a con man a government document or even a chance to look at it. Just give it up it is over.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:31 pm

Judge Carter neither asked for it or wanted it. Besides, blowers are already claiming he's corrupt. It won't satisfy anyone on your side. So now, how would he do it?


ellid
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

I hate to tell you this, but John Kerry is a member of one of the oldest, wealthiest extended families in the United States, the Forbes family of Massachusetts. He had a multimillion dollar fortune of his own long before he married Teresa Heinz, who did NOT inherit either the Heinz fortune or the ketchup company. The majority of her first husband's money went to their children, as did controlling ownership of Heinz Foods.

Idiot.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:32 pm

Of course, naturallycrazy didn't do a search using her name so nothing show up. Typical birthtard intelligence.

10 traffic tickets AND she pleads not guilty. Not much of an attorney. You would think she'd know to at least plead no contest cuz you know they're going to convict her. Each case she was found guilty.


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

I am sorry to say that you are being to nice to birthers like naturalizedcitizen, or birthers in general.


MN_independent
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:33 pm

You're fooling only yourself. It may be a distraction to YOU, but has certainly not been any distraction from Obama's agenda and moving forward.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:36 pm

Well, the same old thing going on here. The birthtards asking the same stupid questions and the logical ones just making good sense comments and keeping them in their place.


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:37 am

I think Captain Steve is Sam Sewell. He has a birfer dysentery site that spreads the lies of wnd.com.

Borderraven is Gerry Nance and a lunatic hiding his racism behind the Constitution.

Tracey (with an E because it pisses her off) is a hick with more spare time the common sense and two years of college. Pretty sure she failed out of clown college and is a waitress/hostess at a place catering too fellow Stormfront bigots.

They do generate multiple nicks. More pathetic, desperation from the lunatic fringe.

They spew the same debunked nonsense ad nauseam.

It’s as if they’re expecting a different result each time – a sure sign of insanity.


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:37 am

I think Captain Steve is Sam Sewell. He has a birfer dysentery site that spreads the lies of wnd.com.

Borderraven is Gerry Nance and a lunatic hiding his racism behind the Constitution.

Tracey (with an E because it pisses her off) is a hick with more spare time the common sense and two years of college. Pretty sure she failed out of clown college and is a waitress/hostess at a place catering too fellow Stormfront bigots.

They do generate multiple nicks. More pathetic, desperation from the lunatic fringe.

They spew the same debunked nonsense ad nauseam.

It’s as if they’re expecting a different result each time – a sure sign of insanity.


Anteni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:37 pm

Birthers like naturalizedcitizen are more concerned with filling in holes in there arguments, than defending them against the facts.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

Personally, I'm glad it bothers birthtards so much. They're the only ones that are distracted. I seriously doubt the president thinks too much about what's going on in their screwed up minds.


AlCum
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:38 pm

I can prove ALL of them wrong. You haven't said anything yet that is right. You are simply an obsessed loon. Like I said, take some deep breaths, get over it and go outside for some fresh air.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:41 pm

Why bother? You're an irrational, perseverating lunatic.

Here's a word you also know little about:

irrelevant
adjective
the judge ruled that the victim's use of drugs was irrelevant: beside the point, immaterial, not pertinent, not germane, off the subject, unconnected, unrelated, peripheral, extraneous, inapposite, inapplicable; unimportant, inconsequential, insignificant, trivial; formal impertinent.


Shisousha
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:42 am

It is always good to get another person perception on a issue. Especially, when they make a clear distinction between facts and opinion. More information is always good. Thank you.


Shisousha
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:42 am

It is always good to get another person perception on a issue. Especially, when they make a clear distinction between facts and opinion. More information is always good. Thank you.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:42 pm

Where is the simple authenticated birth certificate? The one similar to Nordyke twins?


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

That's ridiculous. It's just a flag that was painted. Not a real flag.

Birthtards are the biggest traitors to this country. I say round them up and put them into FEMA camps. At least, then at least something they say would be made true.


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:48 am

You’re welcome and no problem. And I wouldn’t be so derisive to birfers if they didn’t spew such illogical and irrelevant crap ad nauseam without the slightest understanding of or respect for U.S. law.

Point in case of birfer lunacy? James Von Brunn, the alleged Holocaust Museum murderer is a birfer.


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:48 am

You’re welcome and no problem. And I wouldn’t be so derisive to birfers if they didn’t spew such illogical and irrelevant crap ad nauseam without the slightest understanding of or respect for U.S. law.

Point in case of birfer lunacy? James Von Brunn, the alleged Holocaust Museum murderer is a birfer.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

He must be very busy sitting on the request from the general running the war in Afghanistan. Several months ago, additional troop reinforcements have been asked for – and the “undecider-in-chief” is still debating the request, while troops are getting killed.

Either send the reinforcements requested by the general or get the hell out of there if you do not plan to win the war.


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:53 am

Who the fuck are you again, mouth breather?

LOL, indeed.


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:53 am

Who the fuck are you again, mouth breather?

LOL, indeed.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

I am not running for the office of the president of the USA. If I were – the long form birth certificate would be available to public for inspection.

The long form birth certificate does not contain any new data about Obama (it should not if he is telling the truth).
It will only confirm what he has been saying all along, will it not?


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 8:58 pm

By law, you don't get to see it. Why do you think you're so special that someone should break the law for you?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

This is reallly a BIG problem. How to release the information to the public?

You got me there. LOL.


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 2:06 am

Dentistry then online law degree valid only in CA.

• Born in Soviet-controlled Moldova in 1962. Married with three sons.

• Immigrated to Israel in 1981.

• Earned her degree in dentistry from Hebrew University. However, Hebrew Univ. does not have a record of her on their alumni list. There are allegations of multiple unresolved dental malpractice suits.

• Emigrated from Israel to the U.S. in 1987 after marrying her husband, Yosef, a software engineer. There is no record of her immigration, arrival in the U.S. or naturalization, although records for those events are publicly available for the years from her birth through present day.

• Earned her law degree via a distance-learning program from William Howard Taft University.

• In 2002, she passed the bar exam in California.

• Practices as a dentist in Laguna Niguel, Calif. currently.

• Claims to hold a second-degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do.

• There is no record of her in the list of California Registered voters. A person not registered to vote is trying to usurp the choice of the voters.


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 2:06 am

Dentistry then online law degree valid only in CA.

• Born in Soviet-controlled Moldova in 1962. Married with three sons.

• Immigrated to Israel in 1981.

• Earned her degree in dentistry from Hebrew University. However, Hebrew Univ. does not have a record of her on their alumni list. There are allegations of multiple unresolved dental malpractice suits.

• Emigrated from Israel to the U.S. in 1987 after marrying her husband, Yosef, a software engineer. There is no record of her immigration, arrival in the U.S. or naturalization, although records for those events are publicly available for the years from her birth through present day.

• Earned her law degree via a distance-learning program from William Howard Taft University.

• In 2002, she passed the bar exam in California.

• Practices as a dentist in Laguna Niguel, Calif. currently.

• Claims to hold a second-degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do.

• There is no record of her in the list of California Registered voters. A person not registered to vote is trying to usurp the choice of the voters.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:06 pm

I cannot wrestle with a pig and expect to win. I would get muddy and the pig will enjoy it.


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:07 pm

Really, because what I would do is invite an independent news or non-political organization in and show it to them. Allow them to take as many pictures as they like, then post it on the web where any interested party could look at or download it. Makes sense doesn't it?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:07 pm

You are bailing out of attempt to prove one of my points wrong. Just one?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:08 pm

Care to provide a link to Obama's long form birth certificate?


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:12 pm

BWAHAHAHAHA…you'll accept a link to the “long form” BC, but then what? You claim the short form that is the legal document can't be real because it is only on the web. Why is it any better for the long form? Why the difference?


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:20 pm

NC. Do us all a favor a drink a couple of gallons of antifreeze. You're endless, stupid, repetitious questions make you look like the retard that you are and, well.. it's boring.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

I guess you didn't read Judge Carter's opinion that he believes that the records here in the United States are better than those of other countries AND he believes that the people that handle them are good, honest people. He doesn't have to see it. Nor do I and YOU DON'T EITHER.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:24 pm

They already had the Governor of Hawaii look at his BC. What the f' more do you want? Oh, I know. You want to overthrow the government because this is really what it is all about.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

Orly is a lying piece of dog mess.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:27 pm

Citing anything from Sean Hannity is true trailer trash.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:35 pm

What this is really all about. The birthtards are all extreme right wing christian nuts. On Orly's website, one of her supporters writes that they all need to concentrate on electing Republicans. What they fail to see is where Republicans brought this country to prior to Obama being elected. Clinton left office with a balanced budget and Bush and the Republican controlled Congress spent us into oblivion. One legitimate war that wasn't funded or fought properly and one unjust war based on lies. Something else they fail to see is that the way they want government run is far worse than what they perceive the government today. They approve of Bush tearing up the Constitution and allowing all sorts of illegal activities like un-warranted wire tapping and holding people without charges. They want us all to adhere to their values and their way of life. Any religion that isn't like theirs is wrong. People who don't want religion are wrong. They want to control our thoughts. The way I see it, the extreme far right wing of the Republican party are no better than the 'hard liners' that used to control Russia. That's where Orly gets her ideas and that's how she's used to living life. She wants to bring that kind of 'rule' to America.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:40 pm

F U. They have numerous ex-military commanders on the news that say that Obama is doing the right thing. And may I retort with this? Why did Bush and Cheney NEVER give them the troops they asked for. Almost 8 f'n years the commanders in Afghanistan asked for more troops and nothing was done.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:53 pm

I don't think that 300,000,000 people want to see the BC. Only the birthtards and their numbers are SO LOW, who gives a sh*t. They're all traitors and the ones in the military that refuse to deploy should be court martialed and sent to Leavenworth for 10 years of hard labor.


buckaroni
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:56 pm

POOR LITTLE BIRTHTARDS.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 10:57 pm

1. Eleanor Nordyke is a stupid, stupid woman for posting her daughters BCs online.

2. Her daughters should be furious with her for exposing them to the dangers of identity thieves like you.

3. The fact that a stupid old woman still has her daughter's original Birth Certificates has nothing to do with the unrelated fact that Obama does not have his, and was issued a legal copy per Hawaiian law at the time.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:04 pm

Your reasoning is specious and irrelevant. You keep making up nonsensical hypothetical crap in a feeble attempt to justify your stupidity.

You said privacy laws were phony. Prove it by posting your SSN, home address and phone number.

“I am not running for the office of the president of the USA.” Obvious and irrelevant. Put or shut up, coward.

“If I were – the long form birth certificate would be available to public for inspection. “

Bullshit and meaningless, hypothetical drivel. Put up or shut up, coward.


Majority Will
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:06 pm

NICE ! !


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 3:09 am

Or the fright wing queen, Glen Blech.


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 3:09 am

Or the fright wing queen, Glen Blech.


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 3:11 am

Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where’s the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where’s the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where’s the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where’s the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where’s the proof only a mental case would demand?

Stupid birfer.


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 3:11 am

Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where’s the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where’s the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where’s the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where’s the proof only a mental case would demand?
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
Where’s the proof only a mental case would demand?

Stupid birfer.


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 3:16 am

I know you’ve got a room temperature number IQ so read this slowly or get your mommy to help.

It’s pointless because you’re a sophist and a lunatic. And not even clever enough to disguise your illness.


Majority Will
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 3:16 am

I know you’ve got a room temperature number IQ so read this slowly or get your mommy to help.

It’s pointless because you’re a sophist and a lunatic. And not even clever enough to disguise your illness.


AlCum
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:39 pm

No, not necessary. The COLB is completely sufficient for this purpose. Your insistence on seeing the original in the Hawaiian records is a red herring. By definition, the COLB's information necessarily matches. Case closed.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:42 pm

I know that there is no such link that is why I challenged him to provide it.

I mentioned nothing about accepting such link as a proof of Obama's birthplace. The actual physical document would have to be verified of course.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:45 pm

Your keyboard is stuck – or is it a brain stutter?


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:45 pm

So how would Obama show a physical document to over 300,000,000 people?


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:47 pm

Um, NC, I don't know how to say this, but he's using a famous line from a famous movie. Do you ever get out of that basement and see the real world? If so, can you guess the movie?


Jim
Comment posted October 31, 2009 @ 11:53 pm

Sorry, let me restate that. How would you verify the physical document?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:02 am

1. I have tried this question with many Obama supporters and none is willing to answer it:
What is it on the long form birth certificate that is protected by privacy laws?
Is it the name of the hospital or name of the attending physician?
The long form BC should not contain any new piece of information that has not been previously disclosed to the public. It would just group all of those elements together.

2. In 1961, Hawaii rules for obtaining birth certificate were quite loose. One could register a birth by simply providing an affidavit from a relative. The COLB in such case would not be a proof of Hawaiian birth. It would only mean that a claim has been made about somebody's Hawaiian birth. When in doubt – need to verify the facts: particularly when dealing with a person exhibiting the pattern of lying to the public.

Where is the long form BC?


majyqman
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:15 am

Heh, you pathetic sack of crap that calls themselves human.

Do you know “when” the Bush administration “got around” to assessing the situation in Afghanistan?

Fall 2008.

Get that through your thick fucking skull.

Seven whole fucking years. As they were getting shown the door.

But Cheney goes on the pretty picture tube and snarls something about dithering from his duplicitous face and you disengage your brain (do you? or is it never engaged?) and attack the current president for not being as foolhardy or as intellectually short changed as the previous commander in chief.

You. Are. Pathetic.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:20 am

There are standard procedures in courts for document verification.

I would even accept an electronic image, if it was published on the official government web site, and the manual describing the process of handling birth certificates was also published.
The DoH would have to stop their misleading of the public and provide truthful answers in the spirit of UIPA law.


Jim
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:21 am

!) You are a complete fool. The whole BC is protected, why must you continue to parse what is obvious? If you don't like the law, get it changed. Don't complain about people obeying the law. That's what they were hired to do.

2) That is total BS. And, you can't prove it isn't. Why is it you must post BS to get around the law? What is wrong with our laws and constitution that you don't want to live under them anymore?


Jim
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:24 am

Do you know what those standard procedures are? Can you tell me what would be the best way to authenticate a BC?


BigGuy
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:26 am

Oh, good, glad to know what you would accept.

So what should we do, find out what each individual would accept and follow all 300,000,000 procedures?

Fortunately, our legal system provides a simple answer: Ask a judge to make a ruling on what documents need to be produced.

And a judge made just such a ruling. Sorry you didn't like it, but that's America. We all follow the same legal system.


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 4:27 am

I said, all of them are wrong. You are remarkable in that you don’t get anything right.

“We cannot trust a partisan site like “factcheck.org” to be objective.”

factcheck.org is not a partisan site.


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 4:27 am

I said, all of them are wrong. You are remarkable in that you don’t get anything right.

“We cannot trust a partisan site like “factcheck.org” to be objective.”

factcheck.org is not a partisan site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:40 am

Somebody is going to steal Obama's identity? That is the reason for not releasing the long form birth certificate to public? LOL

Hawaii DoH has the original document, Obama can authorize the release of this document any time he wants.

The trouble is: Obama's version of Nordyke twins' certificates (indicating Kapiolani as birth hospital) does not exist.


AlCum
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:43 am

1. It isn't that there is stuff *on* the long form certificate that is protected by privacy laws. The certificate itself — and the short form COLB — are all protected by privacy laws. One must have a tangible interest in the record to obtain it. This is true of yours and mine.

It doesn't matter that there is more info on the long form — doctor or hospital or weight or length. Since the Constitution doesn't set up birth in a hospital or delivery by a doctor as an eligibility requirement, the inquiry ends with the COLB — Obama being the only POTUS ever to actually so prove his eligibility, incidentally.

2. No they weren't. Obama's BC is not an affidavit registration. The state required proof of location of birth. Obama does not have a “pattern of lying to the public.”

The long form BC would be in Hawaii's files. You don't get to see it. There is no reason to see it.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:46 am

What is the registration number on your brown shirt?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 12:58 am

In sunny California we do not need antifreeze for our cars.

If my posts are boring – do yourself a favor and ignore me.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:08 am

Are you talking about these good and honest people that handle birth certificate documents:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande…

Please send this to judge Carter – hopefully he reconsiders his position of accepting images posted on the web (a site friendly to the party involved in court case), as proof of anything.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


Jim
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

Why don't you send it to Judge Carter? Or, does it mean absolutely nothing so you know better?


Jim
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

Why don't you send it to Judge Carter? Or, does it mean absolutely nothing so you know better?


Jim
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

Why don't you send it to Judge Carter? Or, does it mean absolutely nothing so you know better?


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:29 am

Keep on saying that enough times. Click your heals twice and you will be back in Kansas.

We have heard your nonsense enough times and have constantly debunked them, but you seem more content to hold on your preexisting condition.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:32 am

Why are you obsessed with the Nordyke twins birth certificate. This issues has absolutely nothing to do with the Nordyke twins. If you really want to see the Nordyke twins contact them, and they will be happy to show you it. Well, if I am wrong and they don't, that is your tough luck. Don't take it to personally.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

It is a simple search for him to do, but he refuses. Honestly, it takes on a second to find it. However, he has to deal it the truth surround the document. This is something he is avoid.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Did anybody stop Eleonor Nordyke to publish long form BC for her children?

Nobody is preventing Obama to do the same.
I understand that DoH will not release the original document without Obama's authorization.
However, they must release the index data. The DoH is currently stalling on requests for index data related to the registration number shown on factchek.org as Obama's registration number.

When it is convenient to Obama, courts enforce the “standing” issue, on the other hand the DoH is willing to violate the UIPA law to protect Obama.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:36 am

One point I need to add. “right wing christian nuts” are doing a lot of damage to America. Specifically, relating to education and health issues. There is nothing new about birthards, but they have found something new to get fixated with.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:39 am

Send a police investigator to Hawaii DoH and let him/her compare the data on file with DoH with the data stored in Kapiolani hospital archive.

It would take one day max. to do such investigation.
Then publish report on a government web site.


Anonymous
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 6:10 am

Hawaii Gov. never looked at the Obama’s original birth certificate.
Care to provide any links to such story?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:13 am

You have not been following this issue for a long time.

Public has already seen the long form birth certificate belonging to Nordyke twins. Their documents were published by Honolulu Advertiser several months ago.

Nordyke twins were born on August 5, 1961 in the Kapiolani hospital in Honolulu – just one day after Obama.
The significance of their birth certificates is twofold:

1. We know how the Obama's long form birth certificate is supposed to look like.

2. Their registration numbers 10637 and 10638 indicate that Obama's registration number (published on factcheck.org as 10641) is out of sequence.

Obama was born day earlier than Nordyke twins and his registration number is higher. It does not make sense that a baby born day earlier in the same hospital would be registered later in the hospital registrar.
This indicates that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital as he claims.

Now you can understand why “Majority Will” is upset with Eleonor Nordyke – who gave the copies of BC documents to Honolulu Advertiser. It would be much more convenient for Obama and Obots if the truth never comes out.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

The reason is: Obama doesn't need to authorize the release of this document as there is no legal reason to do so. The COLB was an accepted document. If it wasn't, he wouldn't be president right now.

Move along.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:20 am

I would trust the COLB if it was presented officially to a judge, and not posted on the friendly web site.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


CauldronBorn
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Was the long form REQUIRED for all presidential candidates? If not, then why should it be NOW for Obama?

There is no legal standing for him to provide the long form and it is a protected document. As I understand, it's considered a protected document in just about every state.


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


naturalizedcitizen
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:21 am

Bush and Cheney removed the ruthless dictator from power. What is Obama's plan? To vote “Present” like in old days in State Senate in Illinois!?


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you scare away moderates or other reasonable right wing voters. I know there are some intellectuals left, but it is time for them to vote the “birthards” of the island.


Anteni
Comment posted November 1, 2009 @ 1:26 am

The problem with the GOP is that they seem to want to pander with the “extreme right wing … nuts.” This has alienated the independent voters. “Extreme right wing … nuts” are never going to vote Democratic. However, what the “birthtard” movement has proven is “birthtard” is what you have left when you sc