Sean Hannity Winks at the Birthers

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by daveweigel and Leslie Finnegan Conn, WashIndependent. WashIndependent said: Sean Hannity Winks at the Birthers http://bit.ly/8fF1c0 [...]

Orly's got her panties all wet because of this. She acutally thinks that she could get Fox News to sign on as one of her clients.

“It was asked by places like WorldNetDaily, who I think were just doing due diligence,”

Hannity uses the past tense a lot in this exchange, leaving himself open to claiming that he meant that the questions were legitimate once upon a time, before they were answered.

In which case: he's dead wrong to credit WorldNetDaily. Jim Geraghty suggested on June 9, 2008 that Obama share his birth certificate. On June 12, 2008, Obama did just that. In August 2008, the Obama campaign had FactCheck visit and handle and photograph the birth certificate.

During this time, WND's coverage of Obama's birth certificate was rather muted. As in, slightly more than one article a month. Only in mid-October 2008 did they start to become birther-central. And Joseph Farah didn't write his first column about Obama's birth certificate until November 17, 2008, two weeks after the election. He started his “petition” and his fund-drives about the same time.

The issue wasn't settled due to WorldNetDaily's actions. It had been long since settled by the time WND took up the cause.

Yet more CYA combined with $oros water carrying from Weigel.

The only people who claim to have seen the actual cert are officials in HI and staffers from FactCheck. All the rest of us have seen is a picture, and that's of a COLB rather than the whole file (including the verified history of the file). All BHO has shown us doesn't even rise to the level of a teenager putting a picture of their “ID” online; you don't know whether it's real or fake because it's just a picture. (Note that HI admits they never authenticated the picture on BHO's site.)

For the facts of this matter rather than Weigel's lies and misleading statements, see my extensive coverage.

24Heads: “Won't someone puhleeze visit my cwazy website? Puhleeze? Free batsh*t and cooties with every click!”

It took WND several weeks to emerge from a collective alcoholic stupor and fully realize that a black man had been elected President. “Ackkk!!! Horse is out of the barn! Quick, close the door!”

******The only people who claim to have seen the actual cert are officials in HI.****

Jealous that you haven't been asked to verify it?

IM SORRY YOU MUST HAVE HIM CONFUSED WITH THE KOCH BROTHERS ASSHOLE

Henceforth every Presidential candidate will be required to send to every registered voter the following: (1) an original embossed birth certificate: (2) the citizenship records of parents; (3) DNA evidence of being the child of the parents identified on the birth certificate; (4) all school, college, employment and passport records, to prove the candidate never claimed citizenship in another country; and (5) Social Security Number, and an affidavit from a Private Investigator licensed in Ohio attesting that it is the only SSN the candidate has ever used.

No posting of any of these documents on a website may be substituted. Every voter is entitled by the U.S. Constitution to physical possession of originals of each of these documents.

Even then, I suspect there is a portion of the populace that would not believe it.
See above…

Mr. 24Heads? He would only believe documents provided by old white guys who operate sorry wingnut blogs no one ever visits.

Liberal are idiots, and are just never going to get it. OBAMA HAS NOT SHOWN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!! HE HAS SHOWN A CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH, IT IS NOT THE SAME THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So maybe you can get the Brit, Neil Sankey on the case He thinks he will succeed where the Russian immigrant (from the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic) has failed, bring it on.

Poor little Birthers (still in denial about their losses), Judge Land and now judge Carter, smack down the crazies (case dismissed).

Not even “Fake News” Bill O’Reilly believes the crazies, how funny.

http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/29/bill-orei…

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence…

To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up. I heard Orly Taitz, is selling a tape (I think it’s called “Money, Lies and Video tape”). She is from Orange County, CA, now I know what the mean when they say “behind the Orange Curtain”, when they talk about Orange County, the captial of Conspiracy Theories. You know Obama has a passport, he travel abroad before he was a Senator, but I guess they were in on it.

In my opinion the Republican Party has been taken over the most extreme religious right (people who love to push their beliefs on others while trying to take away the rights of those they just hate) and that’s who they need to extract from their party if they real want to win. Good Luck, because as they said in WACO, “We Ain’t Coming Out”.

I heard that she now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC). She wants to re-establish a family values party.

I can only hope that Taitz will resist the state collectors that will be coming to collect the $20K.

He has provided an official document that Hawaii considers to be prima facie proof of his Hawaiian birth. (This on top of contemporary birth announcements from two major Hawaiian newspapers.)

Good lord. What's wrong with you people?

Now we need a verified history of Obama's file? It just never ends with some people.

Poor Preston, interesting the effort put into the backgrounds of patriots, while such similar efforts on your presumed hero Zero are nowhere to be found??

Your motives are suspect, and your premise (like some many subjective lemmings) is wrong. It is Zero's responsibility to show proof, as the certification of live birth presented…

http://palabre.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/bo_b…

…is frankly, worthless. It tells us nothing. Foreign born children can obtain such a document under HI statute.

From the 1940's-1972 Hawaiian statute 338-17.8 allowed foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates. It could be based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence:

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

(a) Upon application of an adult
or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such
adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal
parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared
the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately
preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

That is the loophole.
Can Obama tell us where he was born? Who remembers there own childbirth? Thus is the purpose of Medical Doctors, Nurses, Midwives and Registrars, acting as “Certifying Officials” of a birth, to ensure the integrity – or chain of evidence – of the birth certificate to be properly recorded within Vital Statistics archives on a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH OR LONG FORM B.C. and there are several possibilities for Obama’s official Birth Record file:

Is it a true LONG-FORM, “CertificATE of Live Birth” signed by a M.D. or midwife?
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

or some type of “Certificate of Late Birth” with modifications, even as late as 2005?
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

… or affidavits signed by Ann Dunham or even Obama himself after the birth …
http://www.sanjosekenpo.com/mitoseapplicationce…

… leading to a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” (permitted for births before 1972)?
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

OR perhaps even NOTHING at all (a lost, invalid or incomplete “root document” — remembering that Obama's computer-generated CertificaTION is UNIQUE, stating “Date FILED by [Local] Registrar” VS “Date ACCEPTED by State Registrar”).
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

The intricacies of Today's and prior versions of HRS §338, changes in Social Security requirements (in 1972), and Hawaii Department of Health internal policies lend to many, MANY different possibilities that are not obvious to the casual observer …

The O-bots can't handle this transperancy. And it really is quite simple. And that's the disclosure of a long form birth certificate. HOly cow! Crazy! Ha ha.. I smell fear.

This is not prima facie evidence, it says nothing. This wasn't even enough proof for DHHL as of June 2009:

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

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

Birth announcements in newspapers prove a birth took place. Where it took place is not evidenced, as a simple phone call could be made to the paper. That's why it's not presented in court. There is no conspiracy, a long form is proof with hospital name, doctor's signature. But that's the problem JohnC, you can't tell us what hospital Zero's born at.

Just a Reminder – Before he was nominated AKA Obama Signed a Resolution Describing Him As Ineligible

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/12/just-…

Who Certified AKA Obama as “Natural Born”?

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/11/this-…

In 1961, the Public Health Services, U. S Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Division published the “Vital Statistics of the United States

Here is a blank copy of the Standard Certificate of Live Birth. This is the information being hidden by Obama

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/blank…

Plus read the article that is included with the blank copy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you really think AKA Obama would have won the election if all the things he is hiding were made known?

Do you really think AKA Obama will be able to finish his first term if all the things he is hiding are made known?

Why aren’t the polls on the birth certificate issue 100% in favor of AKA Obama practicing the virtue of full disclosure? It makes sense that supporters of AKA Obama would want the issue settled along with everyone else. I guess there is a significant portion of the population who are opposed to releasing the birth certificate because they are afraid of what it will reveal. I would conclude that those opposed to releasing all of Obama’s history are frightened of the truth just like AKA Obama.

If you are not suspicious of a man who hides his history I have a bridge in the desert I want to sell you.

If you are unwilling to call for an investigation of a man who attempts to sell you a bridge in the desert I have some beach front property in Florida at the intersection of I75 and Florida # 29 that I want you to buy.

If you place a down payment on a contract for the bridge in the desert and the beach front property in the swamp I would conclude that you voted for Obama.

Can you pass the: Obama Eligibility Logic Test?

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama…

Or get educated and read:

Somehow, you know its coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans.

“For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17

Obama “I have nothing to hide but I’m hiding it.”

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

Are those 24 potato heads?

Amazing, no passport info for Barry or Obambi's mother who traveled the world doing microlending and trips back and forth from HI to Indonesia:

FOIA REQUESTS, PASSPORT USAGE:

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/…

from 02-09-2009 – Strunk v US State Department – FOIA Response US Customs and Border Protection
The following was found as exhibit 15 in:

The US Customs and Border Protection has responded stating that Strunk has no FOIA access to these records without Obama’s permissions, and that no records exist before 1982 regarding entry/exit data.
Concerning President Obama’s travel records, please be advised that DHS regulations require, in the case of third party information requests. a statement from the individual verifying his or her identity and certifying that individual’s ageenlent that records concerning him or her may be accessed, analyzed and released to a third party. See 6 C.F.R. 5 5.21(f). Because you have not provided this documentation with your request, we are unable to initiate a search for responsive records. Please provide the requested documentation within 30 days from the date of this letter. or we will assume you are no longer interested in this FOIAIPA request, and the case will be administratively closed.
This is not a denial of your request. Upon receipt of a perfected request. you will be advised as to the status of your request.
…
With regard to records pertaining to Stanley Ann Dunham, who is widely known as a matter of public record to be deceased, you requested documents pertaining to Ms.  Dunham involving entry and exits into and out of United States from January 01, 1960 through December 31, 1975. and January 1, 1979 through December 31, 1985. There are no entry.exit records available prior to 1982, either in electronic or paper format.
A search for documents responsive to your request produced a total of one page. CBP  has determined that the one page is partially releasable pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. 5 552  (b)(2)(high), (b)(2)(low), (b)(6), and (b)(7). Enclosed is one page With certain information withheld as described below.

Of course, Barry's passport was already accessed and scrubbed some time ago, remember?

Security breach passports accessed, Barry's 3 times
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/obama.pa…

Former CIA goon, Obama advisor John Brennan behind breach
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport…

Key witness fatally shot in passport scandal
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19…

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0408/512644.html

WHILE MCCAIN'S AND HILLARY'S WERE ACCESSED TO COVER TRACKS, WHAT WAS SCRUBBED IN BARRY'S PASSPORT?

Excerpt from Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103…

Passport Application

The State Department's inquiry began March 20 after a reporter asked about the breach of Obama's records. After senior management researched the incidents surrounding Obama, they decided to examine whether Clinton's and McCain's records had been breached. Yesterday morning, it became clear that they had, McCormack said.

The State Department said the only document kept in an individual's passport file is the application package. [u]The application form includes information such as PLACE OF BIRTH and Social Security number.[/u] The passport system has between 180 million and 200 million applications in its database.

“Passport files do not contain travel information, such as visa and entry stamps, from previous passports,'' State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. “Almost all passport files contain only a passport application form as submitted by the applicant.'' [/i]

MOVE ALONG FOLKS, NOTHING TO SEE HERE /sarcasm

Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, colloquially known as Queen's Hospital.

You lose, o ethereal one.

Might I suggest composition lessons so that people whose first language is English, not Gobbledegook, might partake of your words of wisdom?

On second thought….

You seem to have a great deal of time on your hands. Perhaps you should volunteer at soup kitchen and contribute to society?

Ah, another member of the Sesumarongi!

Wrong.

Kapiolani is not the same as Queen's genuis.

And you, Zero, his sister, and Hood House Spokesclown Gibbs can't tell us what hospital he was born in.

When Obama was a Senator:
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

Recent White House proclamation:
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

UPI 4th paragraph:
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/upiobamascreensh…

Obama Campaign website blog:
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/mybaracktwo.jpg

W.H. Press Briefing, when asked about Zero's birth proclamation to Kapiolani Medical Center, White House spokesclown Rober Gibbs can't give an answer (44 minute mark on video):

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2009/05/27/video-gi…

Such a hard question…

The first hurdle will be having Obama produce his birth certificate, which so far he has refused to do, and prove that he was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, as he has always claimed. There is speculation that his American mother may have brought him to Honolulushortly after his birth in Kenya, but no proof of that has been shown.
According to the law on the books at the time of Obama’s birth, the office of president requires that a candidate be a natural citizen if the child was not born to two U.S.citizen parents. Since he was not,sho uld it be proven th at Obama was not born in Hawaii, as claimed, he is ineligible without further debate. But assuring that he was born there, he has another problem.
According to a legal researcher who has contacted the AFP, U.S.law very clearly states:“If only one parent is a U.S.citizen at the time of one’s birth, that parent must have resided in the United Statesfor a minimum of 10 years, five of which must be after the age of 16.” And therein lies Obama’s new problem.
Then there's the alleged Indonesian adoption as Barry Soetoro(Saetoro), the attending college as a Foreign Student, passport to Pakistan in '81, multiple Social Security Numbers, Granny Obama's statement that BHO was born in Kenya, the Kenyan Birth Certificate & many birther-lawsuits which keep getting dismissed on technicalities.

Why has Mr. Obama spent over $1.5M paid to Perkins Coie Law Firm to keep his original birth certificate, college transcripts, passport and other records secret?
Why was his first order of business after the inauguration to sign an executive order ensuring these records are kept private? I had to provide a collge transcipt and birth certificate to my employer.

Wrong.

1. There is not one speck of proof that the President has paid this much money to any law firm to defend against these suits. Indeed, at least one suit must be paid for by the *plaintiff,* which means whatever poor bastard chose to be represented by Orly Taitz.

2. The executive order lifted and loosened the Bush-era standards and applied to all Presidential records, not just his own.

3. Your own experience is irrelevant.

*yawn*

Same shit, different post, and just as ridiculous as ever.

Sorry, but the certificate posted by the President is valid. He was born in Hawaii and is natural born, and as much as Orly Taitz and her little minions squawk, he isn't going anywhere.

Wrong.

Also, shouldn't you be the one with the hood? Your racism is really showing with that last comment.

I wonder how she'd get around Dobbs' hatred of immigrants? Or would she be okay because she's Moldovan, not Mexican?

YOU HAVE THE DOCUMENTS TO BACK THIS UP?? I GUESS YOU RETARDS NEBER HEARD OF ATTORNY CLIET PRIVLAGE SO THOSE NUMBERS WOULD NOT BE MADE PUBLIC EVEN IF THEY WERE TRUE!! WHAT A IDIOT!! COME ON ASSHOLE TELL US MORE!! WE NEED A GOOD LAUGH

HE ALREADY HAS! ONLY FOR THE VERY STUPID SUCH AS YOURSELF THIS IS A NON ISSUE….THE REAL QUESTION IS WHY CAN YOU BE SO GULLABLE TO HAVE FACTS IN YOUR FACE YET YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO BELIEVE IT!! WHY ARE YOU SO GULLIABLE???

JOHN THEY ARE PLAYING THE RIGHT WING PLAYBOOK TO A TEE! REMEMBER THE SWIFTBOATERS? REPEAT THE LIE ENOUGH AND PEOPLE THINK IT IS TURE. ALL THEY ARE TRING TO DO IS PAINT THE PRESIDENT AS NOT ONE OF US HE TAKING AWAY YOUR RIGHT(YET NEVER HAD ONE PERSON TELL ME WHAT RIGHTS THEY HAVE LOST)
BILL MAHER IS RIGHT AMERICANS ARE STUPID

Amazing, no passport info for Barry or Obambi's mother who traveled the world doing microlending and trips back and forth from HI to Indonesia:

. . . . no records exist before 1982 regarding entry/exit data. . . . . .
—————————————————————–

What is so amazing about that? Do you raelly think that the State Department would have accurate records going back more than 25 years? Hell,I'm amazed that they go back as far as 1982.

Do you understand that they are not talking about just Obama's records, but EVERYONES?

or did that distinction escape you?

Wrong

——–{quote}
“Good lord. What's wrong with you people?”
——————-

A Black man is in the White House.

Verified by Rush himself. {/sarcasm}

I'm not assuming a reporter like David Weigel, has asked for, seen or examined a certified copy of the certificate of live birth, of Barack Hussein Obama II, with name of hospital and bearing signatures of his mother, attending doctor, and registrar, since to do so might lend credibility to his reporting.

“According to a legal researcher who has contacted the AFP, U.S.law very clearly states:“If only one parent is a U.S.citizen at the time of one’s birth, that parent must have resided in the United Statesfor a minimum of 10 years, five of which must be after the age of 16.” And therein lies Obama’s new problem.”

Your legal researcher ought to try going to law school first. The requirements you speak only apply to persons not born on U.S. soil. Furthermore, the precise requirement was five years after age 14 (which has since been changed).

“passport to Pakistan in '81″

He went to Pakistan on a U.S. passport in 1981. So what?

“Granny Obama's statement that BHO was born in Kenya”

She never said such a thing. She was asked, through an intrepreter, if she were “present” when Obama was born. For a person not schooled in English, that could easily mean, “where you here in the village at the time Obama was born?” She said she was. When the interviewer clarified his question about Obama being born in Kenya, she specifically said he was born in Hawaii.

“From the 1940's-1972 Hawaiian statute 338-17.8 allowed foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates.”

For those of interested in facts, this claim is untrue. This statute was enacted in 1982, and no equivalent existed in the Hawaii statutes prior to that year. Furthermore, Obama's birth was registered in Hawaii in 1961, not in 1982 or later, so this statute cannot explain the existence of Obama's COLB.

Thanks for playing. Now try again.

Doesn't have to. Hawaii says he was born there…which is the important fact. So, his reports are credible and you're not.

Antibirther,

What's wrong with having a black person in the White House? Blacks have served in the White House for 233 years.

Are you saying a black man should not be the President of the USA?

I have no objections to the president's race or gender, but questions and concerns raised of his/her nationality, ability, religion or sexual orientation, could play a part in a decision not of eligibility, but of suitability.

—”I had to provide a collge transcipt and birth certificate to my employer.
“—

So, McDonalds hired you after all.

Exactly, border, and that's why we had an election and Obama won a majority of the electoral college votes. Now, after the election, you folks don't like it so you start trying to BS your way around. There's another election in 3 years, try removing him then…if you can.

Your documents… ASSHOLE.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI…

[...] And Hannity winks at the birthers. [...]

Such hostility Bill. Did you honestly even read the article you referenced? I know it is tough to read through the intentionally misleading prose. Let me break down WND's argument in logically:

Obama's Campaign spent money on legal fees and Obama was sued by birthers, therefore all money spent by Obama's campaign on legal fees was used in birther law suits.

It assumes a causal relationship where there is none. Applying that same logic, McCain has spent $1.6 million on legal fees, and has defended elegibility suits, therefore McCain has spent $1.6 million dollars defending elegibility suits. What is he hiding? This is an idiotic line of reasoning. Campaigns have legal challenges. They must make sure the candidate complies with elections laws in 50 states, comply with campaign finance laws, etc…… To think that drafting a simple 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) pre-answer motion to dismiss, probably completed by a first year assoicate costs millions of dollars it outright delusional.

“2. The executive order lifted and loosened the Bush-era standards and applied to all Presidential records, not just his own.”

Not to mention the fact that birth certificates aren't presidential records.

44 USC 2201

(2) The term “Presidential records” means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President. Such term–

(B) does not include any documentary materials that are (i) official records of an agency (as defined in section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code; (ii) personal records; …

(3) The term “personal records” means all documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, of a purely private or nonpublic character which do not relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.

Not to mention that most of the legal fees were incurred after the election, when the law firms were in the process of vetting various and numerous persons for positions in the new administration.

“Why has Mr. Obama spent over $1.5M paid to Perkins Coie Law Firm to keep his original birth certificate, college transcripts, passport and other records secret?”

Liar. Where's your proof? Birthtards just run away like cowards. It's much easier for them to spout lies than offer credible evidence of anything.

“Why was his first order of business after the inauguration to sign an executive order ensuring these records are kept private?”

Liar. It wasn't. Keep spouting the dysentery, birthtard.

PRESIDENT OBAMA REVOKES BUSH PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS EXECUTIVE ORDER (UPDATED JAN. 26)
On January 21, in one of his first official acts, President Barack Obama revoked the Bush administration’s Executive Order 13233 that severely limited access by the public to presidential records. Click here to see a copy of President Obama’s new Executive Order 13489: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-1712.pdf
President Obama firmly committed his administration to a new policy of transparency by symbolically issuing the executive order on his first full day in office. The issuance of the Obama presidential records executive order ends a nearly eight year effort by historians, archivists, political scientists and other stakeholders in federal courts and on Capitol Hill to have the Bush EO revoked on legal grounds or by statute.
The language in the Obama executive order is similar to Executive Order 12667 issued by President Reagan in 1989 which was also in effect during the presidencies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan executive order was revoked when President Bush issued EO 13233 in November 2001.
The Obama executive order restores the presumption that the incumbent president, not former presidents, their heirs or designees should be the one asserting claims of executive privilege. The executive order states that only “living” former Presidents can make claims of executive privilege. This removed one of the most egregious sections of the Bush EO that allowed heirs or designees to make claims of executive privilege for an indefinite period after the death of a former President.
In addition, the provisions in the Bush EO allowing former vice presidents to assert executive privilege are gone. In fact, the Obama EO makes it clear that vice presidential records are to be included under the definition of “presidential records.”
Executive Order 13489 also restores the function of the Archivist of the United States’ as an independent arbiter of initial claims of executive privilege. The executive order assumes the Archivist may release records 30 days after notifying the incumbent and former Presidents unless a claim of executive privilege is made.

http://historycoalition.org/2009/01/21/presiden…

You'll go blind if you keep masturbating to pictures of Joseph Farah in a thong.

Nance, the coward who hides behind the Constitution to disguise his vile racism, should point out the wording in the Constitution that demands the name of the hospital, signatures and attending physician.

Gerry, the deranged lunatic, could also list the names of the birth hospitals of all President's before Carter since this delusional pig erroneously fantasizes that it's a prerequisite for eligibility to the office of U.S. President.

Raving lunatic is irrelevant. But a funny, useless blog polluting the 'net is SO MUCH MORE credible.

Citing Whirled Nut Daily makes you an certifiable lunatic and asshole, birthtard.

Here's something for you to drool over, birfer idiot:

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2009/wndl…

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2009/wndo…

The allegations you made were that “over $1.5M” was spent to keep relevant information secret.

That's the delusional, paranoid birfer lie that will be explained in other posts quite eloquently but you're far too stupid to understand.

Asshole.

MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?

TRANSLATOR: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born.

MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?

TRANSLATOR: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

TRANSLATOR: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

TRANSLATOR: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.

And the attending college as a foreign student birfer lie originated from an internet April Fool's joke which explains a lot about the birthtards.

Sankey's evidence is that there are other people with the last name Obama who have SSNs. Earth shattering. What an idiot.

Wrong.

“Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so.”

- United States District Judge Clay Land

“There is no conspiracy, a long form is proof with hospital name, doctor's signature.”

Point out the section of the Constitution that demands your erroneous, irrelevant blather.

WORLD NUT DAILY???HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OHOHOH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA THAT IS YOUR FACTS???? HAHAHAHAHA HE DOES NOT TAKE MUCH TO MIND FUCK THE STUPID LIKE YOU HUH GED?? HAHAHAHAHAHA

Ahoy there!

Let me tell you a secret, Gerry old salt: the hospital certificate isn't the legal document. What the state of Hawaii released last summer *is*. It would be like the Veterans' Administration demanding to see a copy of the photo of your double shellback (if you ever made that exalted rank, which somehow I doubt) as proof that you actually ever set foot on a Naval vessel instead of your actual discharge papers and service jacket.

See? Isn't that easy? Now, why don't you do something useful, like put your taxpayer-funded electrical skills to work for Habitat for Humanity?

What's a transcipt? I've never been asked for one when I've applied for a job.

World Net Daily has all the prestige and credibility of a three dollar bill with Richard Nixon's grinning mug on it.

Crackpot birthers lecturing others on credibility. Hilarious.

After more than a full year, it is just easier to call you ignorant.

Sexual Orientation? Disgusting Bigot.

The people who click the links still far outweigh the people who post insults, so I guess it is still wortwhile to post here.

Obama is keeping the best available evidence secret. Let's just add suppression of evidence to the other charges of election fraud, campaign finance violations and filing fraudulent documents in all 50 states.

No matter what you might think there is no escaping that AKA Obama is not practicing the virtue of full disclosure.

The entire reason there is a professional field known as forensic document examination is that a great deal can be told from examination of the original document itself. Much, much less can be told by looking at a photocopy of a document and very little, if anything at all, can be told from looking at a digital image that purports to be an image of an original document. Too much opportunity for adulteration, no opportunity to examine the paper, the ink, any impressions made on the paper, etc. These online arguments discussing images (especially photographic images) are like people studying animals by examining scat.

At first they (powers that be) tried to pretend the issue didn’t exist. When they couldn’t ignore the issue they began to ridicule anyone who dared to ask uncomfortable questions. Now they are fighting the issue’s existence tooth and nail. That reminds me of other struggles against the empire.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Mahatma Gandhi

“This is not prima facie evidence, it says nothing.”

Have you looked at the COLB? What part of “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding” do you not understand?

“This wasn't even enough proof for DHHL as of June 2009″

True, but DHHL doesn't merely require proof of birth. In order to qualify for assistance from the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (http://hawaii.gov/dhhl), the applicant must also provide proof of his/her native Hawaiian ancestry, a question which cannot be answered by the COLB. That is because the program is specifically designed to help persons of that particular racial/ethnic ancestry.

The Constitution of the United States does not require that a President be a Native American (i.e. Cherokee, Sioux), which would parallel the DHHL requirements in Hawaii. The President need only be a “natural born Citizen,” which the Supreme Court held in Wong Kim Ark to encompass all persons born on U.S. soil (except for children of diplomats and nations of a hostile foreign occupying power). The COLB says that Obama was born in Hawaii, which was and is U.S. soil. That makes him a natural born citizen. Therefore, he is eligible to serve as President of the United States and is President of the United States.

QED.

Next.

I've read your whole post and don't even get what point you're trying to make. He was born in Hawaii, via the state, so he's eligible and is now legally serving as our president.

“Birth announcements in newspapers prove a birth took place. Where it took place is not evidenced.”

But it does prove that Obama's birth was registered with the State of Hawaii no later than August 1961, and that his date of birth was known to the State of Hawaii to be on August 4, 1961, since the records were provided to the papers by the State (even WND's reporting concedes that). As it turns out, that exactly corresponds with what is on the COLB we have seen, giving the COLB further credibility based on contemporary records.

Since the COLB appears reliable, there is no reasonable reason to question its further representation that Obama was born on the island of Oahu. At that time, persons born outside Hawaii could not register their births with the state. Even under the current laws, there is not a shred of evidence that the State is authorized to represent that a foreign-born child was born in a location other than where he was known to the State have been born. (If you have laws or regulations to the contrary, feel free to share them.)

There is always the far outside chance that Obama's mother gave birth to baby Obama in Africa, in front of her husband, his other wife and Sarah Obama (who must have flown from her small village to Mombasa especially for the occasion), then quickly boarded a non-stop flight to Honolulu, raced to a hospital or some state representative, where she claimed Obama was born at home, and then had his foreign birth registered with the state within days of his birth. But it doesn't seem all that plausible – unless you really, really, desperately want it to be true.

“True, but DHHL doesn’t merely….”

Not true DHHL formerly stated

“In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth WILL SAVE YOU TIME AND MONEY SINCE THE COMPUTER GEBERATED CERTIFICATION REQUIRES ADDITIONAL VERIFICATION BY DHHL.”

The COLB was always accepted it just took longer to process the request and cost a little extra money.

He's making a very simple – but absurd – point: Obama, party and state officials, and possibly millions of Americans may have knowingly committed the crime of election fraud (or conspired in its perpertration). Of course, in order to convict all these people, we will have to free the justice system from the control of the “brownshirts” (to use Orly Taitz's parlance). To house the convicts, we'll then have to raise taxes. And if we're to execute several million people as traitors, we'll have to raise taxes even higher to pay for their defense and appeals.

And all of this so we can get a President Biden. (Or, if Biden goes to jail as a conspirator, President Pelosi.)

Yes, very simple indeed.

“The COLB was always accepted it just took longer to process the request and cost a little extra money.”

That’s not what I take away from the quote you posted. I read it to say that, since the DHHL utilizes information only found on the original birth certificate, why waste your time and money submitting the COLB when the DHHL will need to see the original birth documentation anyway.

That has nothing to do with whether the COLB is a valid state document concerning the fact of a person’s birth, which it is. It has to do with the fact that the original birth certificate is a historical document upon which the state may rely for historical information contained in no other document.

Can anyone tell me why B.O. executed his first act as President, literally within 5 minutes of taking office, he signed executive order #13489 that sealed his own records, so much for being transparent.

Read below, gchavez, there's a wonderful explanation that tells you how he unsealed presidential records sealed by the previous administration.

Thank you…of course we know he is attempting to obstruct justice by hiding the probability of fraud and deceit. B.O. appears to be a master of deception.

What is “Natural Born”?? – Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”

The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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 Sess., 1291 (1866))

Where oh where was B.O. born? The fact that someone in the campaign told a Washington Post reporter that he was born in Kapioliani hospital and Obama’s sister said he was born at Queens hospital indicates that there was not and is not any Obama/Dunham family memory of a birth in Hawaii. Moreover, there exists no admittance record of Ann Obama/Dunham at either hospital.

Will anyone please tell me and the world… which hospital in Hawaii will be bestowed the honor of a National Commemorative Plaque or Monument marking the exact birthplace of our 44th president???

Hey Jim…Dr. Fukino's press release was carefully hedged and “lawyered” and practically worthless.

There have been numerous requests for 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.”

It is understandable that after such an apparently definitive statement most news outlets, whether conservative or liberal, would accept this as sufficient grounds to relegate the controversy to the status of a fringe phenomenon. Unless they happened to take the trouble to look into the “state policies and procedures” as laid down by the relevant statutes. If they had done so, they would have seen that Dr. Fukino's press release was carefully hedged and “lawyered” and practically worthless. But the media in general should not be faulted. The statement seems to roll out with such bureaucratic certainty and final authority. I believed it to be significant until a Honolulu attorney mailed me the relevant statutes. I was so surprised that I laughed out loud.

Hey STUPIDITY…Thank you for showing the world how foolish and ignorant you are. You are an embarrassment to so many good Dems and Liberals. Its too bad you make them and B.O. look so pathetic.

Have you even read E.O. 13489 or the Presidential Records Act of 1978? E.O. 13489 seals nothing. It provides a mechanism by which the incumbent and living former presidents may claim executive privilege of “Presidential records.”

What are “Presidential records”? E.O. 13489 specifically defines the term in accordance with the 1978 PRA, which makes a distinction between personal records and Presidential records.

So, explain again how President Obama “sealed” his personal records.

Hey STUPIDITY…Thank you for showing the world how foolish and ignorant you are. You are an embarrassment to so many good Dems and Liberals. Its too bad you make them and B.O. look so pathetic.

Hey STUPIDITY…Thank you for showing the world how foolish and ignorant you are. You are an embarrassment to so many good Dems and Liberals. Its too bad you make them and B.O. look so pathetic.

Your citation of Section 1992 is all fine and dandy, but the U.S. Supreme Court has already weighed in on the import of that portion of the 1866 Civil Rights Act as it relates to the first sentence of the subsequently-enacted Fourteenth Amendment, and drew the following conclusion, which remains solid precedent in every court in the United States:

“By the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 'all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,' were declared to be citizens of the United States. In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, 'not subject to any foreign power,' were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright, or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the Civil Rights Act, 'not subject to any foreign power,' gave way, in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to the affirmative words, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'”

– United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898).

You keep believing that. But Hawaii would not have his original birth certificate on file unless he was born in Hawaii. Need more proof? Here's all the proof he was born in Hawaii:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in…
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article…
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article…
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertifica…

Here is the proof that he was born in Hawaii:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in…
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article…
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article…
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertifica…

I appreciate your polite reference to this matter. However, please note (your) the first sentence in quotation marks.”By the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 'all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,' “NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER.” Obama Sr., was a British Suject and his offspring.

Moreover, it is part of the historical record as stated by Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “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 Sess., 1291 (1866))

He was born in Hawaii. Proof:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in…
http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article…
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article…
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
http://snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertifica…

What is there not to understand? She stated she has “seen” his original birth certificate, and that it is “on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

That suggests that the COLB has truly derived its information from the original. That in turn means that the original birth certificate states Obama was born in Oahu. The only way that could not be true is if the State of Hawaii permits the COLB to list a place of birth inconsistent with what is recorded in official records. No one has ever pointed out the existence of statute, regulation, or ruling that would suggest such a practice is permissible.

But of course you're free to prove me wrong.

First, let me compliment you for posting links rather than insults. At least you are not a bottom feeder.

Haven't you posted comments on my blog? Happy Geek! I like that. Sort of like Ho Tai without the computer.

The information (propaganda) at all of those links has been debunked.

The Obots can lie, lie, lie and otherwise obfuscate until the cows come home, and it won't change the facts:

Can you please show me where the LEGITIMATE Hawaiian birth certificate is? And if it has been produced, why has Obama spent money on attorney fees to keep it from being made public?

Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know

Mostly facts and very little rhetoric, all properly cited. This is how research should be done.

Now what will the Obot PSYOPS agents do?

Let me Guess; ridicule, name calling, personal attacks and changing the subject.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=6216

Somehow, you know its coming. That OMG moment is just around the corner. You can feel the inescapable reality creeping up on you. Something will leak. Someone will spill the beans.

“For nothing is hid that shall not be made manifest, nor anything secret that shall not be known and come to light.” Luke 8:17

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

Hello euphgeek… Suppose I go and apply for a passport or driver license… would I be able to site these type of links as “credible sources” as proof of identity. Not.

I would not even be able to sign up my son for little league without a legitimate long form birth certificate. Not just a certification of birth, there is a difference.

WOW!! I HAVE THAT MUCH INFLUNENCE????? DAMN AND I AM NOT EBEN USING MY NAME!!! JUST THINK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF I DID? GEE WIZZ ELROY I COULD WELD THAT POWER FOR ….FOR GETTING RID OF ALL THE UNEDUCATED REDNECKS………GET RID OF HOME SCHOOLING AND MAKE COLLEGE MANDTORY!!!! DAMN AND I CAN INFLUNCE THE PRESIDENT????? BY JUST POINTING OUT HOW PHUCKING SILLY YOU ARE???…..DAMN!!! I AM EMPOWERED!!!

Again, that's fine on the historical record, but that's not what the law is.

The Supreme Court made it very clear how it understood the Fourteenth Amendment in Wong Kim Ark. It held that the children of all “white persons” (i.e. non-Native Americans) born on U.S. soil, whose parents are not foreign diplomats or nationals of a hostile occupying power, are citizens of the United States at birth. And it used the term “natural born citizen” in characterizing the citizenship status of such children.

Now, let's say your argument is that Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided. Fair enough. But let's at least have an honest debate about the floodgates of confusion that opens up. Tens of millions of Americans who were born on U.S. soil to at least one non-U.S. citizen parent would no longer be citizens of the United States, even if they had never lived anywhere else in their entire lives. What happens to those people? In what country are they citizens? What if their erstwhile “dual” citizenship expired long ago? What about money they paid into Social Security? Do they get refunds? How do they travel overseas without a U.S. passport? What about those who were drafted in the military on the grounds that they were U.S. citizens? How about those who voted in elections on the understanding that they were citizens? Do we reverse all those elections and start over?

The fact is, Wong Kim Ark is good law because it is practical and makes sense, and to reverse it now would constitute a radical change from our traditional understanding of U.S. citizenship.

It also makes no sense to distinguish Wong Kim Ark as a decision on citizenship, and not presidential eligibility. There is simply no reason to have one class a “natural born citizens” for presidential eligibility purposes, and one for citizenship purposes. The Supreme Court court itself has never recognized a distinction between different contexts of the usage of “natural born citizen.”

So, in the effort to unseat a duly elected president on “constitutional” grounds, the birther community is also targeting the citizenship of millions of Americans.

OK so where exactly was B.O. born? The fact that someone in his campaign told a Washington Post reporter that he was born in Kapioliani hospital and Obama’s sister said he was born at Queens hospital indicates that there was not and is not any Obama/Dunham family memory of a birth in Hawaii. Moreover, there exists no admittance record of Ann Obama/Dunham at either hospital.

Will anyone please tell me and the world… which hospital in Hawaii will be bestowed the honor of a National Commemorative Plaque or Monument marking the exact birthplace of our 44th president???

WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT YOUR STUPID ASS HAS NOT LEFT THE TRAILER PARK IN YEARS!!!

AND YOU ARE THE MASTER OF PHUCKING STUPIDITY!! COME ON RETARD ENTERTAIN US SOME MORE!!! I ABSOLUTLY LOVE PHUCKING DUMBASSES!! THIS IS BETTER THAN HBO!!!

YU GOT THAT RIGHT!! THIS SHIT IS BETTER THAN TV!!

DAMN INSTEAD OF WASTING YOUR TIME HERE YOU SHOULD ASK IS EDUCATION RIGHT FOR YOU!!!

No one is targeting the Native Born citizenhip of millions of Americans born to non-U.S. citizens. Those folks, such as my self are Native Born. However, since my parents were alien residents at the time of my birth, I am not Natural Born and therefor precluded or not eligible to be POTUS, Commander and Cheif.

“Can you please show me where the LEGITIMATE Hawaiian birth certificate is?”

First of all, currently the legitimate (i.e. official) Hawaiian birth certificate is the Certification of Live Birth. However, I am assuming you are speaking of the Certificate of Live Birth (i.e. original birth certificate), which once was the official certificate, and now is the historical record on file documenting his birth.

Janice Okubo has publicly stated that she “[had] 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.”

If she's “personally seen” his original birth certificate, I think it's not too hard to figure out where it is.

Hey STUPIDITY…There you go again, being ignorant. You're an embarrassment to good Dems and Liberals.

Hey STUPIDITY…Have you no shame?? I will pray for you.

Regardless of how you may wish to frame the argument, the Court in Wong Kim Ark specifically spoke of “natural born citizens” in a case which specifically addressed the clause in the 1866 Civil Rights Act that you yourself brought up.

Furthermore, both the Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett opinions use the term “natural born” and “native born” interchangeably, without ever articulating a substantive distinction between them. So, use the term “native born” if you choose. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Look, neither the campaign staffer nor Maya were present at Obama's birth. If their “recollections” are wrong, what do I care?

The fact remains thus: The COLB states Obama was born on the island of Oahu on August 4, 1961, with his birth registered by the State of Hawaii on August 8, 1961. This is fully corroborated by the two birth announcements made the following week in two major Hawaiian newspapers. Those newspapers obtained their notices from State records, meaning the State of Hawaii had the above information on file no later than the second week of August 1961. That means any conspiracy about Obama's birth must have been hatched and carried out prior to that time.

Now, we see plenty of Obama “birth certificates” claiming that he was born on August 4, 1961 in Africa. In fact, interestingly, no one seems to have claimed (or forged a document claiming) that Obama wasn't born on that date. So, between August 4, 1961 and August 8, 1961, the plot to get Obama a Hawaiian birth certificate must have been hatched and fully executed.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but I don't find such a conspiracy to be particularly credible. Perhaps it's just Occam's Razor. As a result, I have absolutely no difficulty believing official Hawaii records that state he was born in Hawaii, even if particular individuals who weren't there don't have their facts straight.

Maybe your Little League requires a “long form birth certificate.” But the Certificate of Live Birth, embossed with the seal of the State of Hawaii and bearing the appropriate signature, is legal evidence of the the place and date of birth for purposes of a driver's license or a passport or any other governmental requirement. It is the only form of “birth certificate” the State of Hawaii now issues. It is a “self-authenticating document” under Rule 902(1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

And no, you can't submit a website link to get a driver's license of passport. What is your point? Factcheck.org examined and photographed the COLB, in detail. If you position is that you won't believe its authenticity until you hold it in your hands and examine it yourself, that is your right. Feel free to hold every candidate for public office to the same absurd standard. But there is no law requiring that a candidate for President provide you with your own personal original of his COLB.

Wrong. States issue certification of births, as you would know if you had ever requested a copy.

HA ha…Ellid wants proof that LAWYERS ARE PAID.

Nearly 100 lawsuits around the country with several law firms representing Zero:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518

That is; high quality constitutional lawyers with lead counsel managing all local counsel in every jurisdiction, vetting all documents…

HMMM>>>>

Wow, shall we argue COMMON SENSE?

THIS IS ANOTHER SAD FACT THE OBOTS CAN’T SEEM TO DEAL WITH…THE AMOUNT OF CASH ZERO’S SPENT (well, most from his Obama for America Campaign funds) NOT SIMPLY SHOWING A 10 DOLLAR DOCUMENT.

Zero has been represnted by the following law firms, headed by Robert Bauer from Perkins Coie

Kirkland and Ellis

Williams and Conley

Mayer Brown and Platt

Conservative estimate Zero’s easily spent SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS.

Better than being an embarrassment to the human species.

I'm sure you're not eligible to be “Commander in Chief” since you can't even spell it correctly.

Please don't. You need all the prayers you can get to alleviate a truly epic case of rectal-cranial inversion.

The Obots want proof that LAWYERS ARE PAID.

Nearly 100 lawsuits around the country with several law firms representing Zero:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518

That is; high quality constitutional lawyers with lead counsel managing all local counsel in every jurisdiction, vetting all documents…

HMMM>>>>

Wow, shall we argue COMMON SENSE?

THIS IS ANOTHER SAD FACT THE OBOTS CAN'T SEEM TO DEAL WITH…THE AMOUNT OF CASH ZERO'S SPENT (well, most from his Obama for America Campaign funds) NOT SIMPLY SHOWING A 10 DOLLAR DOCUMENT.

Zero has been represnted by the following law firms, headed by Robert Bauer from Perkins Coie

Kirkland and Ellis

Williams and Conley

Mayer Brown and Platt

Conservative estimate Zero's easily spent SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS.

Hate to tell you this, but Queen's is reportedly an old colloquial term for Kapiolani Hospital. As such, Kapiolani is where the plaque (if any) will eventually go.

Move along folks, there's nothing to see here!

KENYAN BORN OBAMA ALL SET FOR SENATE former article:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/easta…

AllAfrica.com — “Kampala — Ugandans have formed a group to mobilise support for Kenyan-born Senator…”
http://allafrica.com/stories/200802180051.html

SECURITY CONCERNS FOR TOURISM AS SENATOR OBAMA JETS INTO KENYA
As Kenyan born US Senator Barack Obama…(13th headline down)
http://www.africa-ata.org/ug_newsletter.htm

NPR …STORIES OUT OF AFRICA:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st…

THE NIGERIAN OBSERVER:
http://oilforimmigration.org/images/screencapt3…

THE GHANAIAN TIMES:
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll1/BecJul/G…

Kenyan born U.S. Senator “exploring ways” of helping home province:
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll1/BecJul/B…

Please produce the billing records proving that these fees were paid to defend against birther lawsuits instead to cover the usual and customary vetting of persons wishing to work for the administration. Simply naming law firms is not it.

Quit repeating yourself. It’s a bad habit and makes you look like an unimaginative fool.

Then again, since you seem to swallow whatever Joseph Farah says…..

Excellent points, as further exhibited here:

When Obama was a Senator:
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

Recent White House proclamation:
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

UPI 4th paragraph:
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/upiobamascreensh…

Obama Campaign website blog:
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/mybaracktwo.jpg

W.H. Press Briefing, when asked about Zero's birth proclamation to Kapiolani Medical Center, White House spokesclown Rober Gibbs can't give an answer (44 minute mark on video):

http://www.mofopolitics.com/2009/05/27/video-gi…

No you're mistaken. On purpose ;)

It is Zero's responsibility to show proof, as the certification of live birth presented…

http://palabre.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/bo_b…

…is frankly, worthless. It tells us nothing. Foreign born children can obtain such a document under HI statute.

From the 1940's-1972 Hawaiian statute 338-17.8 allowed foreign born children of Hawaiian residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates. It could be based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence:

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

(a) Upon application of an adult
or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such
adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal
parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared
the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately
preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

That is the loophole.
Can Obama tell us where he was born? Who remembers there own childbirth? Thus is the purpose of Medical Doctors, Nurses, Midwives and Registrars, acting as “Certifying Officials” of a birth, to ensure the integrity – or chain of evidence – of the birth certificate to be properly recorded within Vital Statistics archives on a CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH OR LONG FORM B.C. and there are several possibilities for Obama’s official Birth Record file:

Is it a true LONG-FORM, “CertificATE of Live Birth” signed by a M.D. or midwife?
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

or some type of “Certificate of Late Birth” with modifications, even as late as 2005?
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

… or affidavits signed by Ann Dunham or even Obama himself after the birth …
http://www.sanjosekenpo.com/mitoseapplicationce…

… leading to a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” (permitted for births before 1972)?
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

OR perhaps even NOTHING at all (a lost, invalid or incomplete “root document” — remembering that Obama's computer-generated CertificaTION is UNIQUE, stating “Date FILED by [Local] Registrar” VS “Date ACCEPTED by State Registrar”).
http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

The intricacies of Today's and prior versions of HRS §338, changes in Social Security requirements (in 1972), and Hawaii Department of Health internal policies lend to many, MANY different possibilities that are not obvious to the casual observer …

The O-bots can't handle this transperancy. And it really is quite simple. And that's the disclosure of a long form birth certificate. HOly cow! Crazy! Ha ha.. I smell fear.

It is fascinating how you compliment someone for not engaging in name calling, and then you refer to “Obots” and “Obot PSYOPS agents.”

And nice scripture reference.

“Mark you this, Bassanio,
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”

Wm. Shakespeare

Nothing to see here either kids!

The Nov. 5, 2008, Kenya Parliament Official Report, when Kenyan legislators and Assembly witnesses say things such as “having a Kenyan ruling the USA”, “President-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil  of this country”, and “we have a leader of  a great country in this world whose blood is  Kenyan”

has been removed off web but archived on Scribed:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9606845/Kenyan-Nation…

And this proves what, exactly? Are these official documents? No. They're reporters, who as we know are prone to making errors. (Unless they're on Fox News or WND, I suppose.)

Here's what we know: Obama provided a copy of a Hawaiian COLB to FactCheck.org which states his date of birth as August 4, 1961, and the date it was registered with the State of Hawaii as August 8, 1961. Just a few days later, Obama's birth announcement appears in two newspapers, newspapers which obtained their records from the State of Hawaii.

No one has claimed Obama was born before August 4, 1961. So, between August 4, 1961 and August 8, 1961, Stanley Dunham gave birth, decided that she had to have Obama's birth registered in Hawaii, took off on a last-minute, expensive flight to Hawaii, and rushed her new child to the nearest hospital as evidence for the state authorities.

This is far-fetched for a number of reasons. First, if Ms. Dunham were so determined to ensure Obama had U.S. citizenship, why did she supposedly travel to Kenya in the first place when she was in late-term pregnancy? Second, how would she have obtained the money to fly there and back? Third, how and why would relatives like Sarah Obama, from a small village on the other side of Kenya, travel out to Mombasa to be “present” at Obama's birth? Fourth, why would Obama Sr. bring his new wife to Kenya when he already had a wife there?

Why won't the birther answer these questions for a change? Why should they have all the fun?

Please get this straight:

Hawaiian officials have not validated AKA OBAMA’s place of birth. Not one document has been validated by a forensic examiner.

“But, the real killer of this birth certificate scam is that Hawaii never made a 2007 Certification of Live Birth for Obama, never issued a 2007 COLB for Obama, and never confirmed anything about this bogus 2007 COLB that Obama, his staff, and Factcheck have insisted is a real document. “

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/its-o…
Looking through a glass, darkly, at AKA Obama’s Birth Certificate.

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/aka-o…

The latest announcements from Hawaiian Officials aren’t any more help than their original announcement. Recently this was released:

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii 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….”

I don’t doubt that Dr. Fukino is accurately reporting that the document he saw says that AKA Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

“Laws of the Territory of Hawaii ACT 96 To Provide For The Issuance Of Certificates Of Hawaiian Birth was in effect from 1911 until 1972 and allowed someone who was born outside the Hawaiian Islands to be registered as though he were born in Hawaii. Under that law, someone simply would have presented herself to the Hawaiian authorities and declared that the child was born in Hawaii. The person could have sworn under oath and presented witnesses and other evidence. If the authorities accepted it, that was the end of it. All a person had to do was file a false statement and Hawaii took them at their word.

One could not just say “My kid was born in Des Moines but I want him to have a Hawaiian birth record”. But if you lied no investigation was conducted to validate your claim and the Hawaiian birth record was issued no questions asked.

Knowledge of this practice was wide spread and there are probably thousands of people who obtained Hawaiian birth records between 1911 and 1972 through the process of affidavits and witnesses rather than hospitals and delivery doctors.

The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA's original birth certificate on file in Hawaii to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth. If the birth was in a hospital, as AKA OBAMA has maintained, such evidence would be the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor who delivered him.”

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

Here is the information on Hawaiian law that makes it clear why we will never know the truth until we see the actual birth certificate.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

More lies and propaganda from the Obots. Keep examining your left wing blogs Lightweight. Allegiance to Zero at any cost is the name of the game.

The COLB IS SO AUTHENTIC that Zero and associates wouldn't even submit it or a a long form in the very first case, Berg v. Obama. By doing so, and it was established he was born in Hawaii, that would have constituted res judicata, and acted to stop other similar lawsuits being filed. Without res judicata (meaning, the matter is adjudged and settled conclusively) he or government officials will need to defend other lawsuits, and valuable court resources will be expended. Strategically from a legal standpoint, therefore, his refusal to disclose doesn't make sense.
COLB IS PROOF OF ANY GOVERNMENT REQUIREMENT?
Certification of Live Birth wasn't even enough for Dept of Hawaii Homelands….DHHL wanted the CertificATE over the CertificaTION up until June 2009:

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

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

AND WHY WOULD YOU NEED VERIFICATION…HMMM? THAT WOULDN'T BE HAWAIIAN STATUTE LOOPHOLES WOULD IT?

AND YES — Mr. Obama CAN obtain his Certificate.

The computer-generated Certification has only existed since November 2001; the ROOT document, created in 1961, is (sitting in a vault) over at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu.

To obtain his Certificate of Live Birth, Mr. Obama only needs to fill out the request in a similar fashion:

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

If one needs a copy of an original birth certificate (e.g., for a job application, if researching your family history, etc), you can obtain the Long-Form “CertificATE of Live Birth”

HRS §338, HRS §538, Hawaii Family Court rules & other state statutes require the Original Birth Certificate be available for — among other reasons — review by a Family Court Judge for Adoption & other Juvenile cases, which may come up years or decades after a child is born. A pending change to HRS §338-18(b) in the Hawaii Legislature infers such requirements as well.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_…

§338-16 (c) Such evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.

§338-21 (b) The evidence upon which the new original certificate is made, and the superseded original certificate shall be sealed and filed and may be opened only upon order of a court of record.

“The only way to know where AKA OBAMA was actually born is to view AKA OBAMA's original birth certificate on file in Hawaii to see what kind of birth certificate it is, and to examine what corroborating evidence supports what it says about AKA OBAMA's alleged place of birth.

Actually, that's overtstating the case quite a bit, just based on your own argument. The most you could glean from the certificate on file is that there is no proof that Obama was born in any particular location, assuming that Ms. Dunham simply told Hawaiian officials he was born in Hawaii. But that does not prove where Obama actually was born. And how would you be able to prove that Ms. Dunham's story was wrong?

So, given the above, don't wait for the birth certificate. Go out there and prove it yourself – the birth certificate won't help you prove a negative.

All sound and fury, signfying nothing.

The requirement you cite is a requirement for proving status as a “Hawaiian native” (i.e., not just someone born in Hawaii, but someone who is of native Hawaiian ancestry). President Obama has never claimed the status to which your sources refer. That status, and the requirements for proving it, are irrelevant to eligibility for the Presidency.

The embossed, signed COLB is legal evidence of Obama's birth in Honolulu on August 4, 1961. That is the form the state issues for purposes of proving place and date of birth.

Since you are so good with statutes, please cite the Constitutional or statutory requirement that a candidate for President must present any birth certificate, let alone the “long form” you are so enamored of. Good luck, Lightweight.

“Certification of Live Birth wasn't even enough for Dept of Hawaii Homelands….DHHL wanted the CertificATE over the CertificaTION up until June 2009″

Did it ever occur to you why that may be so? The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is not interested in whether a person is a natural born citizen of the United States. It was interested in whether a person is of Hawaiian ethnicity. The original birth certificate contains that information – the COLB does not.

Now, if the Constitution required the President of the United States to be a Native American (e.g. a Seminole, Kickapoo, or Winnebago), your argument might have some merit. But a President is only required to be a natural born citizen. Under Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that any person born on U.S. soil, to parents who are not foreign diplomats or nationals of a hostile occupying power, is a citizen of the United States at the time of his or her birth. And the Court clearly recognized the citizenship status of such persons as “natural born” or “native born” citizens (same thing).

Obama was born in Hawaii, which was and is U.S. soil, completely fulfilling the “natural born Citizen” requirement of the U.S. Constitution.

My younger son likely would not be able to correctly identify the hospital at which his older brother was born. They were born in different states, several years apart. What a shock. Obama's sister wasn't born in Hawaii. She was born several years after Barack Obamas. It isn't surprising she got it wrong.

Is this your new standard for the Presidency? We test all the family members, and if anybody gets details of the candidate's life wrong, the candidate is declared ineligible?

If states do not issue certifications of birth, pray what is the document from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that I have been using for the last twenty years to obtain my passport, driver's license, and more than one job?

Sorry, but quoting nonsense repeatedly does not make it true. GIGO still applies.

Neil Sankey’s involvement in this farrago makes it very clear why he no longer works at Scotland Yard.

John C. You made inquiring comments. Let me help. And save this for your records..because eventually (hopefully) most of the truth will come out. Because those that have been following this for well over a year KNOW that Obambi wasn't born in Hawaii. Why do you think this issue won't die, the constant lawsuits, etc? In fact, major players know. The greatest constitutional crisis in U.S. history isn't wanted on any one's plate for something to deal with.

First….What do these articles prove? Well you could certainly post articles with “Hawaiian born Obama” .. Both points negate each other.
The proof is disclosure of the ultimate evidence. The prima facie evidence is a long form birth certificate listing hospital name, doctor signature. Not complicated. But…it is.

Think about this….if you know the history …why Stanley Ann Dunham was NOT enrolled at the University of Hawaii for Winter Quarter January 1961??

Understand, June 1960 — Ann moved to Hawaii with Parents (exact date unknown) Ann then started classes at U of Hawaii, exact date: Sept. 26, 1960. Oct 1960 — Got pregnant by Obama SR.

So why is she not in school the next term? Reportedly she married Obama SR Feb. 2, 1961 (HI state law marriages are sealed, but WE KNOW THEY WERE married because of the divorce papers, which aren't sealed).

She then pops up in August 1961 in her old stomping grounds Mercer Island, Seattle, WA.

Let's use common sense, human nature. You have a young woman who's 18, pregnant, child out of wedlock to a foreigner of another race in Hawaii it's 1960. How do you think the parent's felt?

Stanley Ann wasn't back at the University of Hawaii because she wasn't there. They (Stanley Ann and Obama Sr.) went to Kenya between terms at U of Hawaii in late January of 1961 to get married. They did that because marriage in the US would have constituted the crime of Bigamy.

She became friends with his Kenya relatives and remained in Kenya after the marriage–she was estranged from her parents and had nowhere to live in the US. Obama Sr. returned to U. of Hawaii for Winter 61.

She came to term in late July and intended to board an airplane to return for the birth but was not permitted to board because of her condition. Kid drops in Coast Provincial General Hospital outside of Mombasa in Kenya early in the morning on August 4 Kenya time -still August 3 on the West Coast of the US.

Stanley Ann was alone in a foreign country and wanted “proof” that the child was hers and for citizenship. She may have filed something with the U.S. embassy.

BOAC flight schedules in use in August of 1961 from Kenya at that time is out of Nariobi connecting through Glascow Scotland through Vancouver BC. She could well have been on board before August 4 started in the US.

Her friend Susan Blake's live testimony has been readily available on line for some time. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI…
Stanley Ann arrived in Seattle from Vancouver at a time before she had learned to changed diapers (which usually occurs within 48 hours in a normal birth setting). That puts her on Mercer Island on the 6th of August.

She then proceeds to Honolulu and she and her mother file some document with Hawaii Public Health. Simple. That's the way it happened in fact. Stanley Ann Dunham was a tough woman. Grueling flight, but this very independant adventuresome woman charted off to Indonesia when she remarried years later, and did microlending there and other thirld world countries.

She then returned to WA state, her old stomping grounds away from parents and hubby. Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington in Seattle for two nite classes that began on Sept. 19, 1961: Anthropology 100, “Introduction to the Study of Man” and Political Science 201, “Modern Government.”

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

Anna Obama phone listing, as listed in Seattle Reverse Directory,
  “Obama Anna Mrs EA3-3346″ at “516 Villa Ria Apartments”

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

Fall 1961 — a Listing for Stanley Ann Obama appears in the 1961 Polk directory at the Seattle Public Library: “Obama Anna Mrs studt h516 13th Ave. E. apt. 2″

http://www.seattlechatclub.org/ObamaListSm.jpg

Mar 1962 — Mary Toutonghi babysat Obama Jr at Ann Dunham (aka Anna Obama) apartment for two months (through May 1962)

http://redoubtreporter.blogspot.com/2009/01/oba…

It is not until Sept-Dec 1962 — Ann moves back to Hawaii, with baby Obama, to live with parents…While Fall 1962 — Obama SR begins school at Harvard, in Boston, Mass.

Sept-Dec 1962 — Ann moves back to Hawaii, with baby Obama, to live with parents…..Spring 1963 — Ann Dunham resumes school back at University of Hawaii.

Jan 1964 — Ann Dunham files for divorce in Hawaii Court
Mar 1964 — Divorce is granted (Obama SR does not respond to divorce notice in Boston)

That's the time line of events. The Washington State connection is another lost tidbit the media promptly ignored in Barry's history. So what else is missing?

I WELCOME PRAYER! THANK YOU ! AND I WILL DO THE SAME FOR YOU THAT ONE DAY, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE THAT YOU OPEN YOUR EYES. THAT YOU LET YOUR HATRED AWAY AND FEAR GO AWAY, OPEN YOUR EYES TO NOT BEING AS SCARED AS THE PEOPLE THAT LIE TO YOU HOPE YOU ARE. I ALSO PRAY THAT FIRST AND FORMOST YOU WOULD BE THE AMERICAN “CHRISTIAN” THAT YOU CLAIM TO BE TO KNOW THAT TO BE A CHRISTIAN YOU NEED TO BE “CHRISTLIKE”

IF IT IS SECRET, PLEASE TELL US HOW DO YOU KNOW ABOUT IT??

HAHAHAHAHA IGNORANT??? GEE ………SUCH A SNAPPY COMEBACK FROM SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE COMMON SENSE….YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.! IT IS IGNORANT OF ME TO POINT OUT SOMEONE ELSES IGNORANCE. BECAUSE TO IGNORANT ONE THEY DO NOT REALIZE HOW IGNORANT THEY ARE!! SO IT IS IGNORANT OF ME TO TRY AND SHOW YOU HOW IGNORANT YOU ARE…SO NOW THE QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IS ARE YOU THE POT OR THE KETTLE??

“That’s not what I take away from the quote you posted. I read it to say that, since the DHHL utilizes information only found on the original birth certificate, why waste your time and money submitting the COLB when the DHHL will need to see the original birth documentation anyway.”

That is an interesting interpretation, of course it is completely incorrect and borderline ridiculous, but interesting. It explicitly states that you may submit the COLB, but that it requires “additional verification”. Note that it does not say it requires alternate verification.

“That has nothing to do with whether the COLB is a valid state document concerning the fact of a person’s birth, which it is. ”

Agreed.

“It has to do with the fact that the original birth certificate is a historical document upon which the state may rely for historical information contained in no other document.”

It isn’t a historical document it is a vital record. Anybody can write a “historical document”, but vital statistics have evidentiary presumptions. The state no longer relies on the “historical document” as it maintains electronic records of the information contained in the original.

“Certification” is the problem….Certification is not Certificate.

Obots and OBOT PSYOPS agents is name calling? Well I guess if you are a PC “sensitive” kind of guy, I can see your point.

I don't hae limp wrists and I think PC is a tool of political blackmail!

I would rather inform citizens of the facts.

Woe unto those who quote Shakespeare or the Bible without understanding either.

The proof is disclosure of the ultimate evidence. The prima facie evidence is a long form birth certificate listing hospital name, doctor signature. Not complicated. But…it is.

I’m sure the birth certificate would be useful, but I doubt he’s going to give a further ounce of credibility to those who claim his COLB doesn’t settle the question of his place of birth. At this point, I can’t say I blame him.

Think about this….if you know the history …why Stanley Ann Dunham was NOT enrolled at the University of Hawaii for Winter Quarter January 1961??

She then pops up in August 1961 in her old stomping grounds Mercer Island, Seattle, WA.

So far, we can agree on these facts.

Let's use common sense, human nature. You have a young woman who's 18, pregnant, child out of wedlock to a foreigner of another race in Hawaii it's 1960. How do you think the parent's felt?

Her parents weren’t pleased, that seems obvious from the record.

Stanley Ann wasn't back at the University of Hawaii because she wasn't there. They (Stanley Ann and Obama Sr.) went to Kenya between terms at U of Hawaii in late January of 1961 to get married. They did that because marriage in the US would have constituted the crime of Bigamy.

This is where your analysis flies off the rails. Your theory raises some basic questions of evidence, means, and motive. Where are the Kenyan marriage records? Do you have evidence that Dunham knew Obama was a bigamist before she married him? Do you have evidence that the State of Hawaii was in any position to learn on its own that Obama was a bigamist, given the state of communications and records in 1961 and the fact that Obama’s first marriage occurred in a poor colonial outpost (Kenya/Zanzibar) half a world away? Where did the couple obtain the funds to travel around the world? Where did they live in Kenya? With whom did they live? Why wasn’t the new Mrs. Obama concerned about the prospective citizenship of her child-to-be?

She became friends with his Kenya relatives and remained in Kenya after the marriage–she was estranged from her parents and had nowhere to live in the US. Obama Sr. returned to U. of Hawaii for Winter 61.

She stayed in Kenya because she had problems with her parents and therefore had “nowhere to live in the US”? Are you kidding me? And where do you have evidence that she “became friends with his Kenya relatives”? Wouldn't she have found out by this time that her husband was a bigamist? Wouldn't she have come into contact with her husband's other family? Wouldn't this have been uncomfortable and awkward?

She came to term in late July and intended to board an airplane to return for the birth but was not permitted to board because of her condition.

Why would she return to the United States if she had nowhere to live, wasn’t getting along with her parents, her marriage could be threatened by bigamy charges, and she was having a great time with Obama’s family?

And how do you know she tried to leave Kenya in July? Why wouldn’t she have left earlier if she was concerned about getting back to the U.S.?

Kid drops in Coast Provincial General Hospital outside of Mombasa in Kenya early in the morning on August 4 Kenya time -still August 3 on the West Coast of the US.

Rampant speculation.

I suppose you believe that Sarah Obama said she was “present” at his birth, despite the fact that she lives in a village near Kisumu, on the other side of the country.

Stanley Ann was alone in a foreign country and wanted “proof” that the child was hers and for citizenship. She may have filed something with the U.S. embassy.

Alone? I thought she was getting along great with her husband's relatives?

And why the obsession with Barack's citizenship if she had no reason to go back to the U.S.? Why was she not equally as concerned when Maya was to be born in Jakarta in 1970?

BOAC flight schedules in use in August of 1961 from Kenya at that time is out of Nariobi connecting through Glascow Scotland through Vancouver BC. She could well have been on board before August 4 started in the US.

So, you claim Obama was born in Mombasa, and that somehow Dunham traveled over 300 miles to Nairobi with a newborn baby before embarking on a round-the-world trip?

Her friend Susan Blake's live testimony has been readily available on line for some time. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageI…
Stanley Ann arrived in Seattle from Vancouver at a time before she had learned to changed diapers (which usually occurs within 48 hours in a normal birth setting). That puts her on Mercer Island on the 6th of August.

In the article you cite, Dunham’s friend states that “Dunham visited her in Seattle in a ‘late August afternoon’ when Barack Obama Jr. was only ‘a few weeks old.’” That directly contradicts what you claim.

She then proceeds to Honolulu and she and her mother file some document with Hawaii Public Health. Simple. That's the way it happened in fact.

No, that’s your theory. And it makes no sense – even under your theory of events. If Dunham was already in Washington State (which is U.S. soil), why would she then turn around and take a long flight to Hawaii just to have the baby’s birth recorded there? Especially with such a young baby, and given that she planned to turn right around and return to Washington within days? Who’s funding all of this galavanting around?

She then returned to WA state, her old stomping grounds away from parents and hubby. Dunham was enrolled at the University of Washington in Seattle for two nite classes that began on Sept. 19, 1961: Anthropology 100, “Introduction to the Study of Man” and Political Science 201, “Modern Government.”

This story actually makes more sense under a different scenario. Let’s call this scenario “B.” Dunham is not happy in her marriage with Obama in Hawaii. She wants to get away from him to familiar faces and a new life in Washington State. She enrolls in UW, anticipating that she will have given birth by the beginning of fall semester. But she can’t move until she finally gives birth. She does, and when she’s rested up, she heads to Washington. She has several weeks to adjust to being a single mother and prepare for a couple night classes starting in September.

Can I say that’s exactly what happened? No. But it’s a hell of a lot more plausible than your epic drama, in all due respect. My theory requires less inexplicable international intrigue, and could have happened on a student's budget.

It is not until Sept-Dec 1962 — Ann moves back to Hawaii, with baby Obama, to live with parents…While Fall 1962 — Obama SR begins school at Harvard, in Boston, Mass.

My theory – she’s had her fill of being away from Hawaii, her estranged husband is leaving for the East Coast, and she’s ready to continue where she left off in 1961.

wrong!

Can you pass the: Obama Eligibility Logic Test?

http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama…

You're wrapped up in a meaningless distinction. The issue isn't what the document is called, but what legal function it has. The certificate may be an important historical document on file with the state, but it is the certification that the state issues to residents for purposes of proving birth. The document clearly states it is “prima facie evidence” of the fact of the person's birth in any court of law. That's not just for cutesty purposes. That is a real and important legal effect of the COLB.

Exactly. Nothing to see here but yet another fact-free rant from a racist loser destined for epic fail in a U.S. courtroom.

And Barack Hussein Obama is still President of our United States of America.

[...] Here is the original post: Sean Hannity Winks at the Birthers « The Washington Independent [...]

Why is “Certification” a problem? The COLB is legal evidence of the place and date of birth, acceptable to the federal government and any State or court in the land. If you disagree, cite the statute or rule proving otherwise. Look at FRE 902(1). If it bears the State of Hawaii's stamp, and the appropriate signature, it is “self-authenticating” evidence.

Hmmm . . . I don't remember George W. Bush providing me with even an online photo of his birth certificate, Certification of Live Birth, or any similar document, let alone an stamped original of my very own to look at and examine.

But then again — when did that become a legal requirement for Presidential candidates?

If you think a candidate needs to provide you personalized evidence of birth, college records, medical records or penis size, then you are free not to vote for candidates who fail to satisfy your longing. That's democracy. But your desire is not a legal requirement.

I didn't say I object to the names, just that I find birftard hypocrisy amusing.

And I think it is admirable to inform citizens of the facts. Do you have any facts?

What you seem to have is predictions — the same birftard predictions we hear over and over. “Any day now, the truth will come out. Yes, any day now.” The truth is already out. Barack Obama was elected President. You just don't like the truth.

And why is Stanley Ann Dunham in Mombasa? It isn't anywhere near her husband's home and relatives, and wasn't even part of Kenya in 1961. It was part of Zanzibar. And she couldn't have gone there to try to get back to the U.S. The airport in Mombasa did not become an international airport until 1979. And if she flew out of Nairobi, she had a trek of over 300 miles from Mombasa to Nairobi. That is a good 14-16 hour train ride even today. There is no way that she gave birth in Mombasa, took the train to Nairobi, and was on an international airplane flight with a newborn while it was still August 4.

And then there is the small problem that the State of Hawaii says Barack Obama was born there on August 4, 1961, and there is no actual evidence that his mother was ever in Kenya or Zanzibar, let alone that she gave birth there.

But hey, maybe you have a future writing fantasy fiction.

If Barack Obama produced the “birth certificate” you long for, the litigation would continue unabated. Why? Because this isn't about the birth certificate. If he produces the “birth certificate,” he will still be black, and he will still be President, and some people just can't seem to accept that.

For example, why would any form of birth certificate satisfy the many birfers who say that Barack Obama can't be a “natural born citizen” because his father was from Kenya? Any litigation based on that theory will continue. And there are other varieties of birfers who claim his father wasn't his real father, his mother wasn't his real mother, and on and on.

Barack Obama has provided the COLB, which is legal evidence of place and time of birth for federal purposes (e.g., obtaining a passport) and in every State and every court in the United States. Anyone who isn't satisfied with that, will never be satisfied. Because the birth certificate isn't their real problem.

And the real principle being defended by the Department of Justice and Obama's lawyers is this: there is only one Constitutional method for removing a sitting President: Impeachment by the House, and trial and conviction of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in the Senate. The courts have no role in that process.

I have heard many an American say “I'm Irish” or “I'm Irish-American” or “I'm Italian” or “I'm Italian-American.” Pride of country does not mean that someone was born there.

When John F. Kennedy visited Ireland, he was greeted with a banner:

“Tea had been laid out on trestle tables in the yard and a banner declared 'Welcome home, Mr President'.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/storie…

Proof that JFK was born in Ireland, right?

Of course not. But then, JFK was white. And white people are allowed to be proud of their ancestry and ethnicity.

No, the links themselves would not be proof of identity. But what is contained at the links proves that the Certification of Live Birth that Obama posted an image of back in June 2008 is sufficient proof of identity to get a driver's license, a passport and even to join little league. It is also sufficient proof that Obama is a natural-born citizen and therefore eligible to be president.

I posted three comments on your blog. You allowed the first one to show but not my subsequent replies to you.

The information at all of the links has never been debunked. I dare you to prove otherwise. And here is an image of the LEGITIMATE Hawaiian birth certificate:
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

Can you answer my questions that I posted in the comments there? And can you explain why if anyone can get a Hawaiian birth certificate that says they were born in Hawaii no matter where they were born that illegal immigrants don't simply go to Hawaii, get a COLB and become natural born citizens?

Not to mention that pregnant women are not allowed to fly on most airlines when they're at or near term, let alone go into an area that had been at war a few months earlier.

No, I want proof that lawyers were paid to do what you claim. There are many, many, many reasons for the Obama campaign to pay several law firms, and unless you and your little friends can produce the actual billing records, you have zero idea what the bills represent.

Asked and answered in another thread.

Wrong as usual. A birth certificate of the type shown on line and given to Factcheck.org is accepted for employment, passports, driver licenses, and yes, Little League sign ups.

Completely irrelevant. The President is not of Native Hawaiian (i.e., the original Polynesian residents of the islands) descent and has never claimed to be such.

Let’s see…

Gratuitous insults, homophobia, misquoting, racism, bad logic, pure stupidity….

I’d say you’re a Hun all right.

WARNING: I see the blowers are back with their web links. I discourage anybody from clicking on their links, they contain nothing but unprovable theories and forged documents. There have also been reports of some sites attempting to load viruses on your computers. These sites make their money by their traffic numbers, the best way to shut these folks down is to QUIT clicking on their links…maybe then they can get out of their mother's basements and get a real job.

WARNING: If you do not want to be informed of the facts. Go ahead and be lead astray by people like Jim. Otherwise, please be informed of the facts.

WARNING: If you do not want to be informed of the facts. Go ahead and be lead astray by people like Jim. Otherwise, please be informed of the facts.

Really gc? I have yet to see any facts that dispute that Obama is our legally elected President. I have gone to some of these sites and read outrageous theories with no proof. I have gone to these sites and seen forged documents. I have gone to some of these sites and seen that they have no understanding of the law and constitution. I have gone to some of these sites and seen that they are being kept up by advertising and WND dollars that are tied to traffic. So, if someone wants to be informed of the FACTS, those sites are the last place to go.

Since you like to copy and paste…Really gc? I have yet to see any facts that dispute that Obama is our legally elected President. I have gone to some of these sites and read outrageous theories with no proof. I have gone to these sites and seen forged documents. I have gone to some of these sites and seen that they have no understanding of the law and constitution. I have gone to some of these sites and seen that they are being kept up by advertising and WND dollars that are tied to traffic. So, if someone wants to be informed of the FACTS, those sites are the last place to go.

Hawaii's Dr. Fukino's press release was so carefully hedged and “lawyered” and practically worthless.

There have been numerous requests for 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.”

It is understandable that after such an apparently definitive statement most news outlets, whether conservative or liberal, would accept this as sufficient grounds to relegate the controversy to the status of a fringe phenomenon. Unless they happened to take the trouble to look into the “state policies and procedures” as laid down by the relevant statutes. If they had done so, they would have seen that Dr. Fukino's press release was carefully hedged and “lawyered” and practically worthless. But the media in general should not be faulted. The statement seems to roll out with such bureaucratic certainty and final authority. I believed it to be significant until a Honolulu attorney mailed me the relevant statutes. I was so surprised that I laughed out loud.

Interesting, GC, so what you're saying is Hawaii shouldn't follow the law? Or you're just saying that you don't like the statement because it doesn't say what you want it to say?

Obama's COLB was never presented to a government agency.

Posting a document on a private web page means nothing. It could have been a forgery. The Hawaii DoH would not confirm that they issued a COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007. Why would they refuse to do it if the document published by Obama is legitimate.

You know all these facts yet keep repeating that Obama presented a COLB document.

Which government agency accepts COLB image posted on a private web page as a sufficient proof of birthplace?
Can I obtain a passport by posting documents on my web page and ask government officials to review them online?

Do you think the relevant statutes entitle you to a copy of President Obama's birth certificate? Please cite the statutes.

And if you are so convinced, then file your own request for the birth certificate. And if the Department of Health denies your request, hire that Honolulu attorney to sue the Department of Health.

I don't believe you have any facts other than those that you choose to believe.

Please be succinct in answering the following:

(1) What provision of the Constitution or State or Federal statute or regulation requires a candidate for President to submit a COLB “to a government agency?”

(2) What provision of Hawaii law requires the State of Hawaii generally, or the Department of Health specifically, to separately authenticate a document bearing the State's stamp and the signature of the person authorized to release the document?

No, you can't get a passport with a web image. But when I've asked you before how a Presidential candidate would provide proof to over 100 million voters, you have said that it could be posted on a government website. Correct? Only, there is no legal requirement to do so.

And why would Hawaii's DoH not verify that they issued a COLB to Obama on a specific date? Here is why: the COLB is “self-authenticating.” It bears the stamp and signature required, as is legal proof of the place and date of birth, acceptable for federal purposes (such as a passport), and for any State or any Court in the United States. If the State starts down the path of “verifying” documents that are already self-authenticating by law, it is undermining the whole point of getting those documents.

If I go in to get a passport, and I present my stamped, signed Certification of Live Birth, the federal government does not contact the keeper of vital records in the County where I was born to verify that they issued the document to me. The precedent you birfers want to set would bring all applications for passports, driver's licenses, etc. to a grinding halt.

Now, I know that in a day or two, you'll post this same crap again, and claim that I've never responded. You are not only an ignorant asshat, you are a pathological liar.

Of course the Hun won't respond. Instead, he'll re-post the same nonsense elsewhere, and claim that no one has responded to it. It's the birther way.

Fact #1: Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

Fact #2: Birthers have lost over 50 lawsuits attempting to change Fact #1.

Fact #3: Federal judges cannot change Fact #1.

Fact #4: The only way to remove a sitting President from office is through impeachment by the House followed by trial and conviction in the Senate.

But, Obama's COLB was CREATED by a government agency. An agency that went so far as to state that, yes, he was born in Hawaii. Something I've never seen before, since all agencies have to, by law, accept it. If you want to create another major depression in the country, that would cause it. Make every government created document have to be double-triple-quadrupled verified to satisfy every single citizen.

The latest from Orly Taitz:
————————————————————–
On 10.29.09. this court has issued an order granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
The order did not state that it was a final order and it did not state that it was a dismissal with prejudice. The order stated that this court does not have jurisdiction to remove the president under Quo Warranto and noted that other causes of action were not fully plead. Wherefore the undersigned counsel understands that the order was not a final order on the case, that since the case was never argued on the merits, there was no adjudication with prejudice and therefore the undersigned counsel can exercise her right to file a second amended complaint on the remaining causes of action within 30 days from the denial of the Motion for reconsideration.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel requests clarification and confirmation that the 10.29.09. order was not a final order, that it was not an order with prejudice and that she can exercise her right to file a second amended complaint on all causes of action aside from Quo Warranto

She already requested leave to file a second amended complaint, and it was denied. Moreover, Judge Carter's order disposed of all claims in the case. True, he didn't title it “Final Order.” But an order that disposes of all claims in the case is final.

WARNING: naturalizedcitizen IS WILLFULLY IGNORANT!

Cognitive Dissonance has damaged his mind so that all logical processes have broken down. Commonly accept tenants of logical discourse, historical and legal scholarship have removed themselves from his mental workings.

Further engagement will only result in loss of time and increased stress levels.

She realized that she neglected to file an appeal to the final order in time. All she cam appeal now is the denial of the reconsideration, which severely limits her. Boo Hoo.

Bearclaw, does Orly have to pay for all these filings, even the ones that are denied? And, can Judge Carter cite her for filing all these complaints and wasting the court's time? If you've dealt with the Judge, would he?

If you truly think that the President took office without an extensive and thorough background check from the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and whatever other intelligence agencies the government has, you are living in a dream world. They vet the *in-laws* of federal agents to within an inch of their lives, so they clearly probe a lot deeper when it's the President.

You must live in a state of perpetual rage and paranoia. Have you considered relaxation therapy or medications to reduce your sky-high levels of anxiety?

I'm not sure it is too late. Under Rule 4(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, where the U.S. or its officer or agencty is a party, the deadline for appeal for all parties is 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered. The Order was entered October 29. So I think she still has time.

I frankly don't know why she's doing this. It is strangely satisfying not to be able to understand the mind of Orly Taitz.

A filing fee is paid when the complaint is filed, but not for each pleading. I don't know Judge Carter, and don't practice in SoCal. I thought his order denying the Motion for Reconsideration was quite restrained. But at some point, he's going to have to tell Orly unambiguously that she can't file anything more.

Maybe she thinks she still has a trial date in his court on January 26!

According to the Berg lawsuit against her, her and her husband have a net worth of 25 million. But most of that is probabaly tied up in his buisness and her two dental practices

Where is the proof that COLB was issued by DoH. It does not exist. The DoH refuses to acknowledge that they issued it to Obama on June 6, 2007. For all we know the COLB could be a forgery. I could post a COLB image indicating that I was born in Hawaii. Would you accept it as a proof that Hawaii DoH issued my COLB?

Dr. Fukino never said that Obama's original birth certificate indicates Hawaiian birth. The timing of her second press release is very suspicious – only few hours after Congress issued a declarative resolution acknowledging Obama's Hawaiian birth.
Her first statement in October 2008 was a misleading one – she never mentiones Hawaiian birth. Why?

Oh poor baby, let me pat you on the head and give you a cookie. We understand you have trouble with the english language, but we'll understand and laugh at you anyway. Go ahead and post your Hawaii COLB, we don't mind. The interesting part will be when you try to get Hawaii to say you were born there. Lose again…no surprise. Now you can go curl up in your corner with your blankie and cookie and have a nice cry that no one agrees with you opinion.

1) I mentioned government agency to emphasise that there was no offical verification of COLB image posted on the web.

Since Obama has posted an image of COLB on the web and made it public – why is it that Hawaii DoH would not confirm its authenticity?

The DoH violated state laws by not releasing the index data for registration number 10641. They also refused to publish the manual describing the “Filed by registrar” versus “Accepted by State registrar”.

Why is such a trivial information hidden from public? They have laws to ensure public acces to government records.

2) You are assuming that DoH issued a document to Obama, and the second verification would not be necessary. This is not the case here. We are not trying to verify a paper copy of Obama's COLB, but an image posted on a private web site.

Why is it that you cannot obtain a passport based on image posted on your web site. After all, the image shows an offical document – does it not?
If the government would not accept the image posted on the private web page as a proof of COLB validity – why should we use different criteria when judging Obama's COLB?

Hawaii is not required to validate self-authenticating documents they release to paranoid whack-jobs such as yourself.

Hawaii has neither confirmed nor DENIED that the COLB publicly submitted by the campaign is valid. Their failure to do either does not logically proof the documents invalidity. to claim otherwise is to claim a logical falsehood.

Isn't it amazing how they have to make this 18 year-old pregnant woman the most amazing individual since James Bond? Sneaking from country to country, falsifying government records, unlimited supply of cash, etc, etc, etc. They really need to get out of their basements and see the real world, they might find it's a nice place to live!

How about a cookie laced with Prozac or Xanax?

Answer the questions as stated, not as you want them to be stated.

You sure NC's not already using? Seems like it, since she can't keep her facts straight and just keeps talking in circles.

“Why should we use different criteria when judging Obama's COLB?”

Duh. Because you can't answer my first question! By law, I have to present my birth certificate to get a passport. You have pointed to no provision of the Constitution, or any state or federal statute or regulation requiring that a candidate for President provide a Certification of Live Birth or similar document.

Try again.

“The DoH violated state laws by not releasing the index data for registration number 10641. They also refused to publish the manual describing the “Filed by registrar” versus “Accepted by State registrar”.”

This tired old shit again. Until you publish the letters you've received from the State of Hawaii rejecting your request for either item, then you have no proof they are refusing to do anything.

Also, the State of Hawaii is not required by any law to proof anything to you. If you doubt their procedures for record keeping or release of documents, that is your problem, not ours and not theirs.

“Why is it that you cannot obtain a passport based on image posted on your web site”
As repeated so many many times. The purpose of Obama meeting with factcheck to have them actually handle the Hawaiian released document was to alleviate the concerns of ordinary citizens – not to officially release the document to any government entity. Your repeated failure to acknowledge or understand this basic fact means your a motherfucking ignorant moron.

There is no doubt that there are gaps in the documentation of Obama's life, and that of his parents. Fair enough. People are free to speculate.

But here's the bottom line: When you take a close look at the hypothetical explanations offered by the birthers, the yawning chasms in their scenarios, the blatant contradictions in the reasoning, the lack of motive or means to explain such theories, the lack of credible evidence to support them, make the gaps in Obama's record disappear in comparison.

The fact that Obama hasn't produced a long form birth certificate only signifies a nefarious plot to those who are prepared to believe the following:

(1) A student of modest means took a jet airliner across the globe at the dawn of air travel when the cost of traveling was prohibitive for the middle class;

(2) This student chose to move to a country she'd never before visited, living with relatives she didn't know, several of whom were part of her husband's other wife's family;

(3) She gave birth in a city hundreds of miles from anyone in Kenya/Zanzibar with whom she had a connection in a country with an underdeveloped infrastructure;

(4) This same student then traveled hundreds of miles across that infrastructure, hopped a plane on short notice, jetted back across the globe, all with a baby no more than a few hours old;

(5) This person so acted because she was concerned about the citizenship of her newborn child, when the same concern apparently wasn't an issue when she went to Africa in the first place.

(6) Then, despite her desperate need to return to Hawaii, she promptly uproots herself weeks later to move to Washington State.

Now, the assertion that these events occured is fantastic and inexplicable enough as it is. But WHY would a person do this? Not even the most articulate birther has ever offered a coherent justification for these supposed actions. The best we heard on this board is that Dunham had problems with her parents. Really? Isn't moving to the mainland good enough? The other explanation is that she moved to Africa so that he new husband wouldn't be charged with bigamy. REALLY? Would YOU move across the globe with a spouse who you learned is still married to his original spouse? Does that seem reasonable to anyone?

I didn't think so.

What facts? All I've seen so far is innuendo, wild speculation, and outright falsehoods.

Do you have any link to a story that mentions vetting the candidate Obama?

Are those agencies allowed to investigate presidential candidates and interfere with the election process?

If he had been vetted by those agencies, there would have been no problem in releasing the original birth certificate. It would be cheaper for Obama to do it rather than spend money on law firms fighting the eligibility lawsuits.

MORE LEGAL WOES FOR OBAMA'S TEAM
12-9-2009 Chrysler v. Obama: Two lawyers have joined forces to assemble a case challenging in U.S. bankruptcy court the federal government's use of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to bail out Chrysler and in doing so may have created a scenario that finally will bring to a head the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
As part of the demand for information about the authority used, Donofrio confirmed, there will be questions about Obama's eligibility to be president. Donofrio contends that since by Obama's own admission his father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama was born a dual citizen. The framers of the Constitution, he argues, did not consider a dual citizen to be a “natural born citizen” as required for the presidency.
The burden, then, would shift to Obama and his administration officials to document their constitutional authority for their decisions and their handling of taxpayer money.
If the president cannot document his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, his presidential task force had no authority to act at all, the case contends.

If this is the case why do you bother replying to my posts.
Ignore me – your stress level will decrease and you'll have more time for other activities, LOL!!!

Ha Ha Ha.

Leo is an idiot. I hope he's doing this for free, because if anyone is paying him, they are getting ripped off. This will lose, just like every other birftard attempt to use the federal courts to do what they have no Constitutional authority to do: remove a President from office, or at a minimum declare a coordinate branch of government to be powerless to perform its Constitutional duties.

Here's an idea for avoiding litigation costs: the birftards can stop filing meritless lawsuits. You've lost over 50 of them, right? And won precisely, uh, zero!

Instead, try reading the Constitution. You can get it online for free. You will notice that the federal courts are given no role in removing a sitting President from office, except that the Chief Justice presides over (but has no vote in) the trial in the Senate.

“The framers of the Constitution, he argues, did not consider a dual citizen to be a “natural born citizen” as required for the presidency.”

Donofrio has never advanced credible evidence for this assertion, and I doubt he will turn over a new leaf anytime soon.

At least 20% of voters, including 35% of Republicans, support impeaching Obama for his actions so far. I'm not clear exactly what 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his Kenyan citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to the United States, any claim to U.S. citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Obama fails both tests — jus soli and jus sanguinis — the simple fact is that Obama has chosen to hide who he is, what he is and where he comes from.

“At least 20% of voters, including 35% of Republicans, support impeaching Obama for his actions so far.”

So what? According to an Angus Reid poll taken in 2007, 39% of Americans favored the impeachment of then-President George W. Bush. We're always going to have a disaffected segment of the populace which sees impeachment as the only way to resolve their grievances. The majority of Americans, however, want to give their president the opportunity to succeed, and not mire the country in an extended round of finger-pointing and procedures to reverse fairly-conducted elections.

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his Kenyan citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to the United States, any claim to U.S. citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

With all due respect, you exhibit a shockingly ignorant understanding of U.S. law.

Let's start you off with a primer in constitutional law. Below is an excerpt of what we call the “Fourteenth Amendment,” which is part of the Constitution:

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

Barack Obama, by your admission, was born in Honolulu. Honolulu is a city in Hawaii, which in 1961, as it is today, was a state in the United States. Therefore, Obama was “born… in the United States.”

In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” In deciding a case called Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that the phrase encompassed all natural persons born on U.S. soil, with the exception of children born to diplomats or nationals of a hostile occupying power, and possibly Native Americans. Obama was born on U.S. soil, his parents were not diplomats serving in the U.S., nor was Hawaii under hostile occupation in 1961, and no one alleges Obama was a member of a Native American tribe. So, according to the Court's precedent, Obama was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at the time and place of his birth.

He was therefore a citizen of the United States at birth, not to mention a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. He did not need to swear an oath to the United States to obtain or retain citizenship – it is his birthright.

Because he has not renounced his citizenship, nor has he lost his citizenship under any applicable statute, he remains a U.S. citizen, and a “natural born” one at that.

So I'm afraid Obama passes the jus soli test with flying colors (jus sanguinis being irrelevant in this context) – and you flunk basic constitutional law.

Thanks for playing, though. Your fantastic legal delusions are a great source of entertainment.

The AP reporter stated the following:
Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.
This report explains the context of the oft cited debate, between Obama and Keyes in the following Fall, in which Keyes faulted Obama for not being a “natural born citizen”, and in which Obama, by his quick retort, “So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency”, self-admitted that he was not eligible for the office. Seeing that an AP reporter is too professional to submit a story which was not based on confirmed sources (ostensibly the Obama campaign in this case), the inference seems inescapable: Obama himself was putting out in 2004, that he was born in Kenya.

You yourself stated that Obama was born in Honolulu. Is that still your position, or has it changed in the last twenty minutes or so?

Now, I have a challenge for you. Please provide a link to video of Obama making the statement you attribute to him in the Obama-Keyes debate. You've made an outlandish claim. Now back it up with audio/visual support, not some second-hand quote from an anti-Obama website.

While we're on the topic of the apocryphal AP story, perhaps you should read this, found at [http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/26/obama-birthplace-lawyer-submits-suspect-document/23981/]

Obama birthplace lawyer submits suspect document
October 26th, 2009, 4:28 pm · 224 Comments · posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter

Updated Oct. 27 with Associated Press statement that it never reported that Obama was born in Kenya – that it has reported he was born in Hawaii.

Laguna Niguel lawyer Orly Taitz on Sunday electronically filed with the federal court in Santa Ana a document purporting to be a June 27, 2004, Associated Press story in a Kenyan newspaper saying that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

But there’s a couple potential problems with that. First, Obama’s first name is misspelled as “Barrack” – an unlikely typo for the Associated Press to make on a man about to be elected to the U.S. Senate. Second, perusal of the Nexis database finds several versions of a similar story using the same quotes – but none mention Obama’s birthplace. Farther down in this blog item, I have a link to Taitz’s version and I’ve re-printed a version from the Nexis database.

Plus … since originally posting this item, I received the following statement from 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 I wrote in this profile of Taitz in yesterday’s newspaper, Taitz has had past problems with authenticity of her documents in her longshot legal efforts to prove that Obama is not a natural-born citizen and so is not the legitimate president.

In her filing yesterday, Taitz writes that her version of the AP story – from The Sunday Standard – ” is unauthenticated, but is allegedly derived from a well-known and highly respected news wire service, namely the Associated Press.”

Click here to see the suspect AP story filed by Taitz on Sunday.

Here’s a typical version of the story filed by AP, as drawn from the Nexis database:

June 26, 2004 Saturday
Final Edition

Illinois Senate candidate drops out of race;
Sex club charges left Ryan ‘a dead man walking’

BYLINE: MAURA KELLY LANNAN Associated Press

SECTION: INSIDE FRONT; Pg. A2

LENGTH: 456 words

CHICAGO — Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan dropped out of the race Friday amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days.

“It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race,” Ryan, 44, said in a statement. “What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign — the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play.”

The campaign began to come apart Monday following the release of embarrassing records from Ryan’s divorce. In those records, his ex-wife, “Boston Public” actress Jeri Ryan, said Ryan took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans and tried to get her to perform sex acts with him while others watched.

Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one “avant-garde” club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable.

In quitting the race, Ryan lashed out at the media and said it was “truly outrageous” that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records.

“The media has gotten out of control,” he said.

Top Illinois Republicans immediately began the work of selecting a new candidate. Their choice will become an instant underdog against Democratic state Sen. Barack Obama in the campaign for the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Peter Fitzgerald. Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.

“I feel for him actually,” Obama said on WLS-AM. “What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody. Unfortunately, I think our politics has gotten so personalized and cutthroat that it’s very difficult for people to want to get in the business.”

Ryan had faced mounting pressure to quit from party leaders, who met several times in Washington this week to discuss whether the campaign could survive.

“He really was a dead man walking,” Gary MacDougal, former Illinois Republican Party chairman.

Ryan conducted an overnight poll to gauge his support. After reviewing the results, Ryan’s advisers told the candidate that the only way to survive would be wage an extremely negative and expensive response.

“Jack Ryan made the right decision. I know it must have been a difficult one,” said House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who made his feelings known by canceling a fund-raising event scheduled for Thursday with Ryan.

During the primary, Ryan waved off rumors of damaging sex allegations in his sealed divorce records, assuring state officials there was nothing in the file to worry about.

But the Tribune and Chicago TV station WLS sued for the records’ release, and a California judge ordered them unsealed.

“(1) What provision of the Constitution or State or Federal statute or regulation requires a candidate for President to submit a COLB “to a government agency?”

Answer is simple – there is no such law.

Obama decided to post an image of COLB on the web to counter the reports of foreign birth (three different countries and two different Hawaii hospitals).

So far so good.

The public is entitled to verify the COLB using lawful means. By making the COLB public, Obama cannot hide behind the privacy laws when it comes to the verification of information shown on the COLB. This includes DoH index data for number 10641, status field,…(you know the drill).

Do you have a link to any story that mentions vetting any President before they were elected?

And the only reports you cite for three different countries and 2 different hospitals come from…wait for it…BLOWERS!!! Nothing from the other countries. You have no proof of anything different, just unprovable theories. The public saw what the Obama camp released and decided, by a majority, it was enough. That’s called an election, in case you were wondering. Now, all you are left with is your distaste for the legally elected President.

You are aware that Obama's birth was reported in three different countries and two different Hawaiii hospitals. There has to be a definitive proof of his birthplace to counter the contradicting media reports about his birth.

Thanks to Eleonor Nordyke we know how the long form BC for someone born in the Kapiolani looks like.

What is your explanation for Obama's unwillingness to authorize the release of the original birth certificate?

How do you explain the fact that Hawaii DoH would not confirm that COLB posted by Obama was indeed issued by DoH on June 6, 2007?

Sorry for the cut and paste, but it works well with NC's delusional rants. And the only reports you cite for three different countries and 2 different hospitals come from…wait for it…BLOWERS!!! Nothing from the other countries. You have no proof of anything different, just unprovable theories. The public saw what the Obama camp released and decided, by a majority, it was enough. That's called an election, in case you were wondering. Now, all you are left with is your distaste for the legally elected President.

Why do we need to speculate/prove Obama's foreign birth? Lets prove that he was born in Hawaii by providing irrefutable evidence using US documents.

How about verifying that information on COLB is correct.

1. The Hawaii DoH refuses to confirm that they issued COLB to Obma on June 6, 2007.

2. The DoH refuses to release the index data for registration number 10641 (number shown on Obama's COLB). The index data is in public domain according to Hawaii state laws.

3. The status field show on Obama's COLB (“Filed by Registrar”) is different from the one (“Accepted by State Registrar”) shown by some other COLBs issued by the DoH.

The DoH refused to provide the explanation (or state manual describing the meaning of these two phrases). There are numerous laws and state documents posted on Hawaii state government web sites. This one is hidden from public. Why?

Sorry for the cut and paste, but it works well with NC's delusional rants. And the only reports you cite for three different countries and 2 different hospitals come from…wait for it…BLOWERS!!! Nothing from the other countries. You have no proof of anything different, just unprovable theories. The public saw what the Obama camp released and decided, by a majority, it was enough. That's called an election, in case you were wondering. Now, all you are left with is your distaste for the legally elected President.

How about releasing the original birth certificate on file with DoH. The same kind that Eleonor Nordyke gave to Honolulu Advertiser to publish.

If you truly believed that Obama was a legitimate president, you would have no problems with this request. After all McCain's birth certificate, indicating the hospital and attending physician, was published – why not Obama's?

Second, if you truly believed that being born a citizen is definition of NBC, would you not welcome the court ruling on this issue once and for all so that there is no more confusion for future elections about candidates' eligibility.

If you were confident in your knowledge of Constitution and laws you would have welcomed the opportunity to prove birthers wrong, would you not?

Instead, Obama chose to fight for dismissal of eligibility lawsuits. Coward is hiding behind Dr. Fukino's skirt. A “fine” example of leadership to our troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

POST Edited to reflect facts and law:
“You are aware that Obama's birth was rumored to have taken place in two different countries other than Hawaii and incorrectly reported decades after the fact in a second hospital who's name can be mixed up with his factual birth hospital. There has to be a definitive proof of his birthplace in either of these two countries or other hospital to make any accusations of fraud or error credible or worth listening to.

“How do you explain the fact that Hawaii DoH would not confirm that COLB posted by Obama was indeed issued by DoH on June 6, 2007?”

And to repeat – they have to confirm or deny a self-authenticating document. You have to have proof of it's potential fraudulence to question it.

You are ignorant of the law. The courts will avoid ruling on elligibility because they are other more relevent defendants, namely Chrysler LLC.

Prove to us that Hawaii refused anything.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.
Prove it.

You can't and you never will because you are a coward. You are fine coming here to throw mud about but not going out and finding out what you think the truth is.

Fine, then Obama supporters should stop their claims that he published his birth certificate.

It is easy to put forged images on the web. How do we know that this is not the case for Obama’s COLB?

Prove to us that Hawaii has refused to do what you say.

I want, as you say, irefutable proof.

Because fighting your racist ignorant bullshit has to be done by someone.

I see, you offer no explanation for either question from my post.

The fact that you cannot answer my simple questions is telling. Thanks for playing.

The easiest defense of Obama would be joining in the request to see the original birth certificate. That would tell us that there is nothing suspicious about his birthplace.

We saw McCain’s long form birth certificate – where is Obama’s?

Change the subject, LOL!!!!
Is this the best you can do to defend Obama?

Sorry, but the President has citizenship jus soli (from his birth in Honolulu) and jus sanguinis (through his mother, an American citizen). He didn't need to renounce his Kenyan citizenship since it lapsed on his 21st birthday. He has committed no impeachable offense, and has hidden nothing about his past, as anyone who has actually bothered to read his memoir would know.

You can go home now.

Same shit, different poster (or old poster under a sockpuppet).

*yawn*

As usual, wrong in every particular.

Asked and answered, repeatedly, in other threads.

It does not matter what the sources of foreign birth reports are – Obama posted an image of COLB on the web and the public has the right to verify it using legal means.

If you believed that COLB was real and nothing was suspicious – why would you object to that?

Wait… you, of all posters, are going to call someone out for not answering questions posed directly to them? REALLY? YOU?!

You have no standing to call people out on not answering questions.

My point is and always will be, if you have no proof of birth equal in validity to Hawaii;s claim and no proof of fraud or error and no proof of Hawaii’s direct refusal, via direct rejection then you have no valid cause to claim Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii.

Arguments that it would all be cleared up if he just came clean are cowardly strawman arguments and no one has to answer them.

You, of all people are going to accuse me of changing the subject? You? You do realize that posters don’t get new names when they move to other posts right? That I am the same person who has been questioning you and getting no answers or subject changes in response, right?

If you are going to accuse me of changing the subject and then laughing that that is the best I can do to defend Obama (even when I am defending the very basic tenants of our legal system and decent public discourse before I even have to defend him personally) then I can easily turn that right back at you ten-fold. For weeks you have done nothing but change the subject, nothing but repeat the same old tired arguments and when those arguments are challenged again and again, you do not rise to the challenge, you do not answer the questions.

You are a pathetic shill for an agenda that mocks the standards you claim to stand for.

because there is no proof.

Why do you operate in a world where any accusation is valid without proof?

Here is a question for you, you of the recent accusation about not answering question.

You live in a country and a community where accusations leveled must be backed up with evidence, credible evidence. I have repeatedly pointed this out, and you have NEVER ANSWERED ME. This is a basic tenant.

I want an answer from you:
Why should an accusation be addressed if it comes without proof?

Why should I address claims I am a thief, if no one can claim they saw me steal anything or possess stolen property?

Why should you address a claim that you are a child molester if no child has come forth?

I absolutely WILL NOT answer any of your “Gee, why not?” questions until you confirm or deny this basic tenant of law and decency.

because there is no proof.

Why do you operate in a world where any accusation is valid without proof?

Here is a question for you, you of the recent accusation about not answering question.

You live in a country and a community where accusations leveled must be backed up with evidence, credible evidence. I have repeatedly pointed this out, and you have NEVER ANSWERED ME. This is a basic tenant.

I want an answer from you:
Why should an accusation be addressed if it comes without proof?

Why should I address claims I am a thief, if no one can claim they saw me steal anything or possess stolen property?

Why should you address a claim that you are a child molester if no child has come forth?

I absolutely WILL NOT answer any of your “Gee, why not?” questions until you confirm or deny this basic tenant of law and decency.

My answer is simple, you are a single citizen, you get one vote. Your OPINION is your own, my opinion and millions of others is that Obama is eligible to be President. You have no PROOF otherwise. So, it is left up to the voters to decide. Your questions can go unanswered until you're in the ground, as far as I and the majority of the people are concerned. You are aware, BTW, that you're making unfounded accusations that do not need to be answered, so we don't.

We have already proved blowers wrong, NC. The proof is sitting in the WH. So, all that you’re left with is calling Obama names, I see. Like we give a flying shit what your opinion of Obama is. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

I object to the fact that you think you’re some bigshit hotshot that has to have every one of your delusional accusations answered to. And, IT DOES MATTER where those reports come from, you idiot. How else are you going to weigh the veracity of the accusation if you don’t know? See how you think…by your standards I could accuse you of robbery, come to your home, break down the door and search your home to my heart’s content…because YOU believe an accusation with no proof carries total weight of the law….which it doesn’t. So, if you’re going to ignore the source of the accusations, Obama’s perfectly within his right to ignore answering your delusions.

There is much more innuendo, wild speculation, and outright falsehoods about B.O.'s claim to “Natural Born”, then otherwise.

WARNING: BIRTHERS ARE WILLFULLY IGNORANT HYPOCRITES.

Kenyan citizenship did not lapse on his 21st birthday. This was an error started by”factcheck.org”. It happened two years later, if he had not done anything to keep it.

Up above NC points fingers at people who don’t answer questions, but has not answered yours…

This is my omnibus response to various statements made by naturalizedcitizen elsehwere on this discussion:

“What is your explanation for Obama's unwillingness to authorize the release of the original birth certificate?”

Very simple. Why undermine the definitive value of an official government-issued document just because some people can’t accept it?

“How do you explain the fact that Hawaii DoH would not confirm that COLB posted by Obama was indeed issued by DoH on June 6, 2007?”

They also did not deny it was issued by the DoH either. In fact, Okubo went as far as to say “It looks exactly the same as my own birth certificate.”

“Why do we need to speculate/prove Obama's foreign birth? Lets prove that he was born in Hawaii by providing irrefutable evidence using US documents.”

I don’t need to speculate about Obama’s “foreign” birth, because the evidence surrounding Obama’s Hawaiian birth is more than credible and sufficient for me, and because the theories about Obama’s “foreign” birth are unsupported by credible evidence, and do not have plausible or consistent arguments as to means or motive. I have explored this issue in GREAT detail elsewhere on this thread, and invite you to read for yourself.

“The status field show on Obama's COLB (“Filed by Registrar”) is different from the one (“Accepted by State Registrar”) shown by some other COLBs issued by the DoH.”

I have also seen examples of other COLBs which have the same wording as Obama’s. In any case, what do you allege to be the significance of this distinction? A birth certificate which is filed is by definition accepted. There is no such thing as a birth certificate review board which accepts or rejects certificates already filed with the state. If there is a distinction – in any jurisdiction in the United States – feel free to show us.

“Obama's COLB was never presented to a government agency.”

Why should it have been? No government agency, official, or court questioned the fact of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

“Posting a document on a private web page means nothing.”

The Obama campaign didn't simply post a copy online. They showed it to an independent political watchdog group, employees of which posted their own high-resolution photographs of it on the web and attested that they had personally seen and inspected it.

“Which government agency accepts COLB image posted on a private web page as a sufficient proof of birthplace?”

Which government agency has requested to review the COLB? Once you can answer that question, then perhaps we can make sense of your question.

“Can I obtain a passport by posting documents on my web page and ask government officials to review them online?”

No. But that has nothing to do with the matters at hand here, does it?

“Do you have any link to a story that mentions vetting the candidate Obama?”

No, because throughout the history of our republic, candidates have never been formally vetted for constitutional qualifications. Obama was treated no differently. The founders clearly believed that was a question the answer to which could be fairly apparent upon cursory observation.

“If you truly believed that Obama was a legitimate president, you would have no problems with this request. After all McCain's birth certificate, indicating the hospital and attending physician, was published – why not Obama's?”

If Panama authorities issued a COLB documenting the basic facts of McCain’s birth in the same manner as done for other persons born in that country, I would have been satisfied with it.

Furthermore, it's not the lack of information about McCain that raises questions about his NBC status. It is the fact that he was born outside the U.S. under circumstances that did not accord him citizenship status at birth under U.S. statutes in effect at the time (although it was later amended in such a way that could be construed as covering his particular case).

The questions about McCain's NBC status are thus:

(1) Did U.S. statutes retroactively confer citizenship on McCain from the time of his birth?

(2) Can natural born citizen status be retroactively conferred?

(3) Does the definition of NBC include persons born outside the U.S.?

“If you truly believed that being born a citizen is definition of NBC, would you not welcome the court ruling on this issue once and for all so that there is no more confusion for future elections about candidates' eligibility.”

I would welcome it, absolutely. But I don’t think it will happen, and the premises of the lawsuits filed by Berg, Taitz, and Donofrio are patently frivolous.

“If you were confident in your knowledge of Constitution and laws you would have welcomed the opportunity to prove birthers wrong, would you not?”

No, not if it means prostituting our legal system for the purposes of placating fervid fantasies.

Vote cannot trump the Constitution.
Therefore, eligibility questions cannot be answered the way you tried: Obama won the majority of votes, therefore he is eligible.

We could easily verify Obama's birthplace if Hawaii DoH followed their state law and released the public information.
The penalty for not doing it is trivial, compared to what the consequences of revealing the fact that Obama may not have been born in the Hawaii. That is the most likely reason why DoH is refusing to answer legitimate questions from public.

I'm going to offer two scenarios, and you tell me which one has more wild speculation:

(1) Stanley Ann Dunham meets Barack Obama, Sr. while attending college in Hawaii. She gets pregnant, drops out of school and has a shotgun wedding to Obama. She is unhappy with Obama, or otherwise has second thoughts about settling down with him, and the two remain living separately in Oahu. She gives birth in Oahu on August 4, 1961, a fact which is registered by the State of Hawaii on August 8, 1961, and disseminated to two Hawaiian newspapers for publication the following week. A few weeks after giving birth, she gets some money together and flies to Washington State to get away from Obama and her family, and resume attending night classes.

(2) Stanley Ann Dunham meets Barack Obama, Sr. while attending college in Hawaii. She gets pregnant, drops out of school, and decides to fly to Kenya/Zanzibar to get married. She learns about Obama's other wife and children, but decides she wants to make herself at home with him in this strange new land anyway. Before she gives birth, she decides to travel over Kenya's poor infrastructure all the way to the coast at Mombasa, where she gives birth to baby Obama. Although it wasn't an issue when she first traveled to Africa as a pregnant woman, she new decides it is incredibly important that she return to the United States to ensure her baby is a U.S. citizen. So within four days of the baby's birth, she has made her way from Mombasa to Nairobi, took a jet airliner to Honolulu for purposes of getting Obama's birth registered, then within weeks turns around and flies to Washington State to take up classes at school. Thankfully, however, Dunham's many international travels and exploits have been well-funded by shadowy sources.

But, you incredible imbecile, we didn't trump the constitution, we're following it. You have no PROOF that Obama or Hawaii has done anything illegal. Verification is unnecessary and Obama is our legally sitting President. You get to live with that.

naturalizedcitizen states:

“We could easily verify Obama's birthplace if Hawaii DoH followed their state law and released the public information.”

Any further efforts at verification are redundant. By the fact that it issued the COLB, Hawaii has already verified the fact of Obama's Hawaiian birth. That is exactly why it is prima facie evidence of his birth in court.

Welcome to the fray,
Birthers require more because they are selectively and willfully ignorant of the law.

I am still trying to get them to admit whether they agree with a 2000 year old fundamental tenant of Western Law:

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.

Good luck on that, Incredulous. NC will never admit to anything, even when you paint her into a corner. That's why I try to keep her typing, because sooner or later she gets hung by her own words…and it's funnier than sh*t!

Yeah, we've all seen it repeated over and over again.

Birthers: Usurper!

Logical Citizens: Prove it!

Birthers: Rumors! Innuendo! Illogical Connections! False history!

Logical Citizens: NO Proof!

Birthers: But why doesn't he just show us?

Logical Citizens: Cause he doesn't have to.

Birthers: Usurper!

as nauseum

naturalizedcitizen states:

“The DoH refuses to release the index data for registration number 10641 (number shown on Obama's COLB). The index data is in public domain according to Hawaii state laws.

This claim is flat wrong, and that can be shown from an October exchange on the right-wing website FreeRepublic.com. One of the posters showed the following response of Janice Okubo to a request for index data:

From: Okubo, Janice S.
To: [email redacted]
Cc: Onaka, Alvin T.
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Request for information

Aloha..,

Index data referred to in HRS 338-18 from vital records in the State of Hawaii is available for inspection at the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu . The Director in accordance with 338-18 (d) has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public.

In response to your request the following index data is being provided:

BIRTH INDEX
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING

CHILD
OBAMA II, BARACK HUSSEIN
GENDER
M

MARRIAGE INDEX
SORTED BY BRIDE
OFFICE OF HEALTH STATUS MONITORING

GROOM
OBAMA, BARACK HUSSEIN

BRIDE
DUNHAN, STANLEY ANN

Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health

I especially appreciated Bearclaw getting NC to state unequivocally that there was no definition for natural born Citizen, even though she had been shown many times SCOTUS opinions that showed that they had defined it. Finally, BC used it against her by showing that it was then up to the voters and they had decided Obama was qualified to run. That's why NC doesn't use the natural born Citizen argument anymore, she knows that we'll just use her own words against her. That's why I like her to keep typing because her lies end up catching up to her if you let her.

Oh Snap!

My favorite part is where she gives birth in a city that's around a thousand miles from where the Obama family lives.

FACT: Anyone born on American soil is a natural born citizen of the United States (or native born, because it's the same thing)
FACT: Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, our 50th state, on August 4, 1961.
FACT: Barack Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States.
FACT: Barack Obama is the legally elected (and much better looking than you) President of the United States of America.
I love facts.

“Kid drops in Coast Provincial General Hospital outside of Mombasa”

Your use of animal husbandry imagery is telling. This tells anyone all they need to know about you. Sheep “drop” lambs. Cows “drop” calves. Women give birth to babies. President Obama is human. He was born, not dropped.
Birthers always reveal their deep-seated bigotry through their choice of words.

“Kid drops in Coast Provincial General Hospital outside of Mombasa”

Your use of animal husbandry imagery is telling. This tells anyone all they need to know about you. Sheep “drop” lambs. Cows “drop” calves. Women give birth to babies. President Obama is human. He was born, not dropped.
Birthers always reveal their deep-seated bigotry through their choice of words.

I voted for B.O. and now I regret it. Why does he allow his supporters to be left with very little. When all he has to do is authorize Hawaii DoH to release his long form Vault Birth Certificate. Perhaps it does not exist.

How the heck are his supporters being left with very little? He's legally in the WH and trying to fix this HUGE mess left by the prior administration. He has openly shown his legal COLB and it is acceptable all across the US by the government as a true document. Anything more would not shut up those against him because it isn't about the birth certificate, it's about a black man being President. I thought we were past the part about black people being required to show more ID than white ones.

I was born in Manila, Philippines on 03-18-1957. I was issued a Certification of Live Birth by the State of Hawaii. In order to enroll me in school, in September of 1962, my grandmother applied for my COLB by signed sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury. This was necessary as a form of identification, due to my grandmother having guardianship of me and she was unable to produce my original Philippine birth certificate.

However, the COLB issued to my grandmother under my name did not afford me U.S. Citizenship. Later as an adult I applied for U.S. Citizenship and was required to produce a Philippine issued birth certificate. I am now a proud Naturalized U.S. Citizen. I love this country…God Bless America

I was born in Manila, Philippines on 03-18-1957. I was issued a Certification of Live Birth by the State of Hawaii. In order to enroll me in school, in September of 1962, my grandmother applied for my COLB by signed sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury. This was necessary as a form of identification, due to my grandmother having guardianship of me and she was unable to produce my original Philippine birth certificate.

However, the COLB issued to my grandmother under my name did not afford me U.S. Citizenship. Later as an adult I applied for U.S. Citizenship and was required to produce a Philippine issued birth certificate. I am now a proud Naturalized U.S. Citizen. I love this country…God Bless America

I was born in Manila, Philippines on 03-18-1957. I was issued a Certification of Live Birth by the State of Hawaii. In order to enroll me in school, in September of 1962, my grandmother applied for my COLB by signed sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury. This was necessary as a form of identification, due to my grandmother having guardianship of me and she was unable to produce my original Philippine birth certificate.

However, the COLB issued to my grandmother under my name did not afford me U.S. Citizenship. Later as an adult I applied for U.S. Citizenship and was required to produce a Philippine issued birth certificate. I am now a proud Naturalized U.S. Citizen. I love this country…God Bless America

I was born in Manila, Philippines on 03-18-1957. I was issued a Certification of Live Birth by the State of Hawaii. In order to enroll me in school, in September of 1962, my grandmother applied for my COLB by signed sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury. This was necessary as a form of identification, due to my grandmother having guardianship of me and she was unable to produce my original Philippine birth certificate.

However, the COLB issued to my grandmother under my name did not afford me U.S. Citizenship. Later as an adult I applied for U.S. Citizenship and was required to produce a Philippine issued birth certificate. I am now a proud Naturalized U.S. Citizen. I love this country…God Bless America

I voted for B.O. and now I regret it. Why does he allow his supporters to be left with very little. When all he has to do is authorize Hawaii DoH to release his long form Vault Birth Certificate. Perhaps it does not exist.

I voted for B.O. and now I regret it. Why does he allow his supporters to be left with very little. When all he has to do is authorize Hawaii DoH to release his long form Vault Birth Certificate. Perhaps it does not exist.

ATTN: John C., please identify the hospital in Hawaii where the”National Commemorative Plaque or Monument” will be placed, marking the exact birthplace of our 44th President???

Jim… please identify the hospital in Hawaii where the”National Commemorative Plaque or Monument” will placed, marking the exact birthplace of our 44th President???

Well, BP, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't put a plaque in every hospital in Hawaii to commemorate the first President born in that state. Probably one at the state-house, a couple around the colleges, maybe even one over at Pearl some veterans day as thanks for all the people who gave their lives so we didn't have to live under a dictatorship like NC and you are advocating. Why? Did you want them to put one in Jersey?

Isn't that great!!! And your COLB said you were born in the Philippines, so you had to become a naturalized citizen. See, NC, that's how it works. The COLB said BP was born, not in Hawaii, but in the Philippines, shooting down another of your arguments about someone faking a COLB. Thanks for helping us out with that, BP.

Why would I care where the hospital is, or whether Barack was born at home? The fact is, the State of Hawaii is able to identify he was born on the island of Oahu on August 4, 1961 – at 7:24 p.m. to boot – and no credible evidence ever places Stanley Ann Dunham outside Hawaii or North America in 1961.

I'm not sure how this has anything to do with my statements above. But congratulations to you on your naturalization.

Welcome to America, thank you for an example that Hawaii issues COLBs explicitly mentioned out of country birth.

the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.

“How do you explain the fact that Hawaii DoH would not confirm that COLB posted by Obama was indeed issued by DoH on June 6, 2007?”

Hey, there, NC, you ignorant asshat and pathalogical liar! You asked the same question a two days ago, I gave you a detailed answer, and true to form, you act as if you have never received an answer. Here is what I posted; please pay particular attention to the last paragraph, in which I predicted that you would do exactly what you have done:

“And why would Hawaii's DoH not verify that they issued a COLB to Obama on a specific date? Here is why: the COLB is “self-authenticating.” It bears the stamp and signature required, as is legal proof of the place and date of birth, acceptable for federal purposes (such as a passport), and for any State or any Court in the United States. If the State starts down the path of “verifying” documents that are already self-authenticating by law, it is undermining the whole point of getting those documents.

If I go in to get a passport, and I present my stamped, signed Certification of Live Birth, the federal government does not contact the keeper of vital records in the County where I was born to verify that they issued the document to me. The precedent you birfers want to set would bring all applications for passports, driver's licenses, etc. to a grinding halt.

Now, I know that in a day or two, you'll post this same crap again, and claim that I've never responded. You are not only an ignorant asshat, you are a pathological liar.”

“Keyes4Prez”? Don't hold your breath waiting for that loser to win anything:

He ran as the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Maryland in 1988, and lost to Paul Sarbanes with just 38 percent of the vote.

He ran as the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Maryland in 1992, and lost to Barbara Mikulski with just 19 percent of the vote.

He ran for the Republican nomination for President in 1996. He lost.

He ran for the Republican nomination for President in 2000. He lost again. His best showing was in Utah, with 20 percent of the vote.

He ran as the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2004, and lost to Barack Obama with just 27 percent of the vote.

He ran for the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008. He lost. His best showing: 2.7% of the vote in North Carolina. He campaigned extensively in Texas, and got 0.60 percent of the Republican primary voters.

He sought the Presidential nomination of the Constitution Party in 2008. He lost at the party convention to Chuck Baldwin.

He was nominated for President in 2008 by the America's Independent Party. Victory at last! Of course, he formed the America's Independent Party.

In the general election in 2008, he was on the ballot in only three states: California, Colorado, and Florida. He received a total of 47,694 votes according to the FEC, or about 0.04 percent of the vote. (By comparison, Ralph Nader received over 738,000 votes).

See a trend? The more the voters see Alan Keyes, the less they like him. Alan Keyes has presented himself to the voters repeatedly, and the voters have repeatedly, and emphatically, said “NO.”

How nice for you.

Now please tell me how this relates to the President, who was born in Honolulu, not Manila?

You posted it above, sweetie. Sorry, but you're not getting a free pass on repeating yourself.

Hi, Naturalizedcitizen! Welcome aboard under your new post! And don't forget, you've already posted this very same question in other threads, so there's no need to repost it again!

Don't let the pixels hit you on the way out….

And three times is not charming, NC. What silly little game are you playing this time? We all recognize your writing style and your utter lack of truth and logic, you know.

You've already brought this up ad nauseam in other threads, NC.

FOURTH cut and paste job. Are you trying to set some sort of record?

Regardless of *when* it lapsed, the fact remains that it did indeed lapse, and the President is not a Kenyan citizen.

You're also still wrong, even if you post under a sock puppet.

And you repeat yourself a second time. Have you gone off your meds or something?

Third repetition of this post, too. Not impressive.

Asked and answered repeatedly in other threads. Cut it out, NC.

Wrong. The COLB is, frankly toilet paper. Your in typical obsessed O-bot denial of the many loopholes in Hawaiian law and it's history,? the variations and possible modifications made of a certificate that render the abstract COLB insufficient evidence of where one is born.

Shortly to be followed by MORE WOES FOR ORLY TAITZ AS DISGRUNTLED CLIENTS SUE FOR MALPRACTICE.

Well, ghost, all I can say is you're welcome to use your birth certificate however you please, it is yours. However, I'd be careful about the raised seal…might scratch a bit. So, since you have no PROOF of any wrong-doing on Hawaii's or Obama's part, his COLB is as good as gold in any state or court in the land. Have a nice time with yours.

Time for education Jimmy.

You fail to grasp the many loopholes in Hawaiian law and it's history,? the variations and possible modifications made of a certificate; so yes, it can say “Place of Birth” Hawaii, but one still could be born in a foreign country. And how could this be?

Examples:
1) in the 1960s, create a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” via affidavits from mom and/or? grandmother
2) after 1972, convert it to a “Late Birth Certificate” (which can still be done today)
3) anytime thereafter, convert it to a “Certificate of Live Birth”
4) after Nov 2001, when the abbreviated “Certification of Live Birth” began to be issued, it would be easy for Obama to hide the paper trail that would have disqualified him.

The intricacies of today's and prior versions of HRS §338, changes in Social Security requirements (in 1972), and Hawaii Department of Health internal policies lend to many different possibilities which render the abstract COLB insufficient evidence of where one is born.

Certification of Live Birth? doesn't tell us if there were “certifying officials” present who independent verified the “facts” of his birth it's anyone's guess.

Thus..yes, that hated long form is so necessary which the Obots DO NOT WANT anyone to see. Weird.

The burden of proof still rests with Zero.

COLB good as gold huh? LOL Up until June 2009, Dept of Hawaii Homelands stated:

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

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

http://i477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/steves…

And why would they need verification Jim? Would this be the many loopholes and variations of certificate and changing statutes, etc.

Yeah, it's what your not saying that's really showing.

No, we just want to see how totally stupid you can make yourself sound. You assume that all that could happen, yet have no PROOF any of it did happen. By you standards, I could accuse you of stealing from me and break down your door and search your home to my heart's content…make sure you hide those pictures of Farah in a thong that you whack off to…until I find something incriminating against you. We don't care about seeing the long form because you've provided no PROOF that there is anything illegal done. Absent of that, we know that it won't satisfy folks like you because…wait for it…you don't care about legality, you just want Obama out. Well, that isn't going to happen because you have no PROOF that anything illegal has happened and your accusations are just your own delusions to live with. Have a nice day :-)

Nope burden of proof rests with the accuser, unless you're saying that the constitution no longer exists. I'm wondering, though, when did Obama claim to be a native Hawaiin? Which is what that covers. How come you have to reach for something that doesn't even affect Obama? Is it because you know he was born there? Is it because you can find no PROOF of wrong-doing by the state or Obama? Is it because you're frustrated as hell there's a black man in the White House?

Yes, why care about “certifying officials” present who independent verified the “facts” of his birth or a hospital name– it's anyone's guess, right?

Furthermore, his mother’s whereabouts are unconfirmed, inconsistent, and unknown, following her enrolled Fall quarter at Univ Of HI until a few weeks or months after Obama's birth.

But yeah, we don't need a long form b.c. right? Laughable.

“He has hidden nothing about his past.”

Haaaaaaaaaaaa…. That was the funniest statement on here. Truly. Hashish horticulturalist and too many comic books.

You have no proof it didn't genuis. And what would be the proof? Ha ha, that lovable document you don't want disclosed.

Wow, step out from under your messiah's desk, feel free to think a bit.

This is reality Jim-Bo, these are facts, real loopholes, and history, which you can't argue against.

And by the way, Zero's and wifes ILLEGAL activities will eventually be exposed, a little thing to do with further fraud with compaign donations and how they were acquired. But hey, keep sipping that Barry juice!

Explanation of facts don't need to be posted again for an Obot
who can't deal with them. Nothing to do with me. Focus. Your messiah is in trouble.

Aaah, but I do have PROOF. I have an image of Obama's legal COLB from Hawaii, looked over by a third party. I have the state of Hawaii unequivocally saying Obama was born there. I have 2 newspaper announcements a few days later verifying the birth. I have a witness who remembers clearly the doctor mentioning the birth. What do you have? Unprovable theories, forged documents, and a vivid imagination. Have a nice day :-)

Well, good. Then BS from blowers need not be reposted. That would definitely make an improvement on society! Have a nice day :-)

And the Obots, those whose allegiance rests with hero Zero, conveniently overlook and ignore time and time again the loopholes, changing statutes of Hawaii that render a COLB an abstract toiletry, which makes Hawaii unique; they quickly denounce any form of transperancy and deem this action the equivalent of a public colonoscopy. Such broad minded and tolerance in the face of a simple document request.

Carry on lemmings.

So tell me, how would the long form b.c tell you his mother's whereabouts? What PROOF do you have she wasn't in Hawaii…theories don't count. Come on, you want PROOF from Obama, why not any PROOF of your theories from you?

Proof is a long form birth certificate, which you ignore, which type is unknown, as most info,nothing to see here thought right? LOL

Third Party, oh that would be Factcheck.org right Jim=Bo? Ha ha. And just who is this who did the verifiying hmmm? Ha ha. That would be 2 individuals that have no credentials at all in document analysis, but the Obots and press quickly deemed a proper vetting. Go research who these 2 individual reporters were. We did. They come up short on background qualifications! You have a Dept of Health official Fukino who broke her own state law in her last declaration. I say Zero wasn't born there. Now what Jimmy? Who's right? Prima Facie evidence I've already posted is how you ascertain that.

But hey here's a kid asking Barry where he's born, I guess that's good enuff for you huh?

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-answers-curious-s…

Sherlock Holmes you ain't.

Well, you are more than welcome to your opinion, we are a free country you know. But, it's not going to help one bit in trying to remove Obama. Courts have this silly idea about PROOF, they require it when you make an accusation. So, here's what you do…you get together with a couple of republican congressmen who are afraid of blacks, Michael Steele can point them out for you since they're scared of him also, and you can get them started on articles of impeachment. Good luck with that, and Have a nice day :-)

It has nothing to do with me, relativist spoon. Typical putterings from the left crowd with no bearings in truth or substance. Keep reading what you want to read, just keep nodding til your over the dliff of delusion.

Well, ghost, I see you do wonderful job at describing yourself: “Keep reading what you want to read, just keep nodding til your over the dliff of delusion.” So back to WND and Orly with you. Meanwhile, Obama will be our President and you'll still be a blower. Have a nice day :-)

Facts you can't deal with are BS? I've got too many for you, that' the problem ;)

Seems to me that you're the one having trouble dealing with facts. Let's see what Bearclaw has to say about that:

Fact #1: Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

Fact #2: Birthers have lost over 50 lawsuits attempting to change Fact #1.

Fact #3: The only way to remove a sitting President from office is through impeachment by the House followed by trial and conviction in the Senate.

Fact #4: Federal judges cannot change Fact #1 or Fact #3.

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children. Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his Kenyan citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to the United States, any claim to U.S. citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

Actually the point here was the Natural Born Citizen issue of 2 American parents is Zero’s other problem, besides not showing in full transperency a long form birth certificate certifying a stateside birth as the messiah has preached.

Zero’s the first President in history (Chester Arthur was later discovered to have lied) to have an overt foreign parent at the time of his birth. Not one peep from the media, so it must not be a big issue right?

The issue of parental allegiances goes back to the Founding Fathers intentions, “natural born” can be found in Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”

http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu231/firewaller/VattelsNBC-LawofNations-citizenS.jpg

which is the reference the Framers used to construct the Declaration of Independence & US Constitution.

as per Ben Franklin reveals:
http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu231/firewaller/BenFranklinonVattelplus1stand2ndCon.jpg

“The Law of Nations” importance to our Founders that it was ONE of the
ONLY TWO books purchased by Congress for use in writing laws early on:

http://s651.photobucket.com/albums/uu231/firewaller/?action=view&current=Firsttwobooks-VattelsLawofNatureand.jpg

Likewise, the 2 American parent requirement has been upheld in the U.S. Supreme Court cases U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898) and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

Clearly, the case could be made in the current U.S. Supreme Court on a further definition of this precedent; however, since the 2000 decision SCOTUS is not likely to get involved. No, Zero sinks or swims on where he’s born.

A President or Usurper? Maybe you should read about usurption in the U.S. Constitution…(that whole reading want you want to read again), your lemming like stance on names “Birthers”, please, it's a constitional requirement, yeah I know RAcism! Simple arguments for simple minds.

I'm still waiting on your response to HI loopholes, changing and modicifications that could be done to certificate? No response — no surprise.

And the lawsuits will continue, there have been over 50 http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?page_id=1518

which have not been judged on the merits. Dismissed based on “standing”. Meanwhile Barry still employs top law firms in his full transperency glory, even revoking orders for one Major Cook who had standing refusing to deploy unless Barry showed his credentials.

Wow, we've had this happen a lot right? Revoking orders for those challenging the Commander in Chief!!!! But…hey… this must not be a big major news story right? LOL And the Obot's response, Cook's a coward, yet who already served in Iraq? Typical character assassination, facts be damned.

“The burden of proof still rests with Zero.”

100% completely and totally false. You are ignoring 2000 years of Western Law.

Jimmy can't handle Hawaii statutes variations and modifications to certificates, and now suddenly these are “opinions”.

Sorry this doesn't come up in your pro-Zero comic books Jimmy. We're dealing with the real world now. Keep playing that race card full tilt, not much you've got left in arguments. Lay off Barry, you might get trouble from the First Tranny.

Well, first you have no clue what usurper is. Obama was legally elected and properly seated. Second, “standing” is a merit. I know you folks don't understand the law, but at least try to understand the basics. Third, Major Cook's Commander decided he didn't want someone who didn't want to serve. Major Cook got EXACTLY what he was asking for, not to be sent overseas. Sounds like he won his case to me. Those are the facts, and you're still a blower. Have a nice day :-)

“I'm still waiting on your response to HI loopholes,”

You must prove these so called Loopholes we used.

Best of luck proving that those loopholes were used for fraud.

Yep, and the real world requires you to prove that those statutes variations and modifications were actually used. You saying it's possible doesn't mean it happened, you need PROOF. That, my good man, is called the real world. So, you can go back to your WND pals and keep drooling over Orly's pictures. Have a nice day :-)

and you have no proof that it wasn’t Hawaii. Until you obtain this, you have no case.

How odd that you keep posting this over and over. As if you want to convince that you're a naturalized American citizen instead of an Al Qaeda agent sent to malign our duly elected President. That you have not posted any proof to your claims only further fuels my belief that you are indeed a terrorist.

Where's the proof, Mohammed? What are you hiding?

You are trying to mislead those who are not familiar with the time line of events.

The response from Okubo was for different request. It was a request for index data for Barack Obama. (Even response for that request was not proper – what does marriage index for his parents have to do with Obama's index data?)

When a specific request was made, using certification number 10641 only (without specifying a name), Okubo did not confirm that the name is Barack Obama. She kept asking for a name to be supplied in the request. The only explanation I have is that registration number 10641 belongs to a different person and that is why she cannot report it.

How do you know that COLB was issued by DoH? It could have been a forged document.

Hawaii DoH has refused to confirm (multiple requests) the issuing of COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.

If they issued the document – why not confirm it to the public? There should be a record in DoH about COLBs issued on June 6, 2007. It should be trivial for them to verify it.

Could you explain the meaning of the “Filed by Registrar” phrase used on Obama's COLB and “Accepted by State Registrar” used on some other COLBs from Hawaii?

Repeated requests to DoH to clarify this difference have been ignored and state manuals describing it are not available to the public.

I use only one ID.
I am surprised that you did not mention Orly's name, LOL!!!

There is no need for me to repeat the same argument to those of you who are regular on this blog – you have heard it before. Nothing has changed. I have destroyed your WKA arguments or other lame attempts to define the NBC as anything other than “Born in the USA of citizen parents”.

I voted against Obama, my conscience is clear.

Natural born citizen = Born in the USA of citizen parents.

McCain is not a natural born citizen. That is why he did not raise the issue during elections.

“factcheck.org” is not a third party. They are firmly in Obama’s camp.
They did nothing to verify the information shown on COLB document presented to them. For all we know they could have taken a high quality snapshot of a forged document. They never confirmed anything with DoH. They did not even ask DoH whether document was issued on June 6, 2007.

I have submitted several questions on “factcheck.org” web site during the past year asking about verification methods used for Obama’s COLB, and got no response. I am not surprised.

It is difficult to comment on so many things put in a same response (some things are now out of context of original discussion).

Quote from your previous post:
——————————————————————————————————————-
“The status field show on Obama’s COLB (“Filed by Registrar”) is different from the one (“Accepted by State Registrar”) shown by some other COLBs issued by the DoH.”

I have also seen examples of other COLBs which have the same wording as Obama’s. In any case, what do you allege to be the significance of this distinction? A birth certificate which is filed is by definition accepted. There is no such thing as a birth certificate review board which accepts or rejects certificates already filed with the state. If there is a distinction – in any jurisdiction in the United States – feel free to show us.
——————————————————————————————————————-

In Nevada there is a distinction between the two phrases. That is why it is important to understand the rules used by the State of Hawaii.

http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/2009/10/terrik-relates-her-birth-certificate.html

Scroll down until you see the following title:
FIRST STEP IN FILING AND REGISTERING A BIRTH IN NEVADA IS AT THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION LEVEL

It tells you about shoddy research done by “factcheck.org”.
What is more interesting, the same incorrect claim is still present on “fightthesmears” web page.

I have too many emails in my inbox: no time to answer all of them.

How can a phantom document be self-authenticating?

If I create a COLB document with realistic looking seal and stamp, and put its picture on the web is it a self-authenticating one as well?

The fact that Obama posted an image of COLB and claimed that it was an official document, entitles the public to question its content. If you are willing to take Obama’s word for it – fine, not all of us are willing to do the same.

The verification should be trivial, using legal means, yet DoH would not even confirm that they issued the document to Obama. If this is not suspicious to you – you are truly a believer.

Please do not compare apples and oranges in your argument. There is a huge difference between a person presenting a physical copy of COLB to a government agency (to get a passport) and posting a document on a friendly web page (trying to convince the public that it represents an official document).

Once Obama submits the COLB to a government office, we can take it seriously. Since there is no requirement for him to do it, we can verify it by asking for the release of public data from DoH.

The DoH is willing to break the state law to protect Obama, it tells me that “something is rotten in Obamaland”.

In a debate, people usually use foul language when their arguments are weak.

After the 2000 elections and the decision by the Supreme court about stopping the recount – the New York Times and a local newspaper from Florida paid for such recount anyway. Was it necessary? They were curious and did it.
Should they have been prevented from having the access to ballots and doing a recount? (by the way, their recount showed that Bush would elections)

Verification of Obama’s birthplace using legal means may be unnecessary for you – however laws should not be broken to prevent others from verifying the COLB.

Is Keyes a racist too?

No, you’ve just made up your own definition, which has been destroyed again and again. So the only lame attempts are the ones made by you, and Obama is still in the White House. So, if for some reason it makes you feel better somehow that you think you’ve got away with something, it just shows, again, what an idiot you are. And, we’re still laughing at your lame attempts…BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

But, you have yet to PROVE any laws have been broken. Obama is and will be our President. Your opinion has no weight and your delusions have no bearing on his legality. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

And in the real world, birther lawsuits are routinely dismissed, the Hawaiian birth certificate is legal, and Orly Taitz has a degree from a diploma mill.

Also, Barack Obama is still President, despite the mewlings of a bunch of racists who are too chickenshit to admit it.

Once again, Obama hasn't usurped anything. He won the election, was confirmed by the Electoral College, and sworn in. He hasn't usurped anything.

Prove that you aren't Birtherproud or Orly Taitz. Otherwise, shut up.

My allegiance is to the United States of America. That is more than I can say of you, or NC, or her avatar BP, or Gunnyred, or Gerry Nance, or all the others who seem determined to undermine our legal system because they don't like the dark-skinned man in the White House.

YOu haven’t destroyed anything, sweetie, except your own reputation.

Sorry, but I don’t smoke anything and my idiot ex took the comic book collection.

What’s your excuse, Vicodin?

From the Kenyan Department of Immigration’s web site:

“(viii) What should a child born in Kenya of mixed parentage( i.e. a Kenyan and a foreigner) do to become Kenyan?
The child holds dual citizenship up to the age of 21 years and will have to renounce his claim to the other nationality before he turns 23 years old in order for him to remain a Kenyan citizen.”

In short, both assertions are correct. A dual citizen automatically holds Kenyan citizenship until s/he is 21, just as Factcheck.org and Fightthesmears.com state. S/he then has two addition years to renounce the other nationality to remain a Kenyan citizen.

Since the President has neither renounced his American citizenship nor affirmed his allegiance to Kenya, and since he’s well past either 21 or 23, he is not a Kenyan citizen.

Not relevant.

Sorry to repost this, but the fact of the matter is it must be effective. Every time I post one of these warnings, the blowers, or should I say NC and all her different monikers, then start typing their same BS with the idea of pushing it down until it no longer appears. So, don't click on their links, it cuts into their cash flow.

WARNING: I see the blowers are back with their web links. I discourage anybody from clicking on their links, they contain nothing but unprovable theories and forged documents. There have also been reports of some sites attempting to load viruses on your computers. These sites make their money by their traffic numbers, the best way to shut these folks down is to QUIT clicking on their links…maybe then they can get out of their mother's basements and get a real job.

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.

Do you agree or not? Simple.

How's your request going?

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.

Do you agree or not?

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.

Do you agree or not?

“McCain is not a natural born citizen. That is why he did not raise the issue during elections. ‘

This displays an astounding ignorance and disrespect for the law.

ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat

the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.

Do you agree or not?

My attitude is this: If you have an argument, make it here on this page. If you're too lazy to make your argument here, and rely on someone else to make it for you, why should we take the effort to respond?

“The intricacies of today's and prior versions of HRS §338, changes in Social Security requirements (in 1972), and Hawaii Department of Health internal policies lend to many different possibilities which render the abstract COLB insufficient evidence of where one is born.”

The COLB specifically states, “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”

Please take no offense if I side with the authority of the state over your conjecture on this one.

Look, Okubo said the requester could go to the Office of Health Status Monitoring and review the index data.

If you go to the office, and they won't show you index data records, then maybe you'd have grounds for a complaint. Otherwise, it's just a lot of cock and bull.

“How do you know that COLB was issued by DoH? It could have been a forged document.”

Because I trust the folks at FactCheck.org who said they saw it with their own eyes and photographed it.

And this raises a more basic point of common sense. Remember that the Obama campaign was no required to produce a COLB. It did so sua sponte. They would have been insane to produce a forged document under the circumstances – the whole reason the Obama campaign acted at all was in response to internet sleuths who questioned facts about Obama's birth. If the only document they could provide was forged, they would have been far better off not producing anything to anyone at all.

“Hawaii DoH has refused to confirm (multiple requests) the issuing of COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007.”

As they are supposed to do. To confirm the copy would be to confirm the contents of the copy, which they are not permitted to do under Hawaiian law to non-interested parties.

“If they issued the document – why not confirm it to the public?”

Because it wasn't issued for the public's consumption. It was issued to a private individual. The public is not an interested party.

I know you have an inquiring mind, but that does not entitle you to information which under Hawaii law you are not authorized to obtain as a non-interested person.

“Could you explain the meaning of the “Filed by Registrar” phrase used on Obama's COLB and “Accepted by State Registrar” used on some other COLBs from Hawaii?”

Yes. The COLBs are based on information from the documents, and depending on how the original document is phrased, and which items are utilized by the COLB, the term will be slighlty different.

Having said that, there is absolutely no functional or legal distinction between a “filed” and an “accepted” birth certificate. To the extent that there is any, it is a legal question which you can resolve without needing access to Obama's birth certificate. Go look it up if you're so curious.

Let me ask you to think critically for a second. Let’s assume that your implied supposition is correct: Obama’s birth certificate was merely “filed” and not “accepted.” Let’s further assume that a birth certificate which is merely “filed,” but not “accepted,” implies that the birth certificate was somehow flawed and not acceptable to the State of Hawaii, and thus could not serve as a vehicle for registering Obama’s birth.

Bottom line: If Obama’s birth certificate was somehow not “accepted” by the State of Hawaii, then how do you explain the fact that the State of Hawaii provided birth announcements to two Hawaiian newspapers? How do you explain the existence of the COLB itself?

I’m waiting for your explanation.

“Could you explain the meaning of the “Filed by Registrar” phrase used on Obama's COLB and “Accepted by State Registrar” used on some other COLBs from Hawaii?”

Let's present your implied hypothesis: Obama's birth certificate was merely “filed” with the State of Hawaii, but we have reason to doubt that it was “accepted” by the State.

If that is so, how can you explain the fact that the COLB was issued in the first place? How can you explain the fact that the State of Hawaii issued birth announcements for two major Hawaiian newspapers to print in August 1961?

Please provide your explanation of how the above is possible if Obama's birth is not properly registered with the State of Hawaii.

In the court of law yes.

Why did Obama fight eligibility lawsuits to be dismissed on standing issue from day one (several months before the elections)?

Was he afraid that the other side could prove that he is not eligible for the office of POTUS?

When there is no official guideline – how does one prove eligibility to be placed on the presidential ballot. Is certified party statement good enough even though others are challenging its validity?

Courts have failed miserably in their duty to protect the Constitution. Candidates’ eligibility to be placed on the ballot is a trivial issue to verify. It should have been resolved before the election to avoid the possibility that an ineligible candidate be sworn into office.

I am not aware of Okubo's statement that anybody can review the index data by going to their office.

People more knowledgeable than myself have tried to obtain this information. I have no illusion that DoH will treat my request differently and provide the index data for registration number 10641.

SO, until you go to Hawaii and request the info, you have no grounds to accuse them of refusing or withholding.

Thank for agreeing to a central tenant of Western Law. Until you have proof for any of your assertions, you have no standing to accuse Obama or anyone else of fraud.

How does court resolve a case where a woman asks for a paternity test to prove that a man is the father of her child? She has no definitive proof prior to going to the court.

Folks at “factcheck.org” did not respond to my repeated questions about methods used to verify Obama's COLB. They are silent on this one.

I think that their role was to provide the cover for Obama because he was afraid to provide the COLB to a truly independent party that would not be as friendly to him by not asking too many questions about information provided in the COLB.

Factcheck.org never confirmed with the DoH whether the COLB was issued on June 6, 2007. They never verified whether registration number 10641 really belongs to Obama. They never confirmed the meaning of the status phrase “Filed by…” vs. 'Accepted by…”.

********************************************************************************
Without these confirmations, “factcheck.org” can only say that there is a document resembling the Hawaii COLB. They cannot claim that document provided to them confirms Obama's Hawaiian birth.
********************************************************************************

Once the COLB was made public by Obama, Hawaii DoH would not break any law to confirm the information already in the public domain. This is the spirit of the Hawaii UIPA law when it comes to disclosure of government documents to the public.

Where should I look for the explanation of phrases “Filed by Registrar” and “Accepted by State registrar”? Hawaii DoH is hiding this information.

There is no need to speculate about these two phrases – I would like to read the rules used by the Hawaii DoH. We know that there is another state (Nevada) where the two phrases have different meaning and the information is posted on the web.

Why is it that Hawaii refuses to make their rules public?

In Hawaii it was possible to register birth using an affidavit from a relative. This would have been sufficient to generate newspaper announcements. One way to prove or disprove this scenario outside the court system is to learn what the “filed by” phrase means. If it indicates insufficient proof at the time of original registration – Obama has a problem. This would indicate that the original birth certificate was not based on registration from a Hawaii hospital (Kapiolani) as he claims.

If Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, his supporters should encourage the DoH to clarify the use of these two phrases. After all it will help you refute claims by “birthers” that Obama is foreign born.

Early Congress passed a naturalization law in 1790 explicitly declaring that foreign born children of US citizens are natural born citizens.

Then, just five years later (in 1795) the law was replaced with the one declaring foreign born children of US citizens as citizens.

To a person with an open mind this clearly indicates that legislators who were around when the Constitution was written made a distinction between a “citizen at birth” and a natural born citizen.

I am not aware of any decision by SCOTUS that would clarify the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen”.

According to McCain’s long form birth certificate, he was born in a foreign country – therefore he is not a natural born citizen.

If you want to share an interesting photograph you have to provide a link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/23299370/Obama-s-Lack…

You suggestion is not analogous.

What would be analogous would be if the father submitted to paternity test and was cleared as not being the father, but the Mother continued to pursue the case.

In this analogy, Birthers are the Mother.

Could father put an image of the paternity test on a friendly web site and count on courts to dismiss mother's claim?

Well, you'd have to ask the courts. NO court has asked for Obama's COLB. So, no problem to the question at hand.

NC: “I am not aware of any decision by SCOTUS that would clarify the meaning of the phrase “natural born citizen”. ”

Well, now isn’t that wonderful, NC. Therefor, if there is no legal definition, Obama is legally elected…since it is then left up to the voter. The overwhelming majority believes he is a natural born citizen and voted accordingly. Now, you can rest easy knowing that our President is qualified. Thanks for playing along and have a nice day :-)

NC: Once the COLB was made public by Obama, Hawaii DoH would not break any law to confirm the information already in the public domain. This is the spirit of the Hawaii UIPA law when it comes to disclosure of government documents to the public.”

Actually, they would be breaking the law. You again show your total stupidity of the law. What an individual does with their copy is entirely up to them, no laws cover that. But, the state is still covered by privacy laws and legally can't reveal any information. But, you have hope, you can get the laws changed. Of course, you won't because it's easier to call out other people rather than do any work yourself…but that follows with you total attitude of you're somehow special and everyone has to answer to you. So, get off your lazy ass and get the law changed, or quit complaining about people following the law.

So, by your standards NC, it shows the shoddy research done by you…since ellid proved their statements were correct. So, does that now mean that everything you claim is useless, since we know your research is shoddy?

Come ON man! Are you really that dense?

Watch Barry's body language when answering boy asking him where he's born.

Looking down and left is a sure sign of deception.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-answers-curious-s…

FactCheck.org a funded by George Soros of MoveOn.org

Posting under multiple aliases on a message board is a sure sign of insecurity, GC. So, what are YOU hiding?

Watch Barry's body language when answering boy asking him where he's born.

Looking down and left is a sure sign of deception.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-answers-curious-s…

Watch Barry's body language when answering boy asking him where he's born.

Looking down and left is a sure sign of deception.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-answers-curious-s…

Queens Hospital or Kapiolani Medical Center ??

Which one will be bestowed with a National Commemorative Plaque honoring the exact birthplace of our 44th President ??

Posting under multiple aliases on a message board is a sure sign of insecurity, GC. So, what are YOU hiding?

Well, BP, or GC, or NC, or whtever you wish to call yourself now, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't put a plaque in every hospital in Hawaii to commemorate the first President born in that state. Probably one at the state-house, a couple around the colleges, maybe even one over at Pearl some veterans day as thanks for all the people who gave their lives so we didn't have to live under a dictatorship like NC and you are advocating. Why? Did you want them to put one in Jersey?

BTW, it is SO NICE that you're now admitting Obama was born in Hawaii. Now, since it doesn't matter which one for him to be eligible, you can wonder to your hearts content.

Oh come on! That's ridiculous. Nobody is afraid of Michael Steele. He's Urkel without the self-esteem.
Lot's of racist white people are terrified of Barack Obama, though. I think it's because he's so handsome.

Now birthers are body language experts. Is there no end to their wacky skills.

It's the same place, actually, so only one plaque is necessary.

Then again, you unquestionably knew that already so are just setting up another straw man argument.

SIXTH time to repost this. What stupid little game are you playing now?

I seem to recall you saying otherwise in one of the other threads you keep spamming.

And of course NC, or BP, or whatever the hell s/he is calling him/herself today, will ignore the actual Kenyan law in favor of printing more nonsense. What a coward!

Sorry, the honest truth is these racists are scared of one important detail about Obama, something none of them can match.

http://jezebel.com/5344988/birthers-want-to-see…

Post everything in Latin, then you might be able to win a debate, LOL!!!

BEERFART?? THATS YOUR OBJECTIVE FACTS?? YOU NEED HELP!

Frankly, since I left dozens of threads with questions you have yet to answer, I have to deny you assertion that I’ve lost anything.

Futhermore, it is becoming more apparent that you live in a logical fantasy world where you believe that you rules apply to everyone and that we must all bow to your whims and accusations regardless of how groundless and ridiculous they are.

I posted that Latin phrase not to bully or impress. I posted it for a specific reason. That phrase goes all the way back to Roman Law and it has carried through as one of the solid foundations of all Western Law. And yet, I have to make my point once again – without direct or substantial rebuttal or reply:
You have no proof. Until you bring us some proof, nobody has to listen to or address your repeated and deranged assertions.

and I repeat myself:
“SO, until you go to Hawaii and request the info, you have no grounds to accuse them of refusing or withholding.”

“I think that their role was to provide the cover for Obama because he was afraid to provide the COLB to a truly independent party that would not be as friendly to him by not asking too many questions about information provided in the COLB.”

I view the idea of such a conspiracy as ridiculous and unwarranted. If Obama's campaign didn't have the goods in the first place, it would have ignored the birther community much as it is doing now. That would have made a lot more sense than putting out a forged document. Second, you're making the grand leap that the folks at FactCheck were willing to sacrifice their credibility to advance a forgery by a particular campaign.

We simply differ on our perception of what is realistic in the world of American politics.

“They never confirmed the meaning of the status phrase “Filed by…” vs. 'Accepted by…”.”

You still refuse to address the very simple question of why the State of Hawaii would issue an official document vouching for the fact of Obama's birth if the record of such birth had not been accepted by the state in the first place. Why are you so stubbornly persistent in trying to run away from this question?

“Once the COLB was made public by Obama, Hawaii DoH would not break any law to confirm the information already in the public domain. This is the spirit of the Hawaii UIPA law when it comes to disclosure of government documents to the public.”

Please cite the specific statutory or case law which enables Hawaii officials to disclose information on vital records documents to non-interested persons.

“There is no need to speculate about these two phrases.”

That is true – because both phrases appear on official state documents recounting the facts of the person’s birth. It is therefore painfully obvious that whatever distinction there is between “filed” and “accepted,” it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the birth record is viewed by the state as valid.

“In Hawaii it was possible to register birth using an affidavit from a relative. This would have been sufficient to generate newspaper announcements. One way to prove or disprove this scenario outside the court system is to learn what the “filed by” phrase means. If it indicates insufficient proof at the time of original registration – Obama has a problem. This would indicate that the original birth certificate was not based on registration from a Hawaii hospital (Kapiolani) as he claims.”

This has nothing to do with proving whether Obama was born outside of Hawaii, only where the records indicate he was born within it. And regardless of where Obama was born, the State of Hawaii is confident enough from the records in its possession to state on an official document that he was born on the island of Oahu. Not the island of Maui. Or the island of Kauai. Or even Molokai. Or “somewhere in Hawaii.” OAHU.

The document also states that Obama was born at 7:24 p.m. Not 7:30 p.m. Not “early in the evening” or “sometime that day.” 7:24 p.m.

Where do you suppose that level of specificity comes from?

“McCain is not a natural born citizen.”

That is an inaccurate statement. It is better to say that it is not clear whether he is a natural born citizen.

Subsequent to McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone, Congress passed a law which could be read as retroactively making him a citizen from the time of his birth. We also have Supreme Court decisions which, in dicta, equate “natural born citizen” with citizenship by birth.

We have not had a definite ruling by the Court on these issues, so whether McCain is a natural born citizen is unclear. But to say he is not a natural born citizen is moving far ahead of where the courts and legal scholars are on this issue.

“”factcheck.org” is not a third party. They are firmly in Obama’s camp.”

Please offer some proof, rather than your opinion.

“They did nothing to verify the information shown on COLB document presented to them.”

That is true. But that wasn’t their job. Their job was to verify that the Obama campaign had the document it said it had, determine whether it in fact had an embossed state seal, and take photographs. Based on their inspection of the document, they were convinced it wasn’t a fake.

Does that prove it wasn’t a fake? No. They’re not experts or forensic scientists. Does it prove all the information was true? No.

But of course, if that isn’t good enough for you, which in your case it clearly isn’t, you can seek to verify whether the COLB is valid by going to the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu and review the basic index records for yourself.

FACT: Not one in the same hospital…two locations, independent of each.

Kapiolani Medical Center, 1319 Punahou Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96826, Phone: (808) 983-6000

Queens Hospital, 1301 Punchbowl Street, Honolulu, HI 96813-2499, Phone (808) 538-9011

“Early Congress passed a naturalization law in 1790 explicitly declaring that foreign born children of US citizens are natural born citizens.

To a person with an open mind this clearly indicates that legislators who were around when the Constitution was written made a distinction between a “citizen at birth” and a natural born citizen.”

We actually have no record of why the change was made. And your theory is not the only reasonable one to draw from this change. It could just as easily be said that Congress was concerned that by using “natural born citizens” in that particular legislation, it might be viewed as offering a comprehensive definition of the term that excluded persons born in the United States. So Congress could have concluded it was best to omit use of the “natual born citizen” term in the context of foreign born persons so as not to create definitional confusion with regard to domestically-born persons.

And even if we did have some record, Congress does not have the power to define constitutional terms such as “natural born citizen.” That power belongs solely to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court spoke most definitively on the issue to date in Wong Kim Ark in 1898. The Court seemed to construct a definition which predicated natural born status on a person born in the United States. But of course, that was a case involving whether a person born in the United States was a citizen by birth. The Court has not yet had a case before it regarding whether a person born abroad, but consistent with U.S. statutes conferring citizenship at birth, is a “natural born citizen.”

As I have said before, however, the Supreme Court on several occasions has readily equated “natural born citizen” with citizenship at birth, and I have little reason to doubt that, given the opportunity, the Court would overturn the election of someone like John McCain on an archaic, poorly-comprehended term which could be interpreted in a number of reasonable ways. That’s just the legal and political reality of the way in which the Court operates.

Looks to me like both are in — gasp! — Hawaii. Which is a State!

Tell you what: if it makes you happy, you can erect a suitable monument in either location.

“The issue of parental allegiances goes back to the Founding Fathers intentions, “natural born” can be found in Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”

Of course, the problem you encounter with the argument is twofold. First, the English translation of Vattel in 1788 did not use the term “natural born citizen.” It used the untranslated French term Indigenes, which roughly translates to “natives.”

Second, there is no evidence that courts from that time or in the decades afterwards recognized any change in the meaning of “natural born citizen,” which was meant as referring to all citizens not falling within the class of “naturalized citizens.”

“Likewise, the 2 American parent requirement has been upheld in the U.S. Supreme Court cases U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898)”

Complete and rubbish. The whole point of Wong Kim Ark was that a Chinese person born in California to non-native, non-citizen Asian parents was nonetheless a citizen by birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court engaged in a lengthy discussion of “natural born subject,” and its American equivalent, “natural born citizen,” to explain why this was true.

Under your interpretation of Wong Kim Ark, the entire decision is rendered completely incomprehensible. But of course, it isn’t, and has been treated as sound precedent for over 110 years.

Care to provide any proof?

FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center. From the Center’s website:

“When the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) was established in 1993, its founders, Ambassadors Walter and Leonore Annenberg, sought to increase the impact of the scholarship produced at Penn’s Annenberg School for Communication, the Policy Center’s home. It was their hope that the APPC would apply its knowledge about communication to improve the well-being of those in the U.S. and throughout the globe. In the subsequent years, APPC research has been put to use in studies of adolescent health, HIV and AIDS, media content analysis and political civility.”

“Funding for APPC comes through an endowment established by the Annenberg Foundation, as well as the generous support of federal agencies and foundations.”

Walter Annenberg was appointed U.S. Ambassador to the Court of St. James by Richard Nixon. He was also a close friend of Ronald Reagan. Leonore Annenberg was appointed by President Reagan as the State Department’s Chief of Protocol.

If you are going to lie, at least try lying about something that isn’t so easily disproven.

You ass wipe birthtards read anything into any video or photo you see of Obama. You'd be doing this country a favor if you'd all just leave this country since you obviously don't love it.

I ain't never seen anyone so sh*t stupid ass you birthtard. You musta got manure for brains.

Every state has provisions such as these. A birth does not always happen in a hospital. There are home births with mid-wifes. There are times that the woman doesn't make it to the hospital and has a birth in a car. Every child born in the US on US soil is a natural born citizen. You just can't handle having an intellectual and reasonable person that only wants to do good for this country. You'd prefer someone more like Bush whose brain was Cheney who was chipping away at the Constitution with warrantless wiretaps.

Just shows you how stupid these birthtards really are.

You're not giving yourself much credit there NC. Other birthtards aren't that intelligent and thus not that knowledgeable. But I guess it's alright to refer to yourself as stupid.

And by the way. Where's the proof that these people have actually gone to Hawaii to get this information? How do you know that they just didn't say they tried but didn't really try? It's obvious that you want this information but you are refusing to go get it yourself.

O.K., you want us to read about “usurption” in the Constitution. I’ve read the Constitution. “Usurption” isn’t mentioned; neither is the correct noun, “usurpation” or even the verb “usurp.” Not anywhere.

By what Constitutional means can a sitting President be removed, other than impeachment?

Here's an interesting photograph. From what I was told, it is a photo of you NC.

http://riverdaughter.files.wordpress.com/2008/1…

Just a warning to all of those people here that know that Obama is the legitimate POTUS. With all of the birthtards posting here, I wanted to just make sure you are being safe. Here's your warning:

WARNING!

Probably because they thought you were a stupid retard and that pretty much sums you up.

“‘In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green,’ the qualifications state.”

We told you before. This relates to an application for “Hawaiian Native” status: not just someone born in Hawaii, but someone of native Hawaiian ethnicity. As with Indian tribes, there are rights accorded to persons who are “Hawaiian native” and there are special requirements for proving that status.

All of that is irrelevant to being eligible for the Presidency. Can you cite any Constitutional or statutory requirement that a candidate for President provide any form of birth certificate as a predicate to running for President or being elected President?

President Obama provided the COLB, which is legal proof of his birth in Hawaii. But he was under no legal obligation to do so, prior to election or now.

How do you know that the state of Hawaii issued the COLB, which Obama presented to “factcheck.org”?
You only have Obama’s word for it.

If DoH would not confirm a trivial fact that they issued a COLB on June 6, 2007 – why should we give benefit of a doubt to a proven liar (Obama).

We have seen McCain’s long form birth certificate. Why is Obama’s original birth certificate so secretive. What is there to hide: A birth hospital or the name of the physician?

The whole thing is ridiculous. Obama is hiding behind Dr. Fukino’s skirt rather than deal with the issue himself.

As for your last question, UIPA law and Hawaii statue 338 provide a set of rules what can be disclosed to the public.

Nothing prevents DoH to issue confirmation that COLB was issued to Obama, nothing prevents them to issue index data for number 10641 or provide a manual describing the use of status field.

How do you know that Obama was born in Oahu? A foreign birth could have been registered as a Hawaii one (using an affidavit from a relative).

That is why the meaning of the phrase “Filed by Registrar” is important. If it indicated that birth was not reported by the Kapiolani Hospital, Obama would have a problem.

The long form birth certificate for Nordyke twins indicates that the document was “Accepted by the State Registrar”. According to Obama, he was born in the same hospital the day before Nordyke twins.

His birth certificate should indicate the same status: “Accepted by State Registrar”.

I am still waiting for the response from any Obama supporter: Why is the definition of these two phrases hidden from public?

My response to natualizedcitizen:

“How do you know that the state of Hawaii issued the COLB, which Obama presented to “factcheck.org”?

You only have Obama's word for it.”

If that's not good enough for you, check out the index data.

“If DoH would not confirm a trivial fact that they issued a COLB on June 6, 2007 – why should we give benefit of a doubt to a proven liar (Obama).”

DoH will not confirm the COLB, because that is tantamount to confirming the contents thereof. That is not trivial. State law prohibits them from doing so. So the DoH will not and cannot do what you want them to do.

“We have seen McCain's long form birth certificate. Why is Obama's original birth certificate so secretive. What is there to hide: A birth hospital or the name of the physician?”

I seriously doubt McCain's campaign produced the long-form birth certificate because a short-form is somehow “suspect” or not official. It may very well be that Panama does not have the equivalent to a short-form, and thus what McCain issued was, and remains, Panama's officially-issued birth certificate. Hawaii is a different jurisdiction with different practices.

Perhaps if Obama could have foreseen all the hype surrounding the COLB, perhaps he may have sought to have the long-form released. But I think at this point, given the lunacy surrounding this whole question, and the unending stream of ridiculous questions and conspiracy charges, to do so would be to improperly suggest doubt as to the conclusive nature of the COLB on this question. So it's not going to happen.

“The whole thing is ridiculous. Obama is hiding behind Dr. Fukino's skirt rather than deal with the issue himself.”

Let's be honest about what you're claiming: Obama is “hiding” behind an official document issued by the State of Hawaii. If you ask me, that's a pretty poor way to try to conceal anything.

“As for your last question, UIPA law and Hawaii statue 338 provide a set of rules what can be disclosed to the public.

Nothing prevents DoH to issue confirmation that COLB was issued to Obama, nothing prevents them to issue index data for number 10641 or provide a manual describing the use of status field.”

HRS Section 338-18 states that it is “unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.”

The statute further prohibits “inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.” The statute lists which persons have a “direct and tangible interest.” Not surprisingly, “the public” isn't one of the enumerated persons.

The DoH has obviously made the legal judgment that confirming a COLB, or the contents thereof, is a violation of the specific mandate of 338-18, and I think they are on solid ground on that judgment. Furthermore, the index data is available at the Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu if you're not satisfied. It's not being concealed. If you want it, go get it.

I made the same points to NC weeks ago about the 1790 and 1795 statutes. But of course, NC is right back at it, posting the same drivel as if NC’s opinion has the force of law.

“Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so,”

- U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land

Your OCD spamming is a good example.

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.”

For those who are interested, Orly lost the appeal for Major Cook. Looks like it was by her incompetence.

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

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.”

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.”

Good luck with NC. My experience is that, within a few days, NC will post the same questions, as if you had never answered them.

I also find it interesting how NC says “We have seen McCain's long form birth certificate.” I am curious whether NC has actually held a copy. Or is NC satisfied with seeing a copy of McCain's birth certificate posted on the web? That doesn't satisfy NC when it comes to President Obama's COLB. Why the double standard?

And a further mystery is why NC is not satisfied with the COLB issued by the government of the State of Hawaii, but is satisfied by a birth certificate registered by a private New York company. That's right folks — John McCain's birth was recorded in the birth records of a private company: the Panama Railraod Company. How do we know John McCain's “long form birth certificate” is genuine? Because we have the affidavit of a Panamanian citizen on behalf of that private company:

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation…

In other words, an official document from the State of Hawaii is unacceptable to NC, but NC is completely happy with documentation supported by the affidavit of a Panamanian citizen on behalf of the private company with which John McCain's birth was registered.

“theghostofxmasfuture”

Irrelevant, cowardly, deranged and not credible.

Credible and relevant authority:
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.”

I'm losing count. How many losses is that for her now? The biggest birfoon has a very poor batting average.

I think it's something like 60 losses, no wins.

NC told me, in all seriousness, that the affidavit from Orly Taitz's incompetent PI was preferable to a sealed, official document from the State of Hawaii. This is most definitely someone who is so sunk in obsession as to qualify as insane.

Given that the Annenbergs were staunch Republicans, and George Soros is a liberal, I really don’t see the connection.

But to the birther mind (oxymoron?), George Soros is omnipotent, and must therefore be the source of any fact they don’t like. Which is why it is just so amusing that FactCheck.org owes its existence to one of Ronald Reagan’s pals.

But hadn't you heard — Orly's pathetic batting average is entirely the fault of the umpires!

Yep. It's those 'traitor' judges out there. That and all of the brownshirts.

I've been struggling with these demons fellows. Maybe we just leave crazy alone in it's own blissful ignorance. We know we aren't going to get anywhere, we are feeding it's ego and I still think there's a good chance that it's messing with us for fun (and if so, bravo).

I think I'll have to disagree, just a little. Major Cook got out of going overseas, which was the relief he was looking for. So, technically, Orly got a win for her client. Of course, Orly has to be the only lawyer who can change a win into a loss. But, we already knew she wasn't working for her clients.

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“How do you know that Obama was born in Oahu? A foreign birth could have been registered as a Hawaii one (using an affidavit from a relative).”

But the existence of an affidavit wouldn't prove Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. It might show that the official story is not quite right, but it wouldn't demonstrate that's he's not a natural born citizen, which is ultimately what this whole controversy is supposed to be about. So where exactly would that lead us?

“That is why the meaning of the phrase “Filed by Registrar” is important. If it indicated that birth was not reported by the Kapiolani Hospital, Obama would have a problem.”

A political problem, yes. A legal one, no.

“The long form birth certificate for Nordyke twins indicates that the document was “Accepted by the State Registrar”. According to Obama, he was born in the same hospital the day before Nordyke twins.

His birth certificate should indicate the same status: “Accepted by State Registrar”.”

Who's to say that a COLB issued to either of the Nordyke twins wouldn't say exactly what Obama's says?

And of course, the fact that we're debating the wording on Obama's official Certification of Live Birth, issued by the State of Hawaii, bearing a registration date of August 8, 1961, suggests that this is the equivalent to debating how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

Orly would like to say she won the Cook case because he wasn't deployed. From what I've read, Cook could have had his orders revoked up until the day he was due to report since he volunteered. His case was frivolous.

yeah, and at that time Judge Land thought he was done with the Orly circus…little did he know. I haven't heard about her paying the sanctions yet, but he was definitely tired of her and didn't want to see filing suit in his court for every military person Orly could con into signing up.

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.”

You are correct.
NC is chiropteran excrement psychotic.

What does it prove – nothing.

Transcript of Colin Powell's UN speech on Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powel…

“…My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources. …”

You are correct, “the official story is not quite right”. There would be no need for secrecy from DoH if the original birth certificate indicated Hawaiian birth.

The following three pieces of information are in pubic domain yet hidden from us:
1) confirmation that COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007
2) index data for registration number 10641
3) explanation of COLB status field

If the above information indicated that Obama was not born in the Kapiolani hospital, an additional investigation would have to be conducted (original birth certificate, school records, SSA records,…) to confirm the Hawaii birth.

Obama supporters should not worry – he told the truth about his birthplace, right?

Yes, here we have another one of NC's reflexive, idiotic responses: “You can't believe any government document because Colin Powell lied! And he said he had 'solid sources.'”

O.K., NC: tell us how you would verify people's identities and their vital information (e.g., place and date of birth) if a stamped, signed government document can't be trusted, and the statement of the government official in charge of keeping the records “proves nothing.”

Does a Driver's License “prove nothing”?
Does a Passport “prove nothing”?

You obviously think we need to verify the place of birth of Presidential candidates. So, NC, who do you trust to do that verification? Please be specific.

Imagine that you can pass legislation setting up a process for “vetting” these credentials of Presidential candidates. Exactly how would you propose to do it?

If your logic is to be applied – the state law also prohibits Dr. Fukino to issue her second press release. Why is the double standard applied?

Index data for registration number 10641 is in the public domain. Why is it that DoH refuses to release it?

State manual should not be a secret. numerous laws and state manuals have been published – not the one describing the COLB status field phrases.

If you are so sure about the availability of index data, will you reimburse my travel costs if the DoH denies the index data for record 10641?

What happened to Obama's promise to change the tone of discussion in Washington? What happened to the promise of transparency? All lies? His words and actions do not match.

A real patriot would have produced the original birth certificate upon first questions of eligibility. After all, there should be no doubt about legitimacy of a person running for the office of POTUS. Obama is going to sign orders to send troops to Afghanistan where some of them will die, yet their CiC is a coward hiding behind Dr. Fukino.

As far as I know neither McCain nor anybody from his campaign contested the document presented in the media as his long form birth certificate.

McCain's campaign did not post an image of that document on a friendly web site. They were not the source.

I will accept Obama's COLB when there is an official confirmation from DoH. As long as they refuse to confirm that COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007 – we only have Obama's word that this is an official document. A word of a proven liar means nothing.

Obama has vested interest to present himself as born in Hawaii – therefore an independent source is needed to confirm his claim.

It takes one to know one.

In all seriousness you should be more careful to accurately quote people. The correct quote is:

A sworn affidavit submitted to court (under the penalty of perjury) is more believable than an image of an alleged DoH document posted on a friendly web site.

I do not assume that document presented to 'factcheck.org” came from Hawaii DoH, because they would not confirm it upon numerous requests.

Obama's birth certificate has been amended. A citizen sent a request to DoH for Obama's amended certificate and records showing fees paid for it. The DoH denied access to it, thus confirming its existence.

If such records did not exist, the proper response under the UIPA law would have been to specifically mention that DoH did not have those records on file.

Could David Wiegel ask Mrs. Okubo to clarify the meaning of the phrases “Filed by Registrar” and “Accepted by State Registrar” used on Hawaii COLBs?

Was interview with Mrs. Okubo published on this web site?

1. Do not mix apples and oranges. Dr. Fukino's statement is not equal to an official document.

2. You are assuming that document Obama presented to “factcheck.org” is an official DoH document. We have no proof that document was sealed, signed (stamped) and issued by DoH on June 6, 2007.

Let the DoH confirm the issuing and I will consider it as an official document.

3. Dr. Fukino never said that original birth certificate indicates Hawaiian birth. She danced around this issue in both of her press releases.
In the first press release, she never mentioned that Obama was born in Hawaii.

We do not know what documents she used to support her second press release, where she confirmed his Hawaiian birth.

Obama's birth certificate has been amended. A request for amended records was sent to DoH and they denied access to it. If such document did not exist, the proper response from DoH, according to the UIPA law, would have been to say so. By denying access to it, the DoH implicitly confirmed its existence.

4)
———————————————————-
Does a Driver's License “prove nothing”?
Does a Passport “prove nothing”?
———————————————————–

Next time I travel abroad, can I ask the person at the airline counter to check the image of my passport on a private web page?

If a Highway patrol officer stopped me – should I ask him/her to check my web page for the image of the driver's license?

Since we cannot examine the paper copy of Obama's COLB, he could have asked the DoH to publicly confirm it.

Another option could have been to allow the access to the paper copy of COLB to any other presidential candidate interested in seeing the document.

5) My proposal for vetting presidential candidates:
Certified birth certificate is filed with the Secretary of State (as an addition to the Certification letter) and posted on a government web page for everyone to see.

Any presidential candidate has the right to inspect the physical copy of a birth certificate of another candidate by visiting the designated office of the Secretary of State.

If there is any challenge to document's authenticity (any citizen has standing), an expedite court controlled verification process should take place. This should be done in a designated court in Washington DC.

NC: “If you are so sure about the availability of index data, will you reimburse my travel costs if the DoH denies the index data for record 10641?”

Thank you, NC, for finally admitting that you know Obama is our legal president. Because, if you were so sure he wasn't, you'd be headed over to Hawaii and find that necessary truth. Because you know, and all of us here know, that if you actually had PROOF of any wrong-doing, you'd be right there front and center doing something about it. Using YOUR standards of proof, your lack of action on your part proves that you KNOW that your actions would have no affect other than to further prove Obama was born in Hawaii. Your unwillingness to put your money where your mouth is shows you have absolutely no belief in what you've been typing on this board.

No one cares about your proposals. The majority elected him and he will remain regardless of your paranoid assertions.

NC is a troll. It's hard not to ignore them but it is probably best.

As we have been over ad nauseum by now, DoH officials cannot release Obama's COLB or disclose the contents thereof to non-interested persons under Hawaii law. They are bending over backwards, however, to work within the confines of the law to try to reassure ridiculous doubts about the existence of Obama's birth records, and all they get are accusations of conspiracy and coverup.

Utterly pathetic.

NC,
I was born in Maryland. My original birth certificate was lost. To apply for a driver's license at 16, I received a signed COLB with a stamp and signature. I have used this to acquire driver's licenses in three states and a passport as well as numerous other things. It is accepted as valid proof of my identity and birth in Maryland, without confirmation, it has been unquestioned proof of such, carrying with it the full faith and trust of the State of Maryland.

If I decide to run for the President and want to answer question r.e. my birthplace for the public at large – how do you suggest I do so?

I guess judges disagree with you since they prefer to believe the State of Hawaii versus sworn affidavits coming from people that are apparently deranged.

“Do not mix apples and oranges. Dr. Fukino's statement is not equal to an official document.”

No, and you're not entitled to see any official document under the law. End of story.

“Let the DoH confirm the issuing and I will consider it as an official document.”

You seem to have absolutely zero regard for the dictates of Hawaii law. They can't confirm it without illegally disclosing the contents of a vital record to a non-interested party. Why is that so difficult for you to absorb? Harrassing public officials will not change the law. If you don't like the law, ask a Hawaiian legislator to change it.

“Dr. Fukino never said that original birth certificate indicates Hawaiian birth.”

Why should she have to? The COLB already indicates that's what the original documents say.

Again, you fail to understand the logical rules underlying the very fabric of our society and legal system. Until you have proof that Dr. Fukino is lying, her statement stands and the position of Hawaii remains as she has said.

That's the problem. Obama DID provide a COLB during his campaign to put to rest rumors that he had been born in Kenya. The COLB is the proof that he was born in Hawaii and is a NBC. Just because it wasn't good enough for you doesn't mean it wasn't good enough for the majority of America. A real patriot would not question the will of the people. YOU ARE A COWARD because you do not reveal your real name and address so that we can in fact determine if you are really an american citizen.

“If your logic is to be applied – the state law also prohibits Dr. Fukino to issue her second press release.”

Incorrect. Her second press release didn't disclose information in a vital record, only that such record exists and is maintained by the state. That's completely legit under the law.

“If you are so sure about the availability of index data, will you reimburse my travel costs if the DoH denies the index data for record 10641?”

Whatever happened to good, old-fashioned American risk-taking? I'm not the curious party – you are. Tell you what, I'll pay your costs if you're prepared to spend money on my efforts to determine whether Obama is from outer space.

“What happened to Obama's promise to change the tone of discussion in Washington? What happened to the promise of transparency? All lies? His words and actions do not match.”

Transparency has its limits. How many other presidential candidates have offered official birth documents? And how many have been told that such documents – despite their legally conclusive nature – are just not enough evidence for some people?

“1) confirmation that COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007
2) index data for registration number 10641
3) explanation of COLB status field”

These are your desperate hope. You cling to them because you are so convinced that within these three listings somewhere, someone will finally reveal the TRUTH! And then, all your suspicions will be confirmed.

No one, not us here, not Obama, not the State of Hawaii is required to provide you with these or even address you desire for them. Your desire to see them is grounded 100% in your suspicion that the COLB has been forged or faked. You come here and say, “I can't trust it, it is a fake. There is a conspiracy to maintain it's truth.” Yet, until you obtain evidence or fraud, error or conspiracy – no one is bound by any oath, law or public trust to validate your stubborn refusal to accept the evidence laid out before you.

there will always be people who don't believe in the Moon Landing, or Creationists, Flat-Earthers, 9/11 Truthers etc. and no amount of evidence will convince them while the rest of us stand satisfied. Further, no amount of conversation or debate, berating or abuse will disavow them of the notion that their suspicions are of paramount concern and, thus, trump the long-standing rules outlining the basis of trust in our society.

NC is one of these people.

How has the COLB been amended? Did such amendment take place in Hawaii?

How do the fees come into play?

How has the COLB been amended? Did such amendment take place in Hawaii?

How do the fees come into play?

Incredulous, you leave us flat-earthers out of this argument. We're almost to the edge…we can see where it drops off. Just a few more days now and our suspicions will be proven. Then the world will know the whole space program was a cover-up and we are really living on a plate not an orb. The rest of you non-believers will then have to drop to your knees and thank us for showing you the way. We are special and know the truth!!!

Yeah, I'd say that pretty much describes NC.

You insist Dr. Fukino's statement “proves nothing” because Colin Powell lied. (I don't understand your logic, but then again, you are sui generis.)

Yet you are willing to trust the Secretary of State, another state official (with a potential political stake in the process — see Florida in 2000) as the arbiter of authenticity of a birth certificate that probably was issued by a different state.

And then, a “designated court” gets to handle any challenges. Yet you have denounced Judge Carter as “David O(bama) Carter.” You now are willing to trust federal judges? And they will be able to “expedite” the review, even though they could receive suits from thousands of people because “any citizen” (including, apparently, citizens who are legally ineligible to vote) has standing?

Anyway, no such process currently exists. Write to your representatives, and try to convince them to sponsor your legislation. You are wasting your time here.

Your inability to comprehend the plain English of this statement proves one of the following:

1. You are unable to read English. In that case you should be taking remedial lessons.

2. You think that Dr. Fukino and the rest of the Hawaiian government are involved in a coverup and are deliberately lying. In that case you need to have your meds adjusted.

3. You are being deliberately obstructionist and annoying. In that case you should be ashamed of yourself.

Any way you slice it, NC or Orly or BP or whatever the hell you're calling yourself today, you should be ashamed of yourself. Ignorance is not pretty.

Why is it that Dr. Fukino could issue a statement that Obama is a natural born citizen and what is her definiton of that phrase?

You have never answered the question about state manual describing the status field. Is it also a secret that State cannot share with the public?

Which COLB are you talking about: the one that DoH would not confirm that they issued?
The fake document provided by Obama to factchgeck.org and its image posted on the web is meaningless without offical confirmation.

You presented a physical copy of COLB to obtain a driver's license. If any of the agencies had any doubts about validity of the document you presented to them – how would they go about verifying it?

Obama has not presented the physical copy of his COLB to anyone but “factcheck.org”. He had ample opportuinities to show it to those challenging his eligibility.

If I were in his shoes, the long form birth certificate would have been presented upon the first eligibility lawsuit filed by Phil Berg. His lawyers should have used it to prove his birthplace in court.

If you decide to run for President and somebody challenges your eligibility, you could simply authorize the issuing authority (DoH) to release your original birth certificate to the public. As a president-elect Obama could have simply asked the Hawaii DoH to put his original birth certificate on their web page for everyone to see.

Something is not quite right with his birth certificate – there is no other explanation for his behavior. If he was born in Hawaii, he could have shown his original birth certificate the same way that Eleonopr Noprdyke did for her children. If Obama does not have the original, the DoH has it in their archive.

NC: “The fake document provided by Obama to factchgeck.org and its image posted on the web is meaningless without offical confirmation.”

Actually, everything is meaningless to you if it doesn't agree with your pre-determined outcome. But, if you aren't willing to go to Hawaii and get your needed confirmation, then you've proven you know Obama was born there and you're just here to aggravate. Because, the answers to your questions are not here, they're in Hawaii. So, until you go to Hawaii and ask and examine in person, you are saying Obama is legal by your lack of action.

Dr. Fukino issued press release in October 2008 where she tried to manipulate the US public. She never mentioned the original birth certificate in that statement, nor she mentioned that Obama was born in Hawaii.

We do not need to rely on her words. Words of a government official do not necessarily represent the truth (that is where Colin Powell's statements fit in our debate)
A simple check of government documents would reveal the truth about Obama's birthplace.

Read item 5 from my post again.
The key point is that the physical copy of the COLB would be accessible to other candidates for inspection.
If they were not happy with that document for any reason, the designated court would HAVE to verify the document. There would be no standing issues to be debated.

Secretary of State would have no business of verifying the COLB.

Obama can release the original BC the same way Eleonor Nordyke did for her children.

If he was interested in being transparent and changing the tone in Washington (as promised during the campaign) he would have made sure that there was no doubt about his birthplace.

I do not ask for anything unreasonable. Since Obama has already made COLB public (in electronic form), why is it that DoH cannot confirm that they issued it. No new information would be released to the public (assuming that Obama is telling the truth).

I have asked 'factchek.org” multiple times to comment on verification methods used on Obama's COLB. Guess what – no response.

There is no need for people to physically travel to Hawaii. The DoH will not release the information.

It would be very easy to prove birthers wrong – just show the original birth certificate, what is there to hide?
Obama promised transparency. Was it just another campaign lie?

There is nothing to hide. You assume there is because you begin from a position of suspicion based not on evidence but on feeling.

“If any of the agencies had any doubts about validity of the document you presented to them”

On what basis do these agencies have to doubt the validity of the document I bring?

“He had ample opportunities to show it to those challenging his eligibility. “
Really, How would he have done that?

“If you decide to run for President and somebody challenges your eligibility, you could simply authorize the issuing authority (DoH) to release your original birth certificate to the public”
Why would the document I have been using all my life suddenly be not good enough? Why does my candidacy suddenly make the standards of Maryland suspect?

“Something is not quite right with his birth certificate – there is no other explanation for his behavior”
That is because you don't want to accept anything but your feelings on the issue.

Obama's birth certificate has been amended. A citizen sent a request to DoH for Obama's amended certificate and records showing fees paid for it. The DoH denied access to it, thus confirming its existence.

If such records did not exist, the proper response under the UIPA law would have been to specifically mention that DoH did not have those records on file.

I asked you below:
How was it amended?
In what way? Where is your proof of this amendment?
Was it done by Hawaii?
Why is the fee appropriate?

Obama doesn't have to do anything, he's the legally sitting President. You're just a frustrated individual with an ax to grind. Since you have chosen not to pursue your theories, you have chosen to concede Obama is legally our President. It has been and always will not be required for people to answer unfounded accusations. Your lack of action proves that.

“Dr. Fukino issued press release in October 2008 where she tried to manipulate the US public”
Your opinion
“If they were not happy with that document for any reason, the designated court would HAVE to verify the document. There would be no standing issues to be debated.”
And the courts would be flooded with writ from idiots like yourself.
“Secretary of State would have no business of verifying the COLB.”
What? So he would be required to file the item but not making sure it was accurate? That's just stupid.

Nothing new here. This 'citizen' probably doesn't exist OR it is another made up lie by another birthfart.

1. On what basis do these agencies have to doubt the validity of the document I bring?

Lets say that the agency had seen COLB's from Maryland in the past. Then a person comes in with a funny looking COLB allegedly from Maryland. Would they accept the document or would they try to verify it?

2. Would you agree to allow other presidential candidates to examine the paper copy of your COLB?
In all government transactions you had to present a paper copy of that document, why not make it available in your campaign HQ for other candidates or interested journalists to examine?

I like the idea that you remain the dark. Obama doesn't have to do anything but his job as president. You on the other hand, can piss and moan all you want. You'll never get what you want.

The request for amended birth records was a catalyst for second press release by Dr. Fukino.

Email correspondednce between this person and Dr. Fukino/Janice Okubo was posted on the web for a long time.

You need an increase in your bipolar medications.

We now know that Colin Powell was either lying or had been lied to. No such evidence has surfaced with regard to Dr. Fukino. It seems unlikely that any will, except of course in febrile imaginations of the birthers.

—Obama can release the original BC the same way Eleonor Nordyke did for her children.
———————————————-

Let's see Nordyke release a BC issued by the state this year, not in 1964.

When she does that, then we'll talk.

Actually, NC is advocating for the return to the hey days of the KKK.
“Your papers don't look right, we'll have to see more ID.”
“I don't trust your paperwork, you don't look like me so I need to verify your paperwork, come back in a week.”
Yeah, NC, we see how you continually want there to be standards for one group of people and not another.

Forgery…

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“Why is it that Dr. Fukino could issue a statement that Obama is a natural born citizen and what is her definiton of that phrase?”

I have no idea what her particular definition is, but most people I have come into contact with use “natural born citizen” as shorthand for “born in the United States” (whether or not that is constitutionally precise).

That's probably more than she should have divulged under Hawaii law, but given her utter frustration, I understand her lapse.

“You have never answered the question about state manual describing the status field.”

That's right. Because I don't care what the answer is. The State of Hawaii has issued an official document representing Obama's place of birth as Oahu, and indicating that his birth was registered with the State on August 8, 1961. This is fully consistent with the birth announcements found in Hawaii newspapers a week later.

So whatever the answer to your question is, it has no bearing on whether Obama's birth was registered with the State of Hawaii. Therefore I find it irrelevant to the issues at hand and consider it as having nothing more than trivial import. If you need an answer, go look it up yourself.

“We do not need to rely on her words. Words of a government official do not necessarily represent the truth (that is where Colin Powell's statements fit in our debate)
A simple check of government documents would reveal the truth about Obama's birthplace.”

Don't rely on the words of a government official then. Go find someone who, under Hawaii law, has a direct and tangible interest in Obama's vital records, and ask them to obtain a copy.

“I do not ask for anything unreasonable. Since Obama has already made COLB public (in electronic form), why is it that DoH cannot confirm that they issued it. No new information would be released to the public (assuming that Obama is telling the truth).”

You don't get it, do you? The DoH did not place the information in the stream of public discourse. They are not permitted to.

There is no provision in Hawaii law enabling an official to divulge vital record information merely because “everybody knows it.” If that were the case, then a giant loophole in Hawaii's privacy laws would be opened: Put out a COLB, turn it into a public “controversy,” and then have the State verify it to quell said “controversy.” If the State of Hawaii were to allow that to happen, no one's records would be truly private any longer.

“Obama has not presented the physical copy of his COLB to anyone but “factcheck.org”. He had ample opportunities to show it to those challenging his eligibility.”

Obama has never been required to show proof of birth to any public official, administrative or judicial entity, which is exactly at it has been since 1789. Why should Obama be treated differently than the previous 43 presidents?

“It would be very easy to prove birthers wrong – just show the original birth certificate, what is there to hide?”

I have asked other birthers whether being shown a copy of Obama's original birth ceritifcate would satisfy their questions, and most have been very candid in saying “no.” Some of them believe the whole two-citizen parent garbage, while others will never believe any level of proof of Obama's birth short of having been there themselves.

Obama, to his credit, seems to understand this, and has been content to let the birthers hang themselves by the petard of their own increasingly outlandish legal and factual claims. And by the looks of it, they've done a darn fine job of it.

CAN OBAMA BE PRESIDENT?

It seems that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president after all for the following reason:

Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986?

Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal. US Law very clearly stipulates: “.If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. citizen for 10 years,(or citizen perhaps because of Hawai'i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama's birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn't matter *after*.

In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18 in Hawai'i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aformentioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Cizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.

Let's see…Hawaii was a state in 1961. Shoots that down. Obama was not born overseas, which is what that covers. Strike 2. And the age of the mother has nothing to do with being a citizen when born in the USA. Strike 3. Why do you keep posting this crap when you know we've already debunked it multiple times? The only logical reason is that you know Obama is legally our President. So, is this how you make you feel better about yourself? Is this all you have left in your pathetic life?

So…once we see the original BC & college records we can put this birther nonsense behind us. The fake raft-registration & multiple SSNs are really non-issues.

“US Law very clearly stipulates: “.If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”

The law is very clear, indeed, Sherlock. But there is one fatal flaw in your argument: this law does not (and constitutionally cannot) supersede the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment states:

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

The law you cited applies only to the citizenship of persons born outside the United States, and would therefore only be relevant to President Obama if he were born outside the United States.

Since President Obama was born in Hawaii, the law you state is intriguing, but irrelevant to our discussion. Sorry.

Obama's college records are of course irrelevant to the question of whether Obama is a natural born citizen.

Obama need not produce a copy of his original birth certificate to resolve the question of whether he is a natural born citizen. His campaign already produced an official Certification of Live Birth, which naturally draws its information from records on file with the State of Hawaii. Therefore, producing the original birth certificate is redundant.

(Unless, of course, you are willing to believe that the State of Hawaii is engaged in some massive fraud. But if you are that cynical, then production of the original birth certificate would probably be greeted by you with equal cynicism, and thus be disregarded. In which case the stand-off would continue much as it is right now.)

I remember that the right-wing wackos during the 90s accusing Bill Clinton of being a drug runner and having a hit squad that murdered 60 people. The whole fake SSN thing is just about as credible.

I'm not going to hold my breath for NC's idea to become legislation, much less law. Yes, every Presidential candidate should have to deal with hundreds if not thousands of suits by conspiracy theorists, alleging:

(1) The birth certificate is a fake.

(2) The birth certificate is authentic, but was obtained as part of a conspiracy in which government officials were: (a) bribed; (b) blackmailed; (c) hypnotically controlled; (d) replaced by look-alike droids; and (e) all of the above.

(3) The birth certificate is authentic, but the candidate is not the person named on the birth certificate.

(4) The candidate must release the “long-form” birth certificate. Nothing else will do, no matter what State law says!

(5) We aren't sure if the birth certificate is genuine or not, but because the candidate's younger sister can't correctly recall where the hospital in which the candidate was born, the court needs to provide for an investigation.

(6) The candidate is an illegal alien because his father was British.

(7) The candidate is not a citizen because someone posted a Kenyan birth certificate on the internet.

(8) The candidate is not a citizen because he was allegedly adopted by someone who wasn't a citizen.

And anyone who thinks those theories and more won't be presented to this “designated court” is quite simply nuts.

I just read a blog that really makes a lot of sense. The Obama administration loves Orly Taitz and the birthers in addition to the tea baggers because they're f'n up the Republican Party. So, please, keep it up with all of your false assertions. The crazier you all sound, the better it is for us. So, on behalf of the true patriots and Americans here in the United States that know without a doubt that Obama is our president, thank you for your 'support'.

I personally want to thank you for your outrageous claims. Please keep them going until 2012. The crazier you are with your conspiracies and mis-interpretations of the law, the better it is for the Democratic party. Obama loves you.

1.) Obama's released COLB matches the standard currently issued by Hawaii, I see no problem.

2.) wasn't my question, my remaing questions were:

“If you decide to run for President and somebody challenges your eligibility, you could simply authorize the issuing authority (DoH) to release your original birth certificate to the public”
Why would the document I have been using all my life suddenly be not good enough? Why does my candidacy suddenly make the standards of Maryland suspect?

naturalizedcitizen writes:

“Natural born citizen = Born in the USA of citizen parents.”

To which I respond:

Rubbish. Let's see your cards.

Basically, they come to the argument prejudiced by suspicion and because every moment of Obama's life is not documented those undocumented areas must be where the truth of the matter lies and because they are already prejudiced, they know what that truth must be before it is revealed. They also believe that differences of law are actually differences of opinion, which is patently untrue.

For example, their boilerplate over Fukion's two statements is two a.) treat the statements as if they have no relation to each other b.) believe her language to be evasive thus, what she is evading is the truth they seek. That hidden truth can only be one thing, when there are other possible and more plausible explanations – for example that Fukino is doing her best to put the rumors to rest within the letter of the law. There things she is legally bound from saying but she doing her damndest to say them without saying them.

My response to Incredulous:

“Basically, they come to the argument prejudiced by suspicion and because every moment of Obama's life is not documented those undocumented areas must be where the truth of the matter lies and because they are already prejudiced, they know what that truth must be before it is revealed. They also believe that differences of law are actually differences of opinion, which is patently untrue.

For example, their boilerplate over Fukion's two statements is two a.) treat the statements as if they have no relation to each other b.) believe her language to be evasive thus, what she is evading is the truth they seek. That hidden truth can only be one thing, when there are other possible and more plausible explanations – for example that Fukino is doing her best to put the rumors to rest within the letter of the law. There things she is legally bound from saying but she doing her damndest to say them without saying them.”

The irony of the whole thing is that birthers claim they are upholding the law and the Constitution, when in fact they couldn't care less about laws which don't advance their political agenda.

All they see is that the DoH will not give them information they think they have a moral or political right to obtain. They disregard the fact that under Hawaii law, they have no legal right to obtain the information, so they conveniently interpret the whole matter as a coverup.

Ah, yet another birther who thinks that cutting and pasting the same discredited crap into multiple threads will bolster his case! Charming!

It confirms nothing of the sort. It simply confirms that the Department of Health cannot release a birth certificate to an unauthorized non-relative.

Once again, your lack of English skills is showing. You really are a piece of work.

I think you just proved my point about your sanity.

I think you just proved my point about your sanity.

Moreover, they would be more than happy for the federal courts to get involved in removing a sitting President, issuing advisory opinions, hearing suits brought by plaintiffs who lack Article III standing, and interfering with deployment orders of combat troops issued by commissioned officers of the U.S. Armed Forces, all because they can't stand our President, and all without regard to the Constitutional limits on the role of the federal courts.

They call federal judges “traitors” because those judges recognize the importance of respecting the limited role of the federal courts.

President Obama is the president, no matter how much you don't like it. President Obama was born in Hawaii, part of the United States. His parents' citizenship was immaterial. He is a natural born citizen and our president. Hillary agrees.

Allow me to explain where NC gets this, because he has given his lame exposition more times than I can count.

NC cites the 1790 and 1795 naturalization statutes, which you have already handily addressed.

But NC's real prize is a letter from John Jay to George Washington, dated July 25, 1787, which NC sees as absolute proof that the only possible meaning of “natural born citizen” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution is “born in the United States to parents who are citizens at the time of birth.”

The entire text of that letter is as follows:

“Dear Sir,

Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.

I remain, dear sir,

Your faithful friend and servant,
John Jay”

I have pointed out to NC a few problems with his line of reasoning:

1) John Jay was not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention.

(2) His letter to George Washington of July 25, 1787 is very short, proposes that the commander-in-chief of the army be a “natural born citizen” but nowhere defines what that phrase means.

(3) George Washington was not a member of the Committee of Eleven that drafted the “natural born citizen” requirement. There is no evidence he discussed John Jay's letter with the Committee of Eleven.

(4) John Jay never mentions the phrase “natural born citizen” in any of his other surviving correspondence, let alone in correspondence during the Constitutional Convention. Searchable database of letters:

http://www.familytales.org/results.php?tla=joj

(5) John Jay was a co-author of the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers do not ever discuss the “natural born citizen” requirement or its possible meaning. Searchable Federalist Papers:
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

The phrase “natural born citizen” was proposed by the Committee of Eleven, without explanation, and approved by the Constitutional Convention without debate. NC's notion that the phrase came from John Jay's letter is speculation that assumes several things NC cannot possibly prove. Moreover, John Jay's letter does not propose a definition of “natural born citizen”. That is the funniest part. It is NC's opinion that the “Founding Fathers” must have meant “natural born citizen” to mean “born in the U.S. to two citizen parents” but ultimately the sources of that conclusion are (a) NC's own opinion of what John Jay “must have meant” by the phrase, and (b) NC's assumption that the John Jay's letter was influential on the Committee of Eleven, even though NC has no evidence that any member of the Committee of Eleven ever saw the letter.

And NC's grand rebuttal to these arguments is this: there is no other explanation for where the phrase came from. In NC's mind, the absence of evidence to prove another source for the phrase, is proof that NC's theory must be correct.

That's the way their minds work. It's like the Cook case. The army decided to revoke his orders so it is obvious they are trying to keep this issue from going to court to where Obama will have to show proof he is a NBC.

Other important questions you might want to address in your thoughtful manner:

CAN WATER BOIL AT 212 DEGREES?

CAN A CATHOLIC BECOME POPE?

CAN A SQUIRREL GATHER NUTS FOR WINTER?

CAN THE NEW YORK YANKEES WIN A WORLD SERIES?

Thanks for amusing us. Really. You are a very funny person.

“And NC's grand rebuttal to these arguments is this: there is no other explanation for where the phrase came from.”

The very silence of the Founders on the meaning of natural born citizen suggests that the term had an obvious meaning to all of them (including John Jay, who casually uses the term without defining it).

The birthers advance the argument that Vattel, who played an admittedly large role in shaping contemporary views of natural law, made the following statement in section 212 of The Law of Nations, originally published in French in the 1750s:

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

Now, there are two problems with using this quote. One is that English translations of Vattel prior to the 1790s did not use the term “natural born citizens.” They used the untranslated “Indigenes” from French, which translates in English to “natives.” So we cannot say that the Founders at the Constitutional Convention were simply adopting the language from Vattel.

Second, there is no evidence, from before, during, or after 1787, that American courts or legislatures utilized the jus sanguinas citizenship principles advocated by Vattel. State legislatures during the late 1780s, in the period before the Constitution was adopted, used the term “natural born citizen” in reference to persons born in the country, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. In the decades afterwards, courts frequently divided U.S. citizens into “natural born” and “naturalized” citizens. No reference was ever made to a third class of citizens.

So the silence of the Founders was telling: they were clearly adhering to the existing understanding of “natural born citizen” as it was then used in courts and legislatures, which, applying jus soli principles, meant at minimum, persons born on U.S. soil.

Although its opinion does not have binding value, the New York Court of Chancery, after a thorough historical review of U.S. citizenship laws in the 1844 case of Lynch v. Clarke, was spot on in its analysis in this regard:

“Moreover, the absence of any avowal of expression in the constitution, of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representative of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes, should have intended to subvert the long established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change in the constitution; still more that they should come to that conclusion without even once declaring their object. And what is true of the delegates in the convention, is equally applicable to the designs of the states, and of the people of the states, in ratifying and adopting the results of their labors.”

Currently, secretaries of State do not check whether claims made in the Certification Letter are accurate.

If there was a challenge to candidate's eligibility, there would be a single (court) authority in charge of verification, instead of having 50 secretaries of state duplicating the work.

Oddly, NC hasn't seem to fixate on de Vattel (but other birthers lurking around here have).

I find perplexing their insistence that a new nation, full of immigrants, would latch onto a concept of citizenship that arises from essentially static societies: homogenous populations that have lived in the same place for hundreds of years. I rather doubt that most birthers have bothered to read much if any of de Vattel other than the “natural-born citizens” quote from the 1797 London translation. If they did, they might find some rather startling statements, including support for a state religion.

Agreed. And of course, how would a nation of immigrants and children of immigrants create a viable polity if only children of two citizen parents were citizens at birth?

There is simply zero historical evidence for the consequent rite of passage of children born in this country being naturalized when they reached adolesence.

Court has access to the original data on file with DoH.

Once the first eligibility challenge is raised, the court would verify candidate's eligibility to be placed on the ballot, making any subsequent eligibility complaint irrelevant.

The best possible scenario would be to have the Supreme Court explain what the NBC status is and what the rules for the inclusion on the presidential ballot are before Congress passes a law addressing the NBC requirement in presidential elections.

If your theory were correct, the military would not want capt. Rhodes in Iraq.

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“Court has access to the original data on file with DoH.”

The court doesn't have “access” to anything. The parties can provide documents to the court, and the court may order the production of a document requested by a party.

“Once the first eligibility challenge is raised, the court would verify candidate's eligibility to be placed on the ballot, making any subsequent eligibility complaint irrelevant.”

And of course, we know exactly how a court would “verify” eligibility – assuming the court ever got to that stage. It would take judicial notice of the COLB, which is “prima facie evidence” of the fact of one's birth in a court of law. It would then determine on the basis of that document that President Obama was born in the United States, and thus a natural born citizen in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark. Easy-peezy.

“The best possible scenario would be to have the Supreme Court explain what the NBC status is and what the rules for the inclusion on the presidential ballot are before Congress passes a law addressing the NBC requirement in presidential elections.”

The Supreme Court only rules on “cases or controversies” in accordance with Article III of the U.S. Constitution. It does not issue advisory opinions, no matter how politically sexy the topic. It is highly unlikely a case would survive the standing issue long enough to reach the Court, as we have seen, so I won't hold my breath on having the NBC issue resolved anytime in the near future.

He is doing a “fine” job, LOL!!!

His poll numbers are going down. If it continues this way in 2010, there will be many unhappy Democrats.

Hopefully Dems will lose the control of Congress and than there will be enough political will to deal with the eligibility issue.

Before you comment it would be nice to understand that we are talking about hypothetical scenario of a legislation that would cover the eligibility to be placed on presidential ballot.

I provided my opinion about it when asked by bearclaw.

You are taking quotes out of context and those who read just your post on top of the thread have no idea about the origin of the debate.

naturalizedcitizen writes:

“Hopefully Dems will lose the control of Congress and than there will be enough political will to deal with the eligibility issue.”

As a political observation, I think the Republican Party would never live down any effort to reverse the popular election of a sitting president based on the flimsiest of legal arguments. But I value a viable two-party system for the health of our democracy, so I wouldn't want to see the Republicans self-destruct by taking on such an issue.

No need to be fixated on Vattel even though his work was consulted by US Congress when drafting early laws.

The naturalization law changes (1790 and 1795) clearly shows that early Congress made a distinction between phrases “natural born citizen” and citizen (at birth). That leves us with only one other possible definition of NBC (born in the USA, only).

The John Jay letter is not only important for mentioning the NBC phrase, it provides the MOTIVATION for inclusion of the phrase into eligibility requirement. He suggests that a strong check is needed to prevent foreigners from obtaining the command of US military. Basically the NBC is the national security requirement.
Therefore, children of foreigners (either permanent residents or even worse illegal aliens) are not eligible, they do not have exclusive loyalty at birth to the USA only.

Armed with that knowledge it is easy to see what the definition of an NBC is (born in teh USA of citizen parents).

John Bingham (the author of the Section 1 of the 14th Amendment) confirms it as well.

“Before you comment it would be nice to understand that we are talking about hypothetical scenario of a legislation that would cover the eligibility to be placed on presidential ballot.”

Fair enough. But even under the Posey bill floated in Congress, the standing issue will remain a problem for those seeking to contest the NBC issue in the courts.

Even better, under the Posey bill the birth certificate the President provided on-line last summer is considered legal proof of natural born status.

Rebutted numerous times in other threads.

*yawn*

Hate to tell you this, but Obama IS President. Has been for almost a year, too.

Every President’s poll numbers go down. So what? Poll numbers have nothing to do with eligibility, nor does the party in control of Congress. The only way to remove a sitting President is through impeachment and conviction in Congress on the grounds of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The President has not committed treason, has not accepted bribes, and has committed nothing that even remotely approaches “high crimes and misdemeanors.” All the “political will” in the world will not change this.

I realize that you have conceived a loathing for President Obama, almost certainly at least partially based on his race. I also realize that you will continue to post about laws you do not understand, parse plain English into constructions that are nonsensical to anyone who speaks English as a first language, and engage in ad hominem arguments and bring up irrelevancies, then drop everything when challenged or asked to answer a simple question. You will then of course surface under a new name, in a different thread, making the same arguments that were thoroughly rebutted before.

I also realize that you will answer me with yet more nonsense about Vattel, Dr. Fukino, “natural law,” Wong Kim Ark, and many other things that you do not understand. You have that right, and you’re perfectly free to waste your time doing so even though in your heart of hearts you know that you’re wrong, and that Barack Obama will not be removed from office due to the work of Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, Gerry “teenage girls in bikinis are hot” Nance, or anyone else.

Why you choose to do is what puzzles me. You must lead a very sad, empty life if this is what gives you pleasure.

Every President’s poll numbers go down. So what? Poll numbers have nothing to do with eligibility, nor does the party in control of Congress. The only way to remove a sitting President is through impeachment and conviction in Congress on the grounds of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The President has not committed treason, has not accepted bribes, and has committed nothing that even remotely approaches “high crimes and misdemeanors.” All the “political will” in the world will not change this.

I realize that you have conceived a loathing for President Obama, almost certainly at least partially based on his race. I also realize that you will continue to post about laws you do not understand, parse plain English into constructions that are nonsensical to anyone who speaks English as a first language, and engage in ad hominem arguments and bring up irrelevancies, then drop everything when challenged or asked to answer a simple question. You will then of course surface under a new name, in a different thread, making the same arguments that were thoroughly rebutted before.

I also realize that you will answer me with yet more nonsense about Vattel, Dr. Fukino, “natural law,” Wong Kim Ark, and many other things that you do not understand. You have that right, and you’re perfectly free to waste your time doing so even though in your heart of hearts you know that you’re wrong, and that Barack Obama will not be removed from office due to the work of Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, Gerry “teenage girls in bikinis are hot” Nance, or anyone else.

Why you choose to do is what puzzles me. You must lead a very sad, empty life if this is what gives you pleasure.

“No need to be fixated on Vattel even though his work was consulted by US Congress when drafting early laws.”

What matters is what the Founding Fathers believed when adopting the NBC phrase, or, in the absence of any evidence of their particularized understanding (as is the case here), how the NBC phrase was used in practice at the time. Vattel doesn't help us in that regard.

“The naturalization law changes (1790 and 1795) clearly shows that early Congress made a distinction between phrases “natural born citizen” and citizen (at birth). That leves us with only one other possible definition of NBC (born in the USA, only).”

Actually, it doesn't necessarily show a distinction was made between “natural born citizen” and “citizen” – we don't actually know what Congress' purpose was in redrafting the law, or what effect the change was supposed to have.

The 1790 legislation only referred to NBC with regard to persons that “may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States.” NBC was not used in terms of persons born in the United States – only the term “citizen” was used. Therefore, a completely reasonable interpretation of the 1795 law – and one I tend to favor – was the Congress sought to expunge NBC altogether than create confusion by selective use of the term.

“The John Jay letter is not only important for mentioning the NBC phrase, it provides the MOTIVATION for inclusion of the phrase into eligibility requirement. He suggests that a strong check is needed to prevent foreigners from obtaining the command of US military. Basically the NBC is the national security requirement.”

I agree it was seen as a national security requirement. But we need to understand what Jay and others of the time saw as a national security risk. And the fact is, we don't really know.

First of all, it is incredibly hard to imagine that when Jay referred to “foreigners” he had in mind people who had lived their entire lives on U.S. soil.

Some accounts suggest that Americans feared a particular German nobleman who had designs on becoming leader of the United States. One way to prevent something like this from happening in the future was to bar anyone who was ever a “foreigner” from becoming president – thus excluding even naturalized citizens. This strikes me as a far more plausible explanation of Jay's use of the term “foreigner.” Sadly, we'll never really know the true nature of Jay's thoughts on that regard.

“Therefore, children of foreigners (either permanent residents or even worse illegal aliens) are not eligible, they do not have exclusive loyalty at birth to the USA only.”

I have yet to read any account from the period which expressly questioned the loyalty of Americans born on U.S. soil in the context of constitutional eligibility to serve as President. Do you have any?

“Armed with that knowledge it is easy to see what the definition of an NBC is (born in the USA of citizen parents).”

Obviously we disagree on that point.

“John Bingham (the author of the Section 1 of the 14th Amendment) confirms it as well.”

Ironically, your citation of Bingham ties the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifically concerns only citizenship, to your argument about presidential eligibility. The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark followed the same approach, and came to the conclusion that citizenship at birth/NBC was not contingent on the citizenship of one's parents. And that has been the law of the land for 111 years.

1) When you examine the change in the naturalization law (1790 to 1795) the motivation for the change of phrase is not important in the debate whether the two phrases have the same meaning. It would be unreasonable to assume that the change in law was only in form and not the substance. You don't change the law to replace one word with another that has the same meaning, therefore the logical conclusion is that the phrase NBC is not the same as citizen (at birth).
It is also significant that change happened only few years after the Constitution was written. It tells us that early legislators made a distinction between the two terms.

2) In addition to John Jay's letter to Georeg Washington, there was a proposal by Hamilton to use the “born a citizen” phrase in the eligibility requirement for POTUS.

In the end, the NBC phrase was included, again telling us that people writing the Constitution made a distinction between the two phrases.

3) The following quote is Bingham's definition of the NBC phrase including not only place of birth but parents' status:

John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866:

“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

I whole-heartedly agree. A loyal opposition party is invaluable to balance the ruling party.

Why are Democrats opposed to Posey's bill?

Please list the Democrats who have publicly announced that they will oppose this legislation. Then list the Republicans.

Otherwise, go back to Troll Land.

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“1) When you examine the change in the naturalization law (1790 to 1795) the motivation for the change of phrase is not important in the debate whether the two phrases have the same meaning. It would be unreasonable to assume that the change in law was only in form and not the substance. You don't change the law to replace one word with another that has the same meaning, therefore the logical conclusion is that the phrase NBC is not the same as citizen (at birth).”

But a court would have to review any change in the context of the legislation, not in isolation. By your strict constructionist view, because Congress failed to state in the 1790 legislation that persons born within the United States were NBCs (referring to them only as “citizens”), Congress expressed its understanding that only persons born outside the United States were NBCs. Therefore, persons born inside the U.S. were “citizens,” but not NBCs.

A much more reasonable view is that the 1795 change did have a purpose – but that the purpose was to remove the possibility that the meaning of NBC would be confused by the inconsistent application of the term as it was used in the 1790 law. (Inconsistent, that is, if you believe that the use of the term “natural born citizen” as found in the 1790 law did not coincide with the contemporary understanding of those categories of citizens who were widely considered to be NBCs at the time.)

This view is supported by the fact that Congress never again used the term “natural born citizen” in federal legislation, even though no doubt some persons are NBCs, because we have had Presidents of the United States serving without interruption since the beginning of the republic.

“It is also significant that change happened only few years after the Constitution was written. It tells us that early legislators made a distinction between the two phrases.”

I agree the change had some significance because of its proximity to the adoption of the Constitution, but for the reasons I stated above.

“2) In addition to John Jay's letter to George Washington, there was a proposal by Hamilton to use the “born a citizen” phrase in the eligibility requirement for POTUS.

In the end, the NBC phrase was included, again telling us that people writing the Constitution made a distinction between the two phrases.”

Ironically, that's the very reason why I find it hard to believe that the Founders saw a substantive distinction between the two phrases. The choice to use NBC instead of “born a citizen” was made without debate. If the Founders had a view that NBC meant born of two citizen parents, this would have been a major change of the then-current understanding of NBC. Contemporary usage of “natural born citizen” in the legislature and courts in the 1780s and 1790s clearly understood the term as utilizing jus soli principles.

The very lack of a debate shows that the Founders utilized NBC as it was understood at the times to mean, and strongly suggests that the distinction between NBC and “born a citizen” was stylistic and not substantive.

“3) The following quote is Bingham's definition of the NBC phrase including not only place of birth but parents' status:

“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.””

The problem is, the United States Supreme Court reviewed the history of citizenship law in England and the United States, and came to the conclusion it was based upon jus soli principles, and not the jus sanguinis principles on which Bingham supposed it to be based. The Court ruled in Wong Kim Ark that the Fourteenth Amendment merely codified those jus soli principles, and did not represent a fundamental change in traditional citizenship law inherited from England and used in the United States.

You give him 13 inches of point-by-point rebuttal in which you outline errors in legal theory, historical interpretation and methodology and basic logic. He will respond with 3 inches of restating his case, unchanged.

“Obama's college records are of course irrelevant to the question of whether Obama is a natural born citizen”

Don't you see? That's the genius of it. Knowing that they possess not one shred of credible proof that Obama's web-released COLB reflects the existence of an invalid document giving Obama a solid claim to NBC status, they must create a web in which they hope to ensnare enough disillusioned and misinformed patriots in the hopes of creating enough noise.

They use rumors, innuendo and out-right forgery. Individually, these things are useless. But if you look at them, instill in yourself the believe that these rumors instill doubt – then you have something. You tie all these rumors together and what was once a flimsy piece of nothing with a shadow of a doubt appears to be a full-fledged web of deceit and fraud. Now, if you can get people to buy into that; using their fear of unstable times, uncertain changes ahead and a constant stream of radio, television and internet repetition, you get enough people to make noise. Then you can point to the noise as if it always existed and reflects a genuine problem. That becomes the final salvo of their argument from nothingness: Why won't he address this noisy problem?

It's unnecessary and a ridiculous distraction from the many major issues facing the Congress, and the nation.

Well, by now, I'd have thought everybody would have learned that NC is not really interested in anything except getting Obama out. But, what is interesting to me is why she feels the need to keep coming back and having her opinion (because she has yet to provide any proof) shot down. So, it makes you wonder what is her underlying motivation for doing this ?
1) Money – either works for or is being paid by WND and the sister blogs to keep the story alive. WND invested heavily in anti-Obama and “Where's the Birth Certificate” products and as the story has basically died, are left to take a rather large loss. I've heard they have a couple of warehouses full of the junk and the creditors are starting to beat down the door.
2) Runs her own blog – Understanding how the internet works, they are paid by the clicks, either to their sites where the advertising can be seen, or how often they attract clicks to the advertisers. As the story has died and gotten staler, the traffic has dropped dramatically ( and went up when it was revived by Lou Dobbs, I think) cutting into their income. They need it to be an active, interesting story…otherwise they might have to go out and get a real job.
3) NC, and her many monikers, is Orly or someone hired by Orly. Obviously, she's going down in flames and needs someone to believe her. This is one of the most obvious because of NC's problems with the English language and the type of arguments used by her so often misstating laws and their affects. In reading her arguments in front of Judge Carter, it seemed like a lot of phrasing were similar to what we've read here by NC.
4) NC's a shut-in. Lonely, can't get out, no friends. This has turned into her refuge where she can feel like a person and member of society. We've become her internet friends, her only friends.
5) NC's just an overgrown baby still living at home in her mother's basement. I like this one best. When I first came across NC, her methodology was to ask leading questions. Then, when people would type in one of the keywords she was looking for, she had the ready-made copy/paste answer from WND or Orly's site. NC would then get an air of superiority…almost like a “gotcha” moment. Now, just keeps coming here to try and recapture that feeling. Kind of sad, actually.
6) Plain and simple, is a bigot and can't stand Obama in the WH.

But, thanks to NC, I've enjoyed reading what the real lawyers write (not on contracts or wills, which I need an interpreter for) on here for the style and substance they provide on how the law works. It makes me appreciate the training they have to go through to become a skilled litigator. But, I still reserve the right to laugh at lawyer jokes…LOL.

Or perhaps NC is simply a troll that likes to argue with people with a different perspective in the hopes of getting a rise out of them. We've all been through the same old arguments with NC for at least 2 months if not longer. NC's posts are basically regurgitated over and over again with nothing new and no actual evidence to support what she posted. For the most part, I ignore her. At least posts by the other birthtards have gone down. Nothing from RedGraham or BorderRaving lately, though I still see Border posting comments in other articles and he's still regurgitating the same old sh*t.

When I first came across this site, you could pretty much tell who were the ones that were here to try and drive traffic. They always posted little teasers with a link to their websites. After seeing how little info those sites really had, and how much they were basically WND copy/paste jobs, I noticed all the advertising links. That's when I came up with the warning message I started posting at the top of the threads. Must have worked, because they pretty much have quit trying to link back to their sites. NC being a troll pretty much fits in with #5 above, it's how she gets her kicks.

You will see from NC's responses, below, that NC has learned nothing from what you have posted previously. It is as if you never pointed out the more plausible alternate explanation for the change in the statutes. It is as if you never pointed out that, given the absence of relevant debate in the Constitutional Convention, it is at least as likely that the delegates considered “natural born citizen” and “born a citizen” to mean the same thing. It is as if you did not just point out the connection of John Bingham to the 14th Amendment and thus to the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.

NC will keep making the same arguments NC has made for months.

Basically, The Birther argument boils down to

1.) Attack the Efficacy of the COLB

or

2.) The “S” at the end of “parents” in Vattel and Bingham.

We've establish that they have no proof that the COLB is in anyway fraudulent. We've also established that, without said proof, they have no legal, moral or political rounds to demand verification with the ardor they possess. Furthermore, the verification they claim is being denied is, in fact, not denied, they just lack the drive to transform their internet zeal into action.

The S is where they reveal their lack of intellectual depth. While we can all agree that “parents” is the plural of “parent”; they assume this MUST mean that two citizen parents are required. However, anyone with any understanding of the simultaneously frustrating but beautiful flexibility of our legal system knows that this does NOT directly exclude children of one citizen parent. Without historical documentation or legal precedent explicitly spelling out the difference, they have no standing to claim so fervently their position.

—2.) The “S” at the end of “parents” in Vattel and Bingham.—

Birthers fail to understand the concept of collective nouns.

Collective nouns are plural, yet they can refer to a single thing (or person)

you missed the fact that in the original letter, John Jay underlined the word “born.”

as in “nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

The emphasis on just the word “born,” destroys the notion thatthere is a spceial meaning to the term “Nautral born” that is separate from someone who is just a born citizen.

Those people who claim that “natural born citizens” must have both parents as U.S citizens tend to focus on certain fragmentary evidence, such as the Vattel passage, the John Jay letter, comments by Bingham, etc.

Any inquiry into the meaning of “natural born citizen” as it was understood by the Founders should first start with what we know they argued and considered in the course of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Unfortunately, we have no record of a vigorous debate, and as I have pointed out before, the John Jay letter does not expressly define what he meant by the term.

In the absence of a debate concerning NBC, we can intuit that the Founding Fathers saw the meaning of “natural born citizen” as uncontroversial. This suggests that in 1787, NBC had a relatively commonly-understood meaning, and that that meaning can be inferred from documents from the period.

Here's an act of the Pennsylvania legislature from 1799 governing who could vote in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

“[E]very citizen, having paid taxes and resided as aforesaid, and claiming a right to vote, shall make due proof thereof as follows, viz. First, That he is a natural born citizen of this State, or was settled therein on the twenty-eighth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six; or, having been a foreigner, who since that time came to settle therein, he hath taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same on or before the twenty-fixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, agreeably to the then existing constitution and laws…”

Notice that natural born citizens are distinguished from “foreigners” who “since that time came to settle therein” and took an oath of allegiance (i.e. naturalized citizens). No reference to the citizenship of one's parents is made.

This offers some insight into why John Jay was concerned about “foreigners” becoming President of the United States. In those days, attaining naturalized citizenship was not particularly difficult. If a foreigner (i.e. non-citizen) hatched a long-term plan to assume power, he could easily obtain citizenship through residency and swearing allegiance, and then become President under a constitution which only permitted citizens to assume the office. On the other hand, “natural born” citizenship was something you could not acquire through the naturalization process – no “foreigner” could ever hope to obtain it. So the NBC clause was a strong security measure for a perceived threat of the time, even though it excluded otherwise loyal naturalized citizens in the process.

This dichotomy between “natural born citizens” and “naturalized citizens,” without reference to the citizenship of one's parents, apparently was enduring. Here's an relevant passage from a book called The Western Miscellany, by Benjamin Ellis, published in 1848:

“How are the rights of citizenship to be acquired? An alien may become a citizen, after he has resided five years in the country, by complying with the provisions of the naturalization laws; and the minor children of a person thus naturalized, if dwelling in the United States, shall be deemed citizens. A person availing himself of these laws, becomes entitled to all the privileges and immunities of natural-born citizens, except that a residence of seven years is requisite for him to hold a seat in Congress, and that no person except a natural born citizen, is eligible for the office of President of the United States.”

Again, only NBCs and naturalized citizens are referred to. There is no hint that persons born in the United States would not be citizens by birth or natural born citizens.

But I hadn't heard the accusation about “fake raft-registration” before. That is a very serious charge! If we can't trust Barack Obama to properly register inflatable watercraft, how can we trust him to lead our nation?

Orly eats shit again.

From Judge Carter today:

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification regarding whether the October 29, 2009 Order was a dismissal with or without prejudice.
The Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint on October 29, 2009 was a dismissal without leave to amend and with prejudice.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.

Unfortunately for your argument the early Congress changed the Naturalization Law in 1795 by replacing the phrase “natural born citizen” with the “citizen” (at birth). The two phrases are not equal.
That reduces the posible NBC definitions to only two:
1) Born in the USA
2) Born in the USA of citizen parents

The first one would be illogical since it would allow children of illegal aliens and permanent residents to be eligibile for CiC while children of US citizens abroad would not be.

The only definition that makes sense from national security viewpopint is the second one: born in the USA of citizen parents.

John Bingham is very clear that the allegiance of parents is important for NBC definition.

“And the circle”
“won't be broken”
“By and by lord”
“by and by…”

NC continues.
Even though 1 is the proper answer…since we are a country of aliens, legal and illegal.

To those who claim that the WKA decision by the Supreme Court did not rule that WKA was a natural born citizen, I invite you consider the appeal brief presented to the court. The District court had ruled that Wong Kim Ark WAS a natural born citizen. The U.S. Government appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling without modification. So, yes, SCOTUS did in fact, determine that he was a natural born citizen.

From the Appellant’s brief:

The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born in the United States of alien parents domiciled within a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen, and on that ground holding him exempt from the provisions of the Chinese exclusion act and permitting him to land.

Well, there you have it.

Too bad, NC.

What is your understanding of the NBC definition?

Foreign born children of US citizens (including military on foreign deployment) are not eligible to run for POTUS, while children of illegals, whose mother could have sneaked across the border few hours before the delivery, are.

Does it make any sense?

Well. guess it's time for NC to go back to the “Hawaii is lying” argument now, since it's been moved down the page. Or is it time for having him born in another country? Maybe the adopted in Indonesia? Wait, I don't thing think NC's explored the “from another planet” angle thoroughly enough. (Judge Land even got a letter from someone claiming this. This is the type of person you're dealing with when dealing with NC.)

That's not even close to being correct. Foreign born children of US citizens are born US citizens. Ask anyone who has served. And, again, showing your total lack of knowledge in this field, NC.

See?! 13 inches of rebuttal, 3 inches of restating his case.

JohnC already explained why your “1795 statute” argument doesn't hold water. I also did so, weeks ago. Instead of repeating the same thing, why don't you try rebutting the arguments we made?

And you want to talk about logic? You argue we can't trust Dr. Fukino because Colin Powell lied to the U.N., and you want to complain that something is “illogical”?

Wow, not even one full inch here.

He tried this before on another related thread. His goal here is to get you to define NBC, as you see it, and he will be able to conjure from the the ether a scenario in which some horrible person will be vaulted magically to the Oval Office. Nowhere in his hypothetical will there be any mention of whether this President would past muster with the Electorate.

his suggestion will undoubtedly fall under the umbrella coverd by Elg or Ark, but since either Elg or Ark don't have the word “natural” in them, he will dismiss them.

Basically, he is attempting to distract you from the issue you have been hammering him with; namely, that his linguistic insistence on the verbatim term “Natural Born Citizen” is an obsession unsupported by legal or logical standards.

Should you choose to leave him unanswered he will choose to call you out on it, he himself leaving dozens of questions unanswered. He will then claim to have too many responses to cater to and the amount of people continually challenged his boilerplate will remain an non-issue to his brain, damaged, as it is, by the effects of Cognitive Dissonance.

Not naturalized.

1) “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 1.

2) “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Indiana Court of Appeals, Ankeny v. Governor.

3) “Federal courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). Under RJ, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties . . . from re-litigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude re-litigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first cause. As this court and other courts have often recognized, res judicata and collateral estoppel relieve parties of the costs and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on a judication” Supreme Court of the United States, Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. at 94

Too bad Orly, but you lose big time.

Ask them yourself.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_informati…

These aren't mutually exclusive. Based on vitriol from NC alleging that Barack Obama's election as head of the Harvard Law Review, and his position teaching at University of Chicago School of Law, resulted from affirmative action, I'm pretty sure that NC not only despises Obama but hates all blacks and feels that he or she has been personally slighted due to affirmative action. So, I think #6 applies.

But I think #4 applies as well. I think NC would rather get beat up on this blog than be ignored. This likely is the only place where NC feels significant.

Wrong again. Do you suffer from glossolalia or what?

Yes, it does. Moreover, it's the law. If you wish to change it, contact your representative. Otherwise, kindly shut up about things you not only do not understand, but seemingly are determined not to understand.

You are arguing with yourself. I never claimed that foreign born children of US citizens are not citizens.

I said that they are not natural born citizens, thus not eligible to run for POTUS.

Don't forget the allegations that Bill Ayers wrote the President's books. That seems to be a combination of blatant racism (no black man could possibly have authored such a beautifully written book as Dreams From My Father) and a very much delayed slap at President Kennedy (he needed a ghostwriter for Profiles in Courage so clearly President Obama needed a ghostwriter as well).

What's amusing is that there is not a scrap of evidence that anyone but Barack Obama wrote either of his books, the first of which actually was planned before he'd moved to Chicago. Even better, I've seen reports that at least one birther tried to hire someone to do a computer analysis to determine if either of the President's books had the same “signature” as Bill Ayers, and backed out of the deal when s/he was told that preliminary results were not consistent with their allegations….

No, you are arguing with yourself. It is YOUR definition of “natural born citizen” that would exclude foreign-born children of U.S. citizens from eligibility. The rest of us are say that “natural born citizen” means “a citizen who is not naturalized.” Under that definition, the “illogical” result you complained about does not arise. You are the source of your own problem.

Your argument makes no sense.

I do not need to study what the motivation for the change of law was. The mere fact that one phrase was replaced with another indicates that whoever came up with the change did not consider the two phrases to have the same meaning.

You understand that this is a critical blow to your theory that NBC is the same as “citizen at birth” so you have to keep “lawyering” about it.

Why would Congress change the language of the law if there was no change in substence. This is just a common sense, which seems to be in short supply with Obama supporters.

You quote my words incorrectly most of the time.
Dr. Fukino cannot be trusted, not because of Colin Powell's address to UN, but because she used manipulative language in both of her press releases.

I used Colin Powell as an example that we should not have a blind faith in words spoken by a high ranking government officals, particularly in case when it would be easy to verify their statements.

In Powell's case, US went to war only to discover that there were no WMDs, as claimed before the invasion.
In Dr. Fukino's case, there is no need to start a war to see whether she told the truth.

“Unfortunately for your argument the early Congress changed the Naturalization Law in 1795 by replacing the phrase “natural born citizen” with the “citizen” (at birth). The two phrases are not equal.”

First of all, we don't know why the change was made, so if they're “not equal,” we have no way of knowing whether the change was substantive or not. All that we know is that Congress from 1790 to 1795 applied the label “natural born” only to foreign-born children – even though we know that the concept of NBC encompassed more than that – and then from 1795 to the present ceased using that term altogether.

Second, Congress does not have the power to define or redefine “natural born citizen.” If NBC includes only domestically-born children, or it includes foreign-born children, that definition exists notwithstanding Congress' action.

“That reduces the posible NBC definitions to only two:
1) Born in the USA
2) Born in the USA of citizen parents

The first one would be illogical since it would allow children of illegal aliens and permanent residents to be eligibile for CiC while children of US citizens abroad would not be.”

The law doesn't depend on what you think is logical when the Supreme Court has held otherwise – although you may use your logical argument to advocate for a change in the law.

The Court in Wong Kim Ark described in great detail “the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty”:

“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

What is this “ancient and fundamental rule” encapsulated in the Fourteenth Amendment? If you read Wong Kim Ark you will find that the Court regarded this rule as originally articulated in the concept of “natural born subject” and what the it identified as its American equivalent – “natural born citizen.”

The Court then went on to favorably cite British texts for the proposition that, if a subject of another country who is only temporarily in the territory of the country “hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject.”

I'm not sure how much clearer the Supreme Court can get than that.

“The only definition that makes sense from national security viewpopint is the second one: born in the USA of citizen parents.”

I have already provided an alternative argument on national security which does not require your restrictive definition of NBC, and fits contemporary understandings of “natural born” versus “naturalized” citizens.

“John Bingham is very clear that the allegiance of parents is important for NBC definition.”

Bingham never defined what he meant by children born in the U.S. “not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.” The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark, however, explored the “jurisdiction” and “allegiance” questions, and determined that such terms only excluded from citizenship (and by extension NBC) “children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.”

Very nice. Succinct. Correct.

The rest is up to the voters. And that is the part NC absolutely doesn't trust — democracy.

Why do you assume that every argument made by the losing side is truth?
They lost the case and you want to use their argument to define the NBC, LOL!!!

They could have said that the sky would fall if the children of permanent residents got recognized as citizens at birth.

What other opinions made in appeals should we use as a guideline for interpreting the Constitution?

Very simple. A natural born citizen is any citizen of the United States who was not naturalized. That is to say, the concept of NBC is exactly coextensive with persons acquiring United States citizenship by the fact of their birth.

This fits in with commonly accepted and articulated concepts from court decisions and legislative acts from the late 18th century. For example, citizens were viewed as the opposite of “aliens” and “foreigners.” Thus, what we would call a “permanent resident” in today's terminology would have been an “alien” or a “foreigner” back then.

Only two classes of citizens were ever identified: “naturalized” and “natural born” citizens. No source I have ever come across has posited the existence of a third. These two classes were treated as mutually exclusive: a “natural born” citizen was someone who was born “here,” whether that be the U.S., or the state in question. A “naturalized” citizen was a person who at some point was a “foreigner” because he wasn't born “here,” but had since fulfilled naturalization requirements.

The Supreme Court, in dicta, has all but said as much:

“The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which “no person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;” and “the Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, art. 2, sect. 1; art. 1, sect. 8.”

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101 (1884).

In more recent years, the Supreme Court said pretty much the same thing:

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964).

“Why would Congress change the language of the law if there was no change in substence.”

John C. explained it to you right up there. the 1790 Law made foreign born children of US Citizen NBCs but IN THE VERY SAME LAW did NOT make children born us Citizen Parents NBCs. As John C. explained it is equally or more plausible to suggest that Congress did in fact see a distinction in their lanugage and changed the foreign born section to just read “born citizen” SAME AS THE US BORN CHILDREN!

For your argument to be as you believe it to be, Congress would have SWAPPED the two terms making foreign borns “citizens” and US borns NBCs – BUT THEY DIDNT.

They completely removed the word “natural”. What about that is so hard to understand? It's not a matter of opinion, the words are RIGHT THERE!

“Dr. Fukino cannot be trusted, not because of Colin Powell's address to UN, but because she used manipulative language in both of her press releases.”
This is YOUR OPINION.

You idiot,
The appellant (the US government and the losing side) maintains in his appeal the the ruling of the previous court that ARK was a natural-born citizen is INCORRECT. This statement:
“Why do you assume that every argument made by the losing side is truth?
They lost the case and you want to use their argument to define the NBC, LOL!!!”

Is a 100% incorrect reading of the quoted passage and the ruling writ large.

“District Court did not rule that WKA was “natural born citizen”. The ruling confirmed his “citizen at birth” status.”
I don't know how much clearer we can be that we and, much more importantly, the courts do not agree with you in any way shape or form.

This distinction that NBC is different from “Citizen at birth” or “Born Citizen” is YOUR OPINION. John C. , Jim, Bearclaw, we have all given you the reasons time and time again. You disagree – fine, go right ahead – but NO COURT IN THIS LAND WILL AGREE. PERIOD.

What do you hope to accomplish by repeating yourself?

Well, if Bill Ayers authored Barack Obama's books, and someone else authored Bill Ayers' books, then of course the writing style wouldn't match! So that must be what happened. (To the birther mind, the conspiracy just gets broader and deeper).

Sorry, the law and the SCOTUS recognize only 2 types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. So, they would be eligible for POTUS. And, you have NEVER proved in any court case or law where there is any other kind of citizen. So, a child born in another country to one of our fighting men, like John McCain's father, would be eligible.

The definition of NBC to include those born on US soil of citizen parents is not illogical.
It restricts the pool of citizens eligible to become the CiC.

I am not arguing against the exclusion of foreign born children of US citizens from NBC definition.

I am arguing against the definition that NBC means born in the USA only, because it does not fit into the national security requirement.

You cannot have a standard that would allow children of illegal aliens to be eligible just because they were born in the USA while excluding foreign born children of US citizens.

Either all citizens at birth should be considered as NBC or those born in the USA of citizen parents.

We have seen that the first definition (born a citizen) was not considered to be the same as NBC by the early Congress.

Therefore, we have been left with only one logical definition for NBC: born in the USA of citizen parents. It is a simple test that removes any doubts about child's loyalty/allegience at birth.

1. “ellid” does not agree with your argument. She claims that NBC means = born in the USA.

Which one is it? It probably does not matter because yuou only care that Obama is safe under either one (assuming that he was indeed born in Hawaii)

2. NBC is not a special type of citizenship. It is a national security restriction on who is elligible to be a commander of US military.

If you do not want a response, do not post your opinion on the blog.

The ruling in WKA case never mentioned the natural born citizen status. It is the losing side that invented it – and they were wrong, just as they were wrong in their opposition to acknowledging the citizenship status for children of permanent residents.

Again, what other arguments used by the losing side (in other cases) should we consider in the interpretation of Constitution?

Translation please:

“the 1790 Law made foreign born children of US Citizen NBCs but IN THE VERY SAME LAW did NOT make children born us Citizen Parents NBCs”

The allegation is that Ayers wrote significant portion of the “Dreams of…” book using a stack of Obama's notes and audio recordings.

You should read about the comparison of language used in “Dreams of My Father” with Ayers' previous work.

Both contain unusual phrases and have the same typos.

It was also reported that the quality and style of writing in two Obama's books are quite different, “Dreams of…” being of much better quality.

I could care less if Ayers wrote Obama's book, if they were upfront about it. Most politicians do not write their memoirs themselves but have an accomplished writer do it for them.

The important thing here is the need to emebelish Obama's image as an intellectual giant.

FAIL – JohnC, by your own admission, ie your post. Obama Sr., does not meet the criteria to bestow Natural Born U.S. Citizenship on to Barry.

Hey bearclaw…You forgot one…

CAN THE OFFSPRING OF ILLEGAL ALIENS BECOME PRESIDENT??? NO WAY.

Nobody at Columbia remembers Obama.

His grades are hidden from public. As a self admitted cocain abuser in college, his grades were probably low, not enough to qualify him to be accepted at Harvard based on merit.

We know college grades for recent presidental candidates – except for Obama. I would be willing to bet a monthly salary that his grades were worse than those of Bush and Kerry.

Do you mean to imply that offspring of illegal aliens are eligible to become POTUS??? I don't think so.

I would respond, but you haven't made an argument, merely a conclusory assertion.

QUESTION – In his book “Dreams From My Father”…Is Barry referring to his “Adoptive Father” or his “Natural Father”???

If they are born in the U.S., they are citizens at birth and eligible to become President.

If I understand you correctly, your argument is that the word “natural” has no meaning when used in the phrase “natural born citizen”.

“You cannot have a standard that would allow children of illegal aliens to be eligible just because they were born in the USA while excluding foreign born children of US citizens.”

We don't have such a standard. Both are citizens at birth under U.S. law, and eligible to be President. Again, it is YOUR definition that excludes both of these from eligibility.

The Wong Kim Ark Court did not speak directly to this issue (i.e. whether persons in the country illegally are citizens by birth/NBCs), so it is technically unresolved. On the other hand, the Court’s lengthy characterization of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” suggests that a person in this country, for virtually any reason, can give birth to a U.S. citizen. For example, it cites approvingly the following passage on English law:

“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject.”

Future cases may debate about the precise meaning of “temporarily sojourning,” but there is no reason to believe that a person in the country, regardless of how they entered, is not within the jurisdiction of the United States, outside of those specific categories outlined by the Court. After all, an illegal immigrant can be stopped for speeding, whereas a U.S. diplomat cannot, because he is literally not subject to U.S. law.

Is that why B.O. executed his first act as President, literally within 5 minutes of taking office, he signed executive order #13489 that sealed his own records, so much for being transparent.

QUESTION – In his book “Dreams From My Father” is Barry referring to his Adoptive Father or Natural Father???

And I assume you voted for someone else. Fine. That's what we call “democracy.” If you won't vote for a candidate unless you know his blood type and his penis size — fine. You can apply those criteria if that is what matters to you.

Read the book. Then you will know.

Here's the relevant portion of E.O. 13489:

“Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.”

Now, what are “Presidential records,” you ask?

According to the same E.O., “”Presidential records” refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.”

According to the Presidential Records Act, “The term “Presidential records”… (B) does not include any documentary materials that are
…(ii) personal records.”

So, you're factually, demonstrably wrong. President Obama's personal records are outside the scope of E.O. 13489. But, please come again soon.

You are, of course, dead wrong. If they are born in the United States, they are citizens at birth and eligible to become President as long as they retain that citizenship.

You are patently incorrect.

“2. NBC is not a special type of citizenship. It is a national security restriction on who is elligible to be a commander of US military.”

This is a construct of your mind that has no basis in law.

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“The definition of NBC to include those born on US soil of citizen parents is not illogical. It restricts the pool of citizens eligible to become the CiC.”

That would make sense if there was evidence to suggest the Founding Fathers coined the concept of NBC – they would “own” the term. If they thought it was a national security issue, fine.

The problem, of course, is that the precise term existed before the Constitutional Convention in circumstances that had nothing to do with national security. Most frequently, NBC came up in circumstances when an alien sought to purchase land. At that time, “aliens” and “foreigners” could not hold title in most states. The legislature had to give special permission for such a person to transact in real estate. These enactments would afford the “alien” the same rights in the land as a “natural born citizen.”

And of course we know that concept, in turn, originated from hundreds of years of English jurisprudence, known as “natural born subject.”

So, if the Founding Fathers intended to give the NBC concept a revolutionary application and a much-constricted reach, it is amazing that we have no record of this development. That strongly suggests that no such change was intended by the Founders, or occured in U.S. jurisprudence.

“I am not arguing against the exclusion of foreign born children of US citizens from NBC definition.

I am arguing against the definition that NBC means born in the USA only, because it does not fit into the national security requirement.”

That is your argument, but one which is foreign to U.S. jurisprudence (no pun intended).

“You cannot have a standard that would allow children of illegal aliens to be eligible just because they were born in the USA while excluding foreign born children of US citizens.

Either all citizens at birth should be considered as NBC or those born in the USA of citizen parents.”

That is clearly your standpoint, and it has a certain moral and logical consistency. But that is not the law of the land.

“We have seen that the first definition (born a citizen) was not considered to be the same as NBC by the early Congress.”

We don't know why the change was made. Nor do we know why federal legislation never referred to anyone else in the 1790 legislation – or since – as “natural born” citizens. Perhaps your theory about what the change meant is correct. Perhaps it is not.

I will admit that it is potentially an open question whether a person born outside the U.S. can be a NBC. The State Department has acknowledged as much in one of its publications. The Court in Wong Kim Ark, in focusing on jus soli and the Fourteenth Amendment, never advanced a coherent way for accounting for the NBC of foreign-born persons.

As I have pointed out, however, the Supreme Court has stated in dicta in a number of cases that the NBC clause refers to citizens by birth. Of course, persons born outside the U.S. can be citizens by birth, including (arguably) John McCain, which implies that they can also be NBCs as well. My view is that, if pressed, the Supreme Court will follow in the logical footsteps of these various cases. But nothing is guaranteed.

But even given the above, the Court was clear in Wong Kim Ark that persons born on U.S. soil, aside from certain excluded classes, are natural born citizens. That appears to include both children of non-citizens and those of illegal aliens. Admittedly, that is unfair to the children born of U.S. citizens overseas who, by the operation of law, do not acquire citizenship at birth. (For example, if Obama really were born in Kenya/Zanzibar, he would not obtain U.S. citizenship only by a freak mathematical operation of a law which was drafted for a completely different purpose.) But that does not mean the discrepancy does not exist. As unfair or perhaps illogical as it may be, though, that is the law we have, regardless of your sentiments.

What matters is what the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark says. And the majority opinion repeatedly cites with approval the common law cases that equate “natural-born subject” or “natural-born citizen” to someone who was born in the country (while recognizing that statutes have accorded citizenship at birth to foreign-born children of U.S. citizens).

Try reading it:

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

John Jay gives you the reason for inclusion of eligibility requirement into Constitution. It is specifically mentioned that eligibility to serve as a commander of US military must be restricted to natural born citizens.

There are no different types of citizenship. All citizens are equal – meaning have the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

It is the path to obtaining a citizenship that is different. Some people are born as citizens while others are naturalized.

“The ruling in WKA case never mentioned the natural born citizen status.”

No, but that's the necessary implication of the Court's reasoning. Wong Kim Ark's status as a citizen by birth depended on the Court's interpretation to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court in turn based its understanding of that term in terms of the NBC concept. The Court made it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment was declaratory of long-existing principles – jus soli principles at the heart of NBC and “natural born subject.”

To take the NBC issue out of Wong Kim Ark is to collapse the Court's argument and render it utterly incomprehensible.

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“It is specifically mentioned that eligibility to serve as a commander of US military must be restricted to natural born citizens.”

Actually, it is specifically mentioned that those persons eligible to serve as President of the United States must be natural born citizens. Only elsewhere in Article I does it say that the President serves as Commander in Chief. That may sound like nitpicking, but your characterization makes it sound as though the Constitution evidences a stronger link between NBC and Commander in Chief than is actually the case.

“There are no different types of citizenship. All citizens are equal – meaning have the same rights guaranteed by the Constitution.”

That statement cannot be reconciled with your previous one. Either all citizens are equal, which obviates the NBC requirement, or there are different classes of citizens, some with more rights and privileges under the Constitution than others. The NBC is a privilege that belongs to NBCs, but not naturalized citizens. So there are, by operation of the Constitution, two classes of citizens, even if the two classes have all other rights and privileges in common.

My bad. That should read, “The ability to serve as President is a privilege that belongs to NBCs, but not naturalized citizens.”

Once again, all you have proved is that you cannot understand written English.

Very, very sad.

Sorry to burst your bubble but as long as the parents are not ambassadors of another country and the child is born on US soil, then the child is natural born. Again. Two types of citizens. Natural born. Born within the US and the jurisdicition of a state and naturalized which are born in other countries and become US citizens through process.

In other words, two illegal aliens sneak into the US, have a child, that child is eligible to be POTUS as long as that child does not renounce citizenship and take the citizenship of the parents' original country.

The President was born in America. His father's citizenship is irrelevant.

*waits in vain for GC or BP or Orly or NC to cease beating very dead horse*

Stop commenting until you've taken enough English classes that you know what you're reading.

Read the book and you will know.

I'm not implying a goddamn thing. I'm SAYING that there are only types of American citizenship, natural born and naturalized, and that Barack Obama is the former. I'm also SAYING that you and your bum buddies have made up this whole “native but not natural born” classification out of your desire to see the evil dark-skinned man thrown out of office.

Disgusting.

Well, he is an intellectual giant compared to you. You must be a racists. Just can’t stand having that darky being smarter than you.

And John Jay's letter is not now and never has been the law of the land, as you would know if you'd taken a basic citizenship class.

*cues up “Schoolhouse Rock” for the misinformed little birther*

And for the millionth time, JOHN JAY'S LETTER IS NOT NOW AND NEVER HAS BEEN THE LAW.

And for the millionth time, JOHN JAY'S LETTER IS NOT NOW AND NEVER HAS BEEN THE LAW.

From the beginning when I first notice the AXJ_ROCKS person that came in here, I saw that he was simply trying to drive traffic to their website. There has to be plenty of others that are trying to drive traffice to WND and any other conspiracy site. Even BorderRaving was trying to drive traffic to his blog where he is selling t-shirts and books on survival. In the end, they’re all in this to capitalize on the birther movement and probably to keep stoking the fire.

Information you mentioned is not relevant for performing the job as POTUS. As long as the personal physician says that person is healty enough to be the president, we do not need to know any medical details.

However, when it comes to the media image of Obama being an intellectual giant, it would be interesting to see his college grades to determine for ourselves whether he got into Harvard based on merit or affirmative action.

There was a double standard (as usual) when it comes to major party candidates: It has been extensively reported that McCain was a below average student (5th from the bottom of the class).
No such detailed information about Obama’s college records have been made public.

Last night a radio host in the SF Bay Area made repetitive comments about Obama being a Constitutional Law Professor – he did not mention that Obama was a senior lecturer.

The Professor status implies published peer reviewed articles in the area of expertise. We know that Obama has none (one if we want to be charitable and accept the claim that unsigned article you mentioned few weeks ago was indeed written by him).

At least he admitted to drug use. That doesn’t matter to me because, well, it doesn’t matter to me.

As far as your other speculative remarks, who cares? – other than you and a bunch of brain damaged paranoid pissants.

You are an irrelevant person that lives under a bridge. How's the internet at Starbucks and how long to they let you stay before they kick you out?

I'm glad that Carter clarified his ruling. Orly must be boiling mad. That traitor judge must be rmoved!

Ain't never seen anyone so shit-all stupid as you believing the birthtards. You musta got manure for your brains.

I think I'll pull an 'Orly' on you. I'm going to find out every sordid detail about you as I did on borderraving and post it here for all to see. Then we'll see just how much longer you post here. Borderraving hasn't been here in awhile because he's too embarrassed show his face.

I've shown you the complete government definition of who is considered a citizen at birth. Those are all natural born Citizens. You don't like it, get the laws changed through congress, where is the place that all these different possibilities were created.

That’s because she wasn’t raised in a democracy…just a dictatorship or communist country. You can tell by the way she applies standards better suited to those situations rather than the way we do things in our democracy.

Don't forget the “his mother wasn't really his mother” fantasy. That's so crazy, it's actually my favorite birther delusion.

If you actually looked up the order, you would find out that order changed an order signed by W within 5 minutes of W taking office that made presidential records less available. Obama’s order reverted Bush’s order back to an order that Reagan signed regarding presidential records. It didn’t seal anything. It took out a lot of restrictions that Bush put in. But then, you’re only a birthtard so you wouldn’t know this because you only read birthtard literature.

You are taking sentences out of context again. It is important to mention that my claim is related to John Jay's letter, it is not wording used in the Constitution. His letter provides a context for the use of phrase NBC in the eligibility requirement.

NBC is part of the eligibility requirement for POTUS restricting the pool of people who could command the US military. If we had a different Constitution, where POTUS was not a CiC, the NBC requirement would not have been included into the eligibility requirement for POTUS.

NBC is not a type of citizenship. It is an attribute of a citizenship (a path to obtaining a citizenship).

The NBC phrase in the eligibility requirement is an example of a national security restriction – it is similar to the fact that not every citizen is entitled to the security clearance (to get a sensitive government job).

Eligibility to serve as a president of the USA is not a right. Otherwise, those who are younger than 35 would have been discriminated against. The same is true for those who have not been residents of US for at least 14 years.

If you were smart enough – and it is apparent you aren't – you would understand that Incredulous omitted the words foreign born to U.S, Parents. It happens when you are passionate and typing too fast to keep up with your thoughts.

And I assume that your opinion of Obama’s credentials informed your decision not to vote for him. Fine. The University of Chicago Law School has said that Senior Lecturers are thought of as Professors. I’ve given you the link, and we’ve been through all of this before. But if all of that doesn’t satisfy you, I really don’t care. You have a vote, and I have a vote.

Foreign born children of two US citizens are considered citizens, e.g. natural born citizens, and are eligible to run for POTUS. Foreign born children of one US citizen are considered citizens, e.g natural born citizens, and are eligible to run for POTUS. Foreign born citizens born on foreign soil to foreign parents but become citizens through naturalization are citizens but not eligibile to run for POTUS. Clear enough for you?

I don’t know how you could explain this any simpler than what you have done. From what I’m seeing, birthtards have brains made of rubber. All logic just bounces off of them.

If this were a basketball game, you would be flat on your back at midcourt, completely out of breath, staring upward at JohnC as he slams the ball through the hoop.

You keep repeating your opinions. They aren't well reasoned, and you never seem to respond to the strength of JohnC's arguments. He has noted that “natural born citizen” had an established meaning that in the colonies/states that is inconsistent with your interpretation. Your response doesn't address that argument. You simply retreat to your interpreration of what John Jay must have meant, rather than what the term meant in contemporaneous legal usage.

SSDD. NC, none of your arguments ever change. It's like you have all of your replies saved in text documents so you can paste them in for your posts and replies. Please crawl back under the bridge from where you came. Isn't it about time for the folks at Starbucks to kick you out for the day? Take your netbook to Walmart for a recharge on the battery.

That’s funny. I just recently read an interview with a Columbia professor who remembered President Obama extremely well, as one the most brilliant students he had taught.
See, he’s black, and Smarter Than You. Better looking too.

Ah, yes, the argument that “we have nude pictures of his mother on a beach in the summer of 1961 and she clearly isn't pregnant . . .”

And the pictures end up being of a nude woman, taken indoors, and a sign on the wall says “Merry Christmas.”

We haven't heard that argument from the birthers in a while. Ah, fond memories . . .

A question. Since Barack Obama didn’t meet Bill Ayers until after the publication of President Obama’s first book, how did Ayers write the book? By telepathy?
I read both books. They are of similarly high quality. One is a memoir with fictional elements and the other a policy book. Both were written by same author: the brilliant and handsome Barack Hussein Obama, our President.

Are you saying that the previous sentence written by “Incredulous” is grammatically correct and makes sense?

The guy who started the whole “nobody at Columbia remembers Obama” is none other than Wayne Allen Root, the Libertarian Party’s VP candidate in 2008.

Counterpoint: “Obama’s professors and classmates, including former international politics professor Michael Baron and current MTV president Michael Wolf, confirm that he was a brilliant, standout student and that he was an active participant in seminars. Baron said he was one of the top one or two students in his class.”

http://www.wikicu.com/Barack_Obama

There is no other source for suggesting the use of NBC phrase in the eligibility for POTUS. We only have John Jay’s letter.

Should we pretend that letter does not exist?

Are you suggesting that all colonies/states used the same definition for the phrase “natural born citizen”?

Are you saying you don't understand JohnC so you have to revert back to your own little world?

Yes there is another source, old English law…which is where we are derived from. Natural born subject, natural born citizen. But, since it doesn’t agree with you, you’ll ignore it. C’est la vie. But, you’ll never get Obama out of the White House ignoring our laws and our roots.

I am saying, for about the tenth time, that you neither read nor write English very well, and that your lack of reading comprehension is causing you to misinterpret what is clear to others.

Examples:

You wrote “the previous sentence” without specifying which sentence.

You put names in quotation marks.

You constantly misuse commas.

Your grasp of English syntax and sentence structure is shaky.

You seem unable to differentiate between serious and satirical writing.

This is only a partial list, but it's enough to convince me that you are very close to functionally illiterate.

Once again, you are wrong, and once again, you refuse to admit it.

Thanks, Bearclaw. I was wondering what the devil NC was babbling about….

“You are taking sentences out of context again. It is important to mention that my claim is related to John Jay's letter, it is not wording used in the Constitution. His letter provides a context for the use of phrase NBC in the eligibility requirement.”

John Jay did not create the NBC phrase, nor did he define what it means, so even though he couches his reference in national security terms, he contributes little to the overall understanding of the definition of an NBC.

“NBC is part of the eligibility requirement for POTUS restricting the pool of people who could command the US military.”

That still doesn't explain what an NBC actually is.

“NBC is not a type of citizenship. It is an attribute of a citizenship (a path to obtaining a citizenship).”

If what you said were in fact true, then any U.S. citizen, no matter how he obtained citizenship, would have exactly the same ability to become President of the United States.

“The NBC phrase in the eligibility requirement is an example of a national security restriction – it is similar to the fact that not every citizen is entitled to the security clearance (to get a sensitive government job).”

Fair enough. But that stilll does not provide us with a definition of what an NBC is.

“Eligibility to serve as a president of the USA is not a right. Otherwise, those who are younger than 35 would have been discriminated against. The same is true for those who have not been residents of US for at least 14 years.”

I think you're missing the point. If we define a right only as something available to all persons at all ages, then we have few, if any true rights.

The more relevant and meaningful question is whether all citizens have the same eligibility to serve as President within the context of the limitations you cite. The answer is no, they don't. Those citizens who are not NBCs can never aspire to serve as President, no matter how capable, intelligent, loyal, or patriotic because they possess the type of citizenship (naturalized) that does not afford such eligibility. It's as stupid a restriction now as it was in 1787, but that is the law of the land.

Complete and utter bullshit.

Also, add “cannot spell” to the list of problems with your grasp of the English language.

JohnC: “It's as stupid a restriction now as it was in 1787, but that is the law of the land.”

Yes, but it can be changed. Pubs were talking about it with Arnie out in California…until he became too liberal for them. Like they added the 1790 law to that NC likes to cite to cover those born out-of-country on the high seas. Like they added the Panama canal zone for the workers there. It is really amazing how congress takes all these steps to ADD citizens and NC wants to create a whole separate class. Maybe the whole thing is NC is jealous because she can't run for President…since she's not a natural born citizen.

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“There is no other source for suggesting the use of NBC phrase in the eligibility for POTUS. We only have John Jay's letter. Should we pretend that letter does not exist?”

The question is: Does John Jay's letter shed light on what the NBC requirement means? No. And just because we don't have anything better doesn't mean we get to speculate on what Jay meant and rewrite centuries of jurisprudence to fit our supposition.

Let me provide a parallel. Let's say the country is drafting a new Constitution, and a provision is offered providing that no President can be a “sex offender.” There is no formal debate on the provision. As a delegate, I write a note which fails to define the term, but states that this provision is necessary to stop Presidents from sexually molesting children. So, hundreds of years later someone reads my statement, and determines that “sex offender” could only mean “child molestor.” But of course, I didn't invent the term – I was drawing it from the culture around me. An actual study of early 21st century law would show that the term had a much broader meaning than in the context I supplied. In the absence of any evidence that the delegates sought to redefine “sex offender,” it should be given the same general understanding it had at the time.

Historical evidence shows that, if the varying definitions weren't identical, they were awfully close. The 1844 opinion by the New York Chancey in the case of Lynch v. Clarke is thoroughly researched and is well worth reading in this regard. A copy of the opinion can be found on Google Books, although unfortunately I don't know where it has been transcribed elsewhere on the web.

If the Obama produced whatever Birth Certificate he mentions “looking at” on page 26 of “Dreams of My Father” and released his Occidental & Columbia college records us birthers would really have nothing else to say.

Obama is a privileged African-American, who has not shared the black American experience. By birth, blood and training, he was a Muslim, who became a member of a Marxist, Black-African church. He is a socialist whose politics are rooted in Marx and whose methods were conceived by the communist, Alinsky. He is a master at shaping his own mythology and completely unqualified to be Commander in Chief. He is not now, nor ever has been, a “natural born citizen” — he was, at birth, a British subject and citizen of Kenya — a fact published on his own website.
He has lived for almost 50 years without leaving any footprints — none! There is no Obama documentation — no records — no bona fides — no paper trail — nothing! — and he's got an army of lawyers making sure it stays that way — and the unflattering stuff, out there in the world and on the Internet — it's systematically disappearing down the rabbit hole. from theobamafile

Michelle said Michelle's words:“African Press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view,” she reportedly said.“It is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a stepfather. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by his stepfather. The important thing here is where my husband’s heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that my husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner .”

His letter does not provide the NBC definition. I never argued it.
My point is that John Jay provides the insight into the motivation for using the NBC phrase as a national security requirement. The main concern was that a foreigner could not command the US military. My translation of that is simple, children of illegal aliens are not eligible

Your example is interesting – the problem I have with it is that you assume that there is only one source for NBC definition. If that were the case, your example would be much more relevant to the NBC discussion.
There are multiple sources using the phrase and each provides a piece of the puzzle.

John Jay provides the CiC aspect, Bingham mentions importance of parental allegiance, the translation of Vattel also suggests that there was understanding at the time that parental status is relevant, Congress changing the wording of the Naturalization law in 1795 indicates that NBC is not the same as “citizen at birth”.

What was the understanding at the time (1790s) about citizenship at birth? Would child be considered a US citizen if the father was a British citizen?

It is not a stupid requirement if you consider the CiC aspect.

Would a president who was a dual citizen at birth hesitate to order a military strike against the home country of his father/mother? Think of a hypothetical scenario of Roosevelt having a German mother. It would be much more difficult for him to approve the carpet bombing of German cities that destroyed German industry while killing huge number of civilians in the process.

Such questions are avoided if the NBC definition includes US citizenship of both parents. This is the only definition where there is no doubt that such person would have undivided loyalty at birth to the USA and no other country.

Go up the thread and you will find that I quoted the complete sentence in my request for translation.

My brain is wired for a phonetic alphabet and different sentence structure. If you spot an error in my writing and tell me about it, I will appreciate it as an opportunity to learn.

If you use foul language and insults while doing it – it only reflects on your personality. I have not seen you doing the same towards other posters when they make errors in their posts.

Quit posting lies in multiple threads. Very annoying, and yet another sign that you're either Orly Taitz or Naturalizedcitizen or Gchavez in a not-so-clever pixilated disguise.

Oh, I'm sure you'd find something else. Racists always find an excuse.

Also, still waiting for proof that your family is multiracial and multiethnic. Perhaps the fact that you refuse to release this is hiding the fact that your wife and daughter are both white? Or that they don't even exist?

We're waiting, Gunny. What are YOU hiding?

*yawn*

Another day, another hoax.

Liar.

First you come up with a ridiculous supposition that Prince William of Wales and a Kennedy would have an illegitimate child who became President. Now you're attempting to drag Franklin Delano Roosevelt, member of one of the oldest families in America, into your ravings. What next, trying to prove that James K. Polk was the spawn of Cthulhu?

As for your latest ridiculous theoretical, *you are still wrong.” Children born in the United States, save for the children of diplomats, are natural born. Period. That includes President Obama.

*waits for the next round of cut and paste blather about John Jay, Vattel, and many other things that this semi-literate poster does not understand and does not wish to understand*

Don't forget the scenario whereby a heavily pregnant Stanley Dunham flew to Zanzibar, gave birth, then flew back to Hawaii long enough to register her child's birth, then flew to Washington state to take classes, then flew to Mars, was beamed up onto the USS Enterprise where Dr. McCoy endowed her baby with superknowledge….

Um…sordid details about Borderraven? His Facebook page is embarrassing enough, I would think….

Um, English by and large *does* have a phonetic alphabet, which is why sounding out words is how English-speaking children learn to read. I also pointed many several habitual errors in the post above.

None of the above makes your posts any more correct, or does anything to change the fact that you clearly do not know what you’re reading.

Sorry, Orly. Or whatever the hell you’re calling yourself today.

NC: “What was the understanding at the time (1790s) about citizenship at birth? Would child be considered a US citizen if the father was a British citizen?”

Well, considering that at that time many of the delegates fathers WERE British citizens, wouldn't you have thought they'd have pointedly stated that instead of using the generic term at that time? Or, did you not realize that many delegates were of British descent? Did you not take any history classes when you were younger? Oh, wait, that's right. You're naturalized, so you have no knowledge of American history except what you read on WND and Orly's site. So basically you're getting your American history from a Russian. But hey, at least your delusions are only worth 1 vote.

NC: “Would a president who was a dual citizen at birth hesitate to order a military strike against the home country of his father/mother?”

You know, that further shows how little you know and understand our country. We have fighting men and women who have gone into the countries of their parents and relatives and did their jobs. This is a country of IMMIGRANTS and whatever war or conflict we fight we always have someone fighting against their ancestors and relatives…every time. So, there would be no conflict because that is the American way and further shows your total lack of knowledge of our country. So, the requirement is only your opinion, and in the long history of America it has proven to be unnecessary.

Furthermore, we did have a civil war in this country where what you described happened right here on American soil. That's why we are given the vote, to choose the best person to look out for our interests in leading our country. Not by some made-up requirement, but by selecting who we think is best. Just because you don't like the majority's choice means little.

GC, you're so galddarn funny!!! LOL!!! Obama Sr. does not bestow citizenship, the US does!!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!! I'm continually amazed how fricken little you blowers truly know and understand about our country and yet think you'll be able to get him out of office. Before you worry about Obama, you should try a little American History and Civics classes. At least be willing to learn about the country. Unless you don't really care, thereby showing your true colors.

My uncle Lou fought in World War II against the Germans, one of whom was his cousin Manfred. He never hesitated when following orders, and was considered one of the best soldiers in his unit by his commander.

And oh yes – Lou was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. So yes, he would have been considered a natural born citizen and eligible to run for President even though he was baptized in a German-speaking church and had blood relatives fighting for the Nazis.

Maybe if she's really boiling her mascara will melt and we'll see what really looks like. Bets that she's a twin to Emperor Palpatine?

But, if NC were required to defend her adopted country and bomb or shoot possible relatives she's saying she couldn't/wouldn't do it. And there lies the difference between NC and the vast majority of American citizens…we love our country enough to die to preserve it, NC doesn't even like it enough to get out and gather her own proof of Obama's ineligibility, much less put her life on the line for America.

He will not respond to this. You've given a logically sound and legally valid reading of the SCOTUS opinion in Ark and how that applies to his argument. His reply will be to point to the letter of the opinion and, not seeing the word “natural” before “born citizen”, will not be persuaded by your polite and sound reasoning.

This is why we believe you are an idiot.

John Jay’s letter exists yes. It is a what historical researchers would call a “Source Document”.

When you say there is no other “source” you are assuming facts not in evidence. Using a ultra-strict verbal interpretation that the three words “natural born citizen” are sacrosanct and do not share meaning with any other phrase, you can thereby exclude, at your pleasure, any other Source Documents. This allows you, in your mind and incorrectly, to imbue Jay’s letter with influence and power that any historical scholar will tell you does not exist.

Also, other “Source Documents” would actually be helpful to your argument. Transcripts or diaries or letters or discarded drafts indicating a debate over the NBC term would be most helpful for you, but they do not exist. Now I know, at this point, you will throw out the 1790 Law, but you have the same problem there. As pointed out to you numerous times, you have no source material from which to derive the conclusion you make.
Your methodology is flawed both in it’s understanding and it’s application. If you wrote a scholarly paper on this subject and submitted it to a journal on American History, I doubt it would even be published and if it was, I am positive that the editor would have to write an editorial apologizing for it’s publication.

We aren’t pretending it doesn’t exist, we are attempting to get you to see it in it’s proper scholarly context, which you repeatedly refuse to do.

Obama likes the birthers and he wants you to continue your rants, so he isn't ever going to show the long form bc. Your 'cause' only helps him. Why on earth would he want you to go away?

Yep. That Obama certainly is a wascally wabbit! Just amazing how he has managed to stay in office with all of your 'evidence' against him. It is just baffling!

Well, that just certainly tells it all. All of this evidence all over the internet and yet, Obama has managed to stay in office. I'd be willing to bet the amount he has spent on attorney fees at this point is approaching 1 billion dollars.

Apologies for “many several.” Dealing with birthers is not good for my mental health.

Personally, I thought his blog was more of an embarrassment since it has no actual readers and he’s thinks that people will actually buy a t-shirt with his logo on it.

Right. Hawaii to Kenya to “meet the family,” then to Mombasa (in Zanibar) to give birth, then over 300 miles back to Nairobi immediately after giving birth, then an international flight out of Nairobi (through Glasgow, if I recall) to get back to Hawaii, and on to the Seattle area shortly thereafter.

The birthers have discovered the joys of writing history without the constraint of facts.

After the Naturalization act 1795 was passed what was the rule for children born in the USA of British fathers? Were they considered citizens?

Yes, as they were before the Naturalization act of 1795.

English is not a true phonetic language. That is why you have to learn spelling.

In my native language each letter corresponds to a sound. You write it down exactly how it is pronounced. No problems with trying to figure out how to spell things.

I could teach you to read and write in my native language in one day (you would not understand it but you could read it).

That one was like the hideous bastard child of Jack Bauer and a Harlequin “Intrigue” romance.

“He has…left no footprints–none!”
Also, he casts NO shadow and reflects NO image in the mirror !!
This Obama guy is a character straight outta the (weak) Left Behind end-of-the world book series!
Be afraid.
Be very afraid

“He is not now, nor ever has been, a “natural born citizen” — he was, at birth, a British subject and citizen of Kenya — a fact published on his own website.”

The question of what constitutes a natural born citizen has been debated extensively on this page. A lot of historical, factual, legal, and logical material has been set forth. Your assertion, without any support, adds precisely zero to this debate.

And for those of us who believe that the record provides clear support for the proposition that an NBC is any person who is a U.S. citizen by the fact of his birth (via the Fourteenth Amendment, or, where applicable, federal law), the place of Obama Sr.'s birth, or his nationality, is of absolutely no consequence as to whether President Obama is an NBC.

“Your example is interesting – the problem I have with it is that you assume that there is only one source for NBC definition. If that were the case, your example would be much more relevant to the NBC discussion.
There are multiple sources using the phrase and each provides a piece of the puzzle.”

And I have provided multiple sources which make it very clear that citizenship was seen as comprised of exactly two mutually-exclusive categories: “natural born” and “naturalized.”

Now let's look at what you have provided to support your argument. A letter from John Jay which may suggest why NBC was used, but tells us little about how NBC operated as to persons born of non-citizen parents.

You provided the Bingham quote on parental “allegiance,” but have failed to acknowledge that the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark addressed this issue, and found “allegiance” to have meaning in the context of jus soli principles.

The Vattel translation using the word “natural born citizen” was published nearly a decade after the Constitutional Convention, and stands at odds with the common use of the term as found in contemporary court opinions, legislative pronouncements, and legal treatises.

I have already said that the change of language effected in the Naturalization Law of 1795 has an unclear purpose and effect. You have also failed to explain why federal law never termed persons born within the United States as “natural born” citizens.

You have also failed to address the Supreme Court opinions in which the Court expressly linked the NBC requirement of Article I with “citizenship by birth.”

“What was the understanding at the time (1790s) about citizenship at birth? Would child be considered a US citizen if the father was a British citizen?”

I have already addressed those questions extensively. Please consult my previous posts.

He is either a Jedi or a vampire! Maybe both!

I've always thought the birfers were really just frustrated fantasy fiction writers.

Exquisite description!!!

And thus is born a new genre: “Birfer Fiction.”

“Would a president who was a dual citizen at birth hesitate to order a military strike against the home country of his father/mother?”

Let me restate the scenario slightly:

Would a president who was not a dual citizen at birth hesitate to order a military strike against the home country of his father/mother?

Would your answer be different under these two scenarios?

The first scenario assumes that one or both parents were born in another country, and not naturalized at the time of the child's birth in the United States.

The second scenario assumes that one or both parents were born in another country, but had happened to obtain naturalization at the time of the child's birth.

According to the two-citizen parent NBC hypothesis, under the first scenario, the child is not an NBC, while under the second, he is an NBC, despite the fact that his parent(s) was/were born in exactly the same place as before. The only difference is whether the parents had obtained naturalization at the time of birth.

Does that make a difference? Should it? Why would this make any difference as to whether the child was ultimately loyal to the country of his birth?

As you can imagine, I find the two-citizen parent NBC rule as offering no practical distinction from the citizenship by birth NBC rule.

Having said that, either way, the idea of having an NBC provision is idiotic. After all, none of the Founding Fathers satisfied their own NBC requirement – which is why they had to provide an exception for those who were citizens of the U.S. when the Constitution was adopted.

You, NC, are really a piece of work. You have been arguing for at least two months about the importance of a change the Naturalization Act of 1795 made to the Naturalization Act of 1790. Yet you ask questions that make me think you haven't read either statute. Here, for your reading pleasure, is the Naturalization Act of 1795:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milest…

You might notice, to begin with, that it deals with “naturalization.” Thus, it should not be surprising that it is completely SILENT on the issue of citizenship of persons born in the United States. Neither the 1790 Act nor the 1795 Act had anything to do with people born in the United States.

That is one of the points JohnC and I have made repeatedly: Congress very well may have eliminated the term “natural born citizen” from the Naturalization Act because it might lead to the inference that other citizens (those, for example, who were citizens by virtue of being born in the United States, and who therefore weren't addressed by the “Naturalization” Acts) were not “natural born citizens.”

Ishmael….you're a total liar. Mrs. Michelle Obama, the First Lady of the United States, never said any such thing……which is why you're a birfer/blower/dumbass and several other names that are all over teh internet referring to stupid folks who are all aflutter about that black man. President of the United States, Barrack Obama, being in charge of the entire free world. I typed all that cause I know it makes you crazy…..and I love it!!!

Ishmael….you're a total liar. Mrs. Michelle Obama, the First Lady of the United States, never said any such thing……which is why you're a birfer/blower/dumbass and several other names that are all over teh internet referring to stupid folks who are all aflutter about that black man. President of the United States, Barrack Obama, being in charge of the entire free world. I typed all that cause I know it makes you crazy…..and I love it!!!

Actually, I've always thought they're more like a soap opera. “As the Birfer Turns”…”another exciting episode today where NC repeats her same tired arguments hoping someone, anyone will believe her.” And, like a soap opera, you could miss a couple of weeks or more and still be caught up on the blower story line…because it will come around again soon enough.

We have Orly's opening brief challenging the $20,000 in sanctions from Judge Clay Land:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/24232900/Opening-Brie…

The brief is in English, meaning it was written by Jonathan H. Levy (who, unlike Charles Lincoln, actually gets his name on the brief).

But under an “abuse of discretion” standard of review, I don't like Orly's chances of overturning the sanctions.

It is not the parental place of birth that is important in your example. It is the parental mindset that makes the biggest difference. One set of parents wanted to become US citizens.

The fact that other parents did not renounce the allegiance to a foreign country tells you something about the environment in which the child will be raised. If parents did not value US citizenship, will their children be as patriotic and loyal to US only, compared to children of citizen parents?

NBC is a safety measure – you have to draw the line and have a rule who is eligible to command the US military. It reduces the possibility of a groomed foreign agent becoming a POTUS.

According to your logic why restrict the eligibility to born citizens. Why not include naturalized ones as well?
Why do we even have a restriction that the president must be at least 35 years old?

You are inventing things I never said (as usual).

Could we assume that all children born in the USA to German parents had the same attitude towards fighting the Nazis in WW2 like uncle Lou?

The allegation is that Ayers wrote the second book “Dreams of My Father”.

“memoir with fictional elements” – LOL!!!

The birth certificate mentioned in the book – is it a fictitious one, used for creating an illusion that Obama was born in the USA?

A flight from Canada to Mexico is diverted to San Antonio Houston because of the medical emergency.

A premature baby is born (in the airplane) to a Canadian couple.

Is this baby considered an NBC?

A flight from Canada to Mexico is diverted to San Antonio Houston because of the medical emergency.

A premature baby is born (in the airplane) to a Canadian couple.

Is this baby considered an NBC?

Not relevant to the President's eligibility. However, given how many American men of his generation were the children of immigrants, I'd say the vast majority.

Also, do NOT refer to him as “uncle Lou.” You are not related to him, never met him, and are the sort of false patriot that would have made him sick.

You've openly said that the child of an immigrant, no matter how patriotic, cannot be trusted as President to direct a war against the country of his/her parent's birth. That includes you, since you have repeatedly stated that you were not born in this country.

If the plane is on the ground in San Antonio, yes, since the child would be born on American soil.

Yes! Want to help me write it? We can split the royalties….

I keep wondering how he stayed in the Navy, given his manifest lack of physical fitness.

Yes. In fact, in the late 90s, many women living in Hong Kong flew to San Francisco to have their babies because the colony was about to be transferred from British to Chinese control. Their idea was that having an American citizen baby would give them an out in case conditions went south under Chinese rule.
Everyone, except birthers, knows that anyone born in the US is a citizen by birth, or a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, including our brilliant and handsome black president, Barack Hussein Obama.

You realize, of course, that your first paragraph basically says that non-English speakers don’t have to learn to spell?

As for your kind offer to teach me to read your native tongue, thank you, but I have no need or desire to learn Moldovan.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Now NC's come up with the “mindset test”!!! Now before NC gives her vote of approval she's going to test the “mindset” of the parents…BWAHAHAHAHA. Let me ask you, are you going to have the testers in the delivery room? Could the parents have just applied for citizenship, or should they have completely got their naturalized citizenship before the child is born? What if the parents were set to become citizens, and the baby arrives early…can the child still become President…by YOUR crazy definition? These are ALL questions that could face the court. You have again, taken something simple and created a crazy menagerie of possibilities that would have to be addressed at some point. But, even more important…shouldn't, by your standards, EVERY citizen who chooses to run be checked for their CURRENT “mindset” to make sure that THEY value THEIR US citizenship? I mean we don't want a Timothy McVeigh to become President do we? Wait, we ALREADY DO THAT!!! It's called an election, where we get to weigh the “mindset” of the candidates who we want to run our country. And, what do you know, their parents mindset doesn't matter…because the parents aren't who we are asking. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

You mean I wasn't clear enough? NC has stated her true feelings throughout…she wouldn't defend her adopted country, doesn't trust the government, won't believe any but those that agree with her. I think we've gotten a pretty clear picture. So, if someday congress adds naturalized citizen to the eligibility…you can be pretty sure I wouldn't vote for her if she decided to run. Like the constitution allows me to do.

What if the parents were all set to be naturalized, but had to wait a year because we've reached the limit on the number of citizens from their former country who could be naturalized that year? What if one becomes naturalized, but the other one is not eligible till the following year? And, when you say “that's just tough” you are proving how truly “UN-AMERICAN” you really are…because that means your REASON for being so restrictive is non-existent…just a figment of your imagination.

I think Orly's conduct falls into the “abuse of the legal profession” category and she's getting off light.

The Parental Mindset
You have really outdone yourself, fruitcake.

“It is the parental mindset that makes the biggest difference. “

So children don't possess free will to become their own person? My parents are both devout Roman Catholics, yet I, upon reaching adulthood, decided I did not want to embrace the Catholic Canon.

And also, if a candidate is deemed not sufficiently patriotic, they won't get elected.

Why was Michelle Obama disbarred in 1993 by the Illinois ARDC? (this is NOT the Illinois Bar-where one can voluntarily be inactive) As the name implies, the ARDC is the agency of the Supreme Court of Illinois which registers attorneys and investigates complaints of misconduct filed against attorneys holding a license to practice law in Illinois.

Of course that every person has a free will. However, cultural and parental influence on child's perception of the world cannot be neglected.

Did you reject the US citizenship upon reaching adulthood?

With media's help a candidate can fool the electorate. A person can project an image different from their true personality. We cannot read other people's minds to know what their true allegiance is. One bad leader can do a lot of damage to a country.

Unlike yourself, the “fruitcake” has seen what an unpatriotic leader can do to a country:

http://www.nytimes.com/info/radovan-karadzic/

Check the Background section.

There is no mindset test, you are arguing with yourself.

The test is parental citizenship status. If parents are citizens at the time of child's birth (on US soil), baby is an NBC.

If you paid attention on this blog, Bearclaw came up with all kinds of scenarios including the one you mentioned.

My simple answer is that the original birth certificate and naturalization records (if applicable) would be sufficient to prove the child's status at birth.

No, that is not what I said. The vast majority of such children are loyal to the USA only and could be trusted with the command of US military.

It would not be easy to filter out the minority that has no such characteristics. Children born to foreign agents could be groomed to become a President.

Country must have defensive mechanisms against those who wish us ill.

The TSA screening rules at the airports are not in place because we cannot trust the vast majority of passengers. Rules are there to protect the majority from small number of extremists who would want to do us harm.

If the baby was born while the (Canada Air) flight was still in the air (on landing approach), would it still be an NBC?

Would child be an NBC if birth occurred while plane was above Mexico and then made U-turn to San Antonio?

I see, it is an implication of Court’s reasoning. You are “lawyering” here.

Could you quote the Court’s statement used as a base for your previous post?

This has nothing to do with the President's eligibility for office.

Also, it is not true. The First Lady stopped practicing law because she changed professions.

Why are you bringing up George W. Bush in your last paragraph? He's the worst President I've seen in my lifetime, and that includes Nixon when I was a teenager.

And this has what to do with the President's eligibility for office? And his legal election?

Bearclaw came up with many scenarios designed to show how stupid your unsupported legal theory is. YOU came up with even stupider scenarios, like that idiocy about an illegitimate Kennedy/Windsor child becoming President.

Also, for the hundredth time, *the citizenship of a parent has nothing to do with a child's natural born status.” The President was born in Hawaii and is thus natural born, and is eligible to be President.

Stop lying. You repeatedly stated that the child of a non-citizen could not be trusted to be President because of potential military action against the parent’s home country. Do not try your usual tactics of changing the subject or weaseling out of the consequences of your words.

Why don’t you check with a law professor? We’ve suggested it many times, so why haven’t you done so?

And, if you haven't figured it out from Bearclaw's and my points, is that your WHOLE reason for doing these parental test does not exist. And the real test is can the person be elected, not if they are only just eligible. But, since you don't believe in free elections, it follows your basic mindset. Why don't you just move to Cuba? There are no elections and you can be comfortable that the leader was properly vetted for your satisfaction…since the leader may not change in your lifetime.

Why don’t you just read it?

I just love the way birthtards read something from a wingnut website and regurgitate it here as if it were actually true. They add in these additional untruths like a state bar doesn't allow an attorney to become inactive. All of it is speculation and through their discussions they decide Michelle had to have been disbarred and yet they have absolutely no concrete proof.

And the simpler answer is that Obama was born in Hawaii and since he was under the jurisdiction of the state that is a part of the United States, he is a natural born citizen. The State of Hawaii confirmed this even though they didn't have to. I guess they got tired of calls and emails from birthtards.

My dad's parents came from Germany and he fought in WWII. His attitude was such that he was fighting for his country just as the true patriots that are now serving in our military and not questioning the authenticity of their orders from their command in chief.

The keywords here are 'African-American'. The keyword is 'American'. Based on your statement, you're mad at Obama because he was priviliged. But to get back to the American part. That would indicate that he is then a US Citizen and eligible to be president. But you don't like him so you add in additional statements that will help you support in your mind that he is and never was a natural born citizen. Please, please, keep up these great posts. A day without the amusement from a birthtard is like a day without sunshine.

“Late Update: Acting U.S. Attorney G.F. Peterman for the Middle District of Georgia told TPMmuckraker this afternoon his office is waiting on Taitz's appeal before it attempts to collect the fine.”

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/…

I wish they had collected the sanction BEFORE they accepted the appeal.

I beleive that Levy was smart enough to file a motion for stay of sanctions as well.

You mean like the media projecting a false image of an elected official as an unpatriotic socialist and, perhaps even not legally eligible to hold said office?

I'm sure he did. At least he sounds like a lawyer and not a Moldavian crackpot. Though not nearly as entertaining.

NC: “Country must have defensive mechanisms against those who wish us ill.”

But, we do. It’s called an election. And every reason, excuse, imagined horror, or paranoid fantasy you can come up with could also be applied to a citizen that was born of 2 citizen parents.

Look at the people Obama chose for the administration.

Check their links to various socialist/communist organizations.

In the “Drams of my Father” book there is a quote about choosing to associate with Marxists in college.

Then come back and tell me about false image of a socialist.

What happened to Carter years?

Selective amnesia?

This was an example of an unpatriotic person who moved to a country when he was a teenager, lived in the capital city for 30 years then had no qualms ordering a military attack that ultimately destroyed good portion of the city (more than 10,000 were killed).

Parental citizenship status is an important safeguard in the POTUS eligibility requirement.

Where shall we put the plague commemorating his Hawaiian birth, LOL?

You have shown time and again to have very limited capacity for logical reasoning.

I never said that all children of non-citizen parents could not be trusted. I said that they do not qualify because it would open the door for those with the different mindset.

But, what about the same person was born to 2 citizen parents and decided to order the same attack? By your scenario, the final outcome would have been the same in both cases. Parental citizenship has absolutely nothing to do with an individuals choices in adulthood, it is the individual's decision.

A better safeguard is the one that we presently have, where each candidate is put front and center and has to go in front of the people for over a year (if not longer) and the people choose who leads them. So far, it has worked out quite well for us. Your scenario offers no more safety than that.

And yet, citizens born of 2 citizen parent could also have that different mindset. Or, do you not understand that. No, the better way is what we do now, measuring the candidates and then choosing the one we think will do the best job. Your way contains no extra guarantees.

And, for your opinion, you are given one vote. I think he's doing a decent job for the total mess that was left behind by the prior administration. For my opinion I get one vote. That is the American way…much as you hate it.

Anywhere in the state of Hawaii will do. LOL

Your point was about the media, my point was also about the media.

Associating with Marxists does not make one a Marxist. That's why guilt by association is widely held to be a logical fallacy.

Way to go on changing the subject yet again.

And he changes the subject yet again.

You have no grounds for accusing someone of limited logical reasoning.

A Muslim who attends church–how does that work?

NC: “Could we assume that all children born in the USA to German parents had the same attitude towards fighting the Nazis in WW2 like uncle Lou?”

Me: Could we assume that all children born in the USA to 2 citizen parents had the same attitude towards fighting the Nazis in WW2?

The answer to BOTH questions is no. So, we have elections to try and see who we think would do best for the country. Is it perfect? No…but if you’re talking about human beings nothing is. And, I much prefer to be given the choice than to eliminate someone who could lead the country into a great future because of some imagined paranoia that may or may not exist.

NC: “Could we assume that all children born in the USA to German parents had the same attitude towards fighting the Nazis in WW2 like uncle Lou?”

Me: Could we assume that all children born in the USA to 2 citizen parents had the same attitude towards fighting the Nazis in WW2?

The answer to BOTH questions is no. So, we have elections to try and see who we think would do best for the country. Is it perfect? No…but if you’re talking about human beings nothing is. And, I much prefer to be given the choice than to eliminate someone who could lead the country into a great future because of some imagined paranoia that may or may not exist.

NC: “Could we assume that all children born in the USA to German parents had the same attitude towards fighting the Nazis in WW2 like uncle Lou?”

Me: Could we assume that all children born in the USA to 2 citizen parents had the same attitude towards fighting the Nazis in WW2?

The answer to BOTH questions is no. So, we have elections to try and see who we think would do best for the country. Is it perfect? No…but if you’re talking about human beings nothing is. And, I much prefer to be given the choice than to eliminate someone who could lead the country into a great future because of some imagined paranoia that may or may not exist.

President Carter told the truth, obeyed the law, and kept the peace. No one will ever be able to say that of either Nixon or Bush.

Finally, an NC post I can agreee with.

Finally, an NC post I can agreee with.

Finally, an NC post I can agreee with.

Hopefully he'll get on one of his anti-catholic rants to spice things up.

The TSA screening rules at the airports are not in place because we cannot trust the vast majority of passengers.

The TSA screening rules at the airports are not in place because we cannot trust the vast majority of passengers.

The TSA screening rules at the airports are not in place because we cannot trust the vast majority of passengers.

I did and I do not agree with his statement.

I did and I do not agree with his statement.

I did and I do not agree with his statement.

I've wondered that myself.

Jimmy Carter failed to control inflation, didn't properly vet Bert Lance, dressed poorly, was not a good public speaker, and was kneecapped by Reagan's October Surprise.

George W. Bush turned a budget surplus into the largest deficit in American history, blatantly lied to get us into a war, kowtowed to theocrats, threw government contracts to his Vice President's former employer, stood by while a major American city drowned, installed unqualified cronies in critical offices, ruined American prestige abroad, dismantled Clinton-era intelligence committees and protocols while allowing the worst terrorist attack in history to occur in the country's financial center, oversaw the greatest financial meltdown since 1929, and cut taxes on the wealthy while raising taxes on the poor and middle class. He also almost certainly stole one election and may or may not have stolen a second.

I will take Jimmy Carter any day of the millennium over Bush II.

A Serbian war criminal has nothing to do with President Obama’s eligibility to hold office. You really are getting desperate, I’m afraid.

Asked and answered over a dozen times.

Of course, you’ll promptly either drop the thread or bring in more irrelevancies. Isn’t there a food bank where you could volunteer during the Christmas season?

Asked and answered over a dozen times.

Of course, you’ll promptly either drop the thread or bring in more irrelevancies. Isn’t there a food bank where you could volunteer during the Christmas season?

Asked and answered over a dozen times.

Of course, you’ll promptly either drop the thread or bring in more irrelevancies. Isn’t there a food bank where you could volunteer during the Christmas season?

I’d be insulted if you had the slightest shred of credibility.

I’d be insulted if you had the slightest shred of credibility.

Once again, your English is so bad that I have no idea what you just said.

I don’t particularly want to, either, because it’s irrelevant to the President’s eligibility to hold office.

Once again, your English is so bad that I have no idea what you just said.

I don’t particularly want to, either, because it’s irrelevant to the President’s eligibility to hold office.

Once again, your English is so bad that I have no idea what you just said.

I don’t particularly want to, either, because it’s irrelevant to the President’s eligibility to hold office.

Man, so whenever your point is straight up shown to be wrong, you change the subject. That tells me and everyone else that you don’t even believe the crap your spewing. So, you must know in your heart Obama is legal. Have a nice day :-)

Man, so whenever your point is straight up shown to be wrong, you change the subject. That tells me and everyone else that you don’t even believe the crap your spewing. So, you must know in your heart Obama is legal. Have a nice day :-)

Man, so whenever your point is straight up shown to be wrong, you change the subject. That tells me and everyone else that you don’t even believe the crap your spewing. So, you must know in your heart Obama is legal. Have a nice day :-)

No, you didn’t. You just scanned it for the phrase you were looking for and when it didn’t come up, decided it wasn’t important. I know this because you’ve done it before. If you had read it, you’d have read a complete history of citizenship and how it ties into old English law and how it was used to define our citizenship…including natural born Citizen. Your chosen lack of knowledge again shows how you really don’t care about our laws or constitution just your petty jealousy of Obama.

No, you didn’t. You just scanned it for the phrase you were looking for and when it didn’t come up, decided it wasn’t important. I know this because you’ve done it before. If you had read it, you’d have read a complete history of citizenship and how it ties into old English law and how it was used to define our citizenship…including natural born Citizen. Your chosen lack of knowledge again shows how you really don’t care about our laws or constitution just your petty jealousy of Obama.

“It is the parental mindset that makes the biggest difference.

Then what do you do if the parent becomes naturalized the week after the child is born? By your standard, there should be no reasonable concern with the child's loyalty by virtue of the parent's demonstrated loyalty, but under your theory of the law, it would make no difference. The child would not be an NBC, but would be SOL.

“According to your logic why restrict the eligibility to born citizens. Why not include naturalized ones as well?”

Exactly. Why shouldn't naturalized citizens be eligible? After all, they actually went through the trouble of pledging their allegiance to the United States to obtain their citizenship, whereas a natural born citizen never had to. You gotta give credit where credit is due.

“Why do we even have a restriction that the president must be at least 35 years old?”

Well, if we're going to get that silly, why restrict a ham sandwich from becoming president?

“The test is parental citizenship status.”

Really? And which court has ever applied your test?

Okay wise guy, here are a couple scenarios for you. Let’s see how your NBC theory fares:

Right at the moment a child is being born to his U.S. citizen mother, his foreign-born father is reciting his citizenship oath at a naturalization ceremony, but hasn’t yet completed it. Is the child an NBC or not an NBC?

Or here’s another: Suppose a child is born in the U.S. to foreign-born but naturalized citizens. After the child is born, both parents renounce their U.S. citizenship and return home to their native country, which is at war with the U.S. Is the child, still living in the U.S. but retaining contact with his parents, an NBC eligible to serve as President of the United States?

Okay wise guy, here are a couple scenarios for you. Let’s see how your NBC theory fares:

Right at the moment a child is being born to his U.S. citizen mother, his foreign-born father is reciting his citizenship oath at a naturalization ceremony, but hasn’t yet completed it. Is the child an NBC or not an NBC?

Or here’s another: Suppose a child is born in the U.S. to foreign-born but naturalized citizens. After the child is born, both parents renounce their U.S. citizenship and return home to their native country, which is at war with the U.S. Is the child, still living in the U.S. but retaining contact with his parents, an NBC eligible to serve as President of the United States?

A couple of weeks ago, I started giving NC a series of hypotheticals to test how NC's definition of “natural born citizen” would work in practice. It was fascinating. In NC's world, a child born in the U.S. to a single mother who is a U.S. citizen isn't a “natural born citizen” unless a man who is a U.S. citizen is also listed on the birth certificate. In other words, the offspring of a loyal U.S. citizen, a single woman, who becomes pregnant through (a) rape by a rapist who is never identified; or (b) artificial insemination by an anonymous donor, cannot be a natural born citizen. And NC also believes that if the mother is a lesbian, and chooses to list another U.S. citizen woman as the other parent on the birth certificate, the child is not a natural born citizen, even if the child is born in the U.S. and raised by those two U.S. citizens. In NC's world, there must be two U.S. citizen parents — a man and woman — known at the time of the child's birth and identified on the birth certificate.

And all of that comes from John Jay's letter to George Washington of July 25, 1787.

You hate the President so much that you would wish a plague on the place he was born?

You hate the President so much that you would wish a plague on the place he was born?

NC: “Of course that every person has a free will. However, cultural and parental influence on child's perception of the world cannot be neglected.”

And, how does that coincide with Obama, who has never really known his father? What kind of influence could the father exert over him?

That is why all of us get to elect our leaders. And why Congress has the power to remove the President from office.

It is odd, indeed, that someone who invokes the spectre of Karadzic is a birther. Have you looked at your allies in this cause? Under another story on TWI’s blog, a birther who goes by “randwulf” posted this yesterday:

“I can’t wait for this shit to cause a complete collapse of the entire system so that we can have a good ethnic cleansing and get all this puss cleaned out of the great, gaping, national wound that has been inflicted upon us by a bunch of creatures that need killing.
Starting with all the militant, left-wing, (Stalinist) commie turds out there.
I don’t need medications. I see what has happened and I know how to fix it.”

It isn’t Obama’s supporters who are talking about “ethnic cleansing.”

That is why all of us get to elect our leaders. And why Congress has the power to remove the President from office.

It is odd, indeed, that someone who invokes the spectre of Karadzic is a birther. Have you looked at your allies in this cause? Under another story on TWI’s blog, a birther who goes by “randwulf” posted this yesterday:

“I can’t wait for this shit to cause a complete collapse of the entire system so that we can have a good ethnic cleansing and get all this puss cleaned out of the great, gaping, national wound that has been inflicted upon us by a bunch of creatures that need killing.
Starting with all the militant, left-wing, (Stalinist) commie turds out there.
I don’t need medications. I see what has happened and I know how to fix it.”

It isn’t Obama’s supporters who are talking about “ethnic cleansing.”

“Also, he casts NO shadow and reflects NO image in the mirror !!”

He must have a devil of a time shaving.

Yep, Obama is Bugs Bunny and all the birthers are Elmer Fudd, or is it Wily Coyote.

Well, if you saw Michelle fixing and preening his suit the other night in front of the cameras, you'd know that she also shaves him…LOL

Karadzic was elected too. His pre and post election rethoric changed.

I did not read the discussion involving Randwulf’s comments. Assuming that your quote is accurate, that person is dangerous.

However, I am more worried about a person who is in the position of authority, who can change things the way that Randwulf cannot.

Obama is the one talking about establishing national security force to be as strong and well funded as US military. I have seen this scenario play out (creation of a police force loyal to the leader and weakening of the regular military that was not under the leader’s control).

I learned not to dismiss politician’s statments no matter how ridiculous they may sound at the moment. Give such person the power to act on their ideas and (s)he will create a mess.

Karadzic was elected too. His pre and post election rethoric changed.

I did not read the discussion involving Randwulf’s comments. Assuming that your quote is accurate, that person is dangerous.

However, I am more worried about a person who is in the position of authority, who can change things the way that Randwulf cannot.

Obama is the one talking about establishing national security force to be as strong and well funded as US military. I have seen this scenario play out (creation of a police force loyal to the leader and weakening of the regular military that was not under the leader’s control).

I learned not to dismiss politician’s statments no matter how ridiculous they may sound at the moment. Give such person the power to act on their ideas and (s)he will create a mess.

I understand your concern, and the Bush ideals worried me and a lot of others. This is WHY we need a loyal opposition to question and act as a check on over-reaching power. We’ve already been through that with Nixon. But, folks like you tend to hurt that by making them sound so paranoid they become more of a character than a loyal politician doing their job, then they become even weaker and less able to act. The radicals on either side of the spectrum need to be handled by their respective parties or they do more harm to the their parties than they can help.

I understand your concern, and the Bush ideals worried me and a lot of others. This is WHY we need a loyal opposition to question and act as a check on over-reaching power. We’ve already been through that with Nixon. But, folks like you tend to hurt that by making them sound so paranoid they become more of a character than a loyal politician doing their job, then they become even weaker and less able to act. The radicals on either side of the spectrum need to be handled by their respective parties or they do more harm to the their parties than they can help.

There is nothing silly in my question. You are the one advocating loose restrictions on POTUS eligibility.

What is the purpose of the restriction that one has to be resident of USA for 14 years before being eligible to run for POTUS?

Let voters decide who is qualified, right?

JohnC is not “advocating” for loose restrictions on citizenship, he is following the law on it. You're advocating tightening the requirements and he's explaining all the different scenarios that could come up in a court of law when people challenge the restrictions you're putting forth. These are valid questions that you are removing from the legislature and putting in the courts. This should not be the way citizenship is decided, because it could lead to even looser restrictions by the court than we currently have now. Or, did you not realize that by giving this power to an appointed-for-life entity that entity could also use it to make someone you don't like eligible? At least the legislature answers to the voters, and if they were to do that we would have some recourse against them.

What is the purpose of the restriction that one has to be resident of USA for 14 years before being eligible to run for POTUS?

The same reason they only wanted not naturalized citizens to be able to run. They thought it best at the time. Why 14 years? Why not 12? Why not 18?

That brought up an interesting question for me, NC. Does the time an ambassador spends overseas count as time being a resident in the country or not? What about military personnel? Does it matter if they live on or off base? I could see a scenario of a military child, born american, spending most of his/her childhood overseas on bases, then joining the military and further getting stationed overseas, maybe then working overseas for the State Department and rising up to ambassador and made famous by some act, maybe averting a nuclear war. Now, s/he is famous, well-respected, etc, etc, but has lived less than 14 years on american soil. OK, it's a HUGE stretch, blame bearclaw, he got me started on these “what if”s.

1. The time written on the birth certificate should be compared with the time when naturalization ceremony took place.

What is the timestamp relevant for determination whether a candidate fulfills the 14 year residency requirement or 35 years of age requirement?

Translate your question into the one related to the residency or age requirement and answer it.

2. Yes. The status at birth is what counts.

When devising other scenarios keep in mind the difference between a possible scenario versus the one that is probable.

I'd say Wily. They think they're smarter, but always end up falling off the cliff when the true capabilities of their arguments are put to use.

In fact, I'd say that WND is their ACME company. Their products are VERY comparable in quality.

If the Obama produced whatever Birth Certificate he mentions “looking at” on page 26 of “Dreams of My Father” and released his Occidental & Columbia college records us birthers would really have nothing else to say.

Mrs. Barack Obama is the First Lady. Where'd you get your GED, WalMart?

Check this out! The Charleton Case is scheduled for Jan.4, 2010. Let us pray the truth will come out!
“Obama traveled to Pakistan as a young student. He says his family was poor. He does not appear to have had jobs while in college. Where did the money come from for Obama to travel around the world to Pakistan as a college student? Who paid? Obama refuses to answer.
“Obama refuses to release his original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate; he has only issued a laser-printed sheet from a Hawai’i state database. He refuses to release his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records and his Harvard Law School records.

“The documents we are seeking are the original source material of American history. Whether you love or hate Obama, he is now an important figure in American history. Documents related to him and his early life are part of our national archives, especially when, for example, his mysterious trip to Pakistan as a college student could shed light on his latest policy revisions concerning Pakistan and Afghanistan. What is Obama trying to cover up in his past? What happened in Pakistan when he went there as a student, who paid for him to go there, and why was he there at a time of internal upheaval in that nation?

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“There is nothing silly in my question.”

Your question as to why there is an age restriction on the President of the United States is silly, and I stand by my previous comments. If a person needs to be a minimum age to handle the responsibility of driving a car or drinking an alcoholic beverage, it also stands to reason that there would be an age restriction for the most powerful and stressful job in the nation.

“What is the purpose of the restriction that one has to be resident of USA for 14 years before being eligible to run for POTUS?”

This is a more serious issue. I don't have a problem with a residency requirement, since it relates to the amount of familiarity (and by extension, loyalty) the candidate has with the country.

At least this has to deal with the circumstances of the President's actual life journey, unlike NBC, which is predicated on deterministic concepts of loyalty based upon the precise circumstances of one's birth that the person does not remember and cannot undo.

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“1. The time written on the birth certificate should be compared with the time when naturalization ceremony took place.

2. Yes. The status at birth is what counts.”

You're missing the point of why I posed these questions. You state that the supposed two-parent citizen requirement is an important national security requirement, because it ensures the loyalty of the child through the loyalty of his parents. But I have just shown you one scenario in which a parent has demonstrable loyalty to the country, yet under your rule cannot transmit NBC status to his child. I have presented a second scenario in which the child is an NBC under your definition, even though his parents ended up disloyal and residents of an enemy power.

The point I am making is that the citizenship of one's parents at the time of one's birth does not determine whether the person is more or less likely to be loyal to the country of his birth. It depends on his life experience, which age and residency requirements capture, but the NBC requirement (under any proposed defintion) does not.

“When devising other scenarios keep in mind the difference between a possible scenario versus the one that is probable.”

First of all, the scenarios I proposed were no more ridiculous than your baby-born-on-an-airplane scenarios.

But let's take a look at your construction of NBC as a national security issue. Are you suggesting that it is probable that a person born in this country, resident here for his entire life, but who happens to have a parent who had foreign citizenship, presents some articulable security risk as President of the United States?

And, to take it one step further, are you suggesting that it is realistic or reasonable that we should judge the loyalty of Obama on the basis of the citizenship of a father who he met only once beyond his infancy?

When thinking about what is “probable” or “realistic,” why don't you look in the mirror and think about that for a moment.

My response to naturalizedcitizen:

“When devising other scenarios keep in mind the difference between a possible scenario versus the one that is probable.”

Okay. Here's a scenario: A woman is born in the United States, and has lived there her entire life. A man is born in the UK, and lives there until he is age 26, having served in the Royal Marines. The man moves to the United States, meets and marries the woman. They have two children, both of whom are born in the United States and have lived their entire lives there.

When the younger child is age 9, the father becomes a naturalized citizen after having lived in the United States for 21 years. In the decades since then, he has become very involved in local and national politics, and is one of the few people on his street to fly the American flag every day.

Is the youngest child a natural born citizen? Under your proposed theory, no, because somehow the child's loyalty is suspect – and presents a national security concern – because the father didn't naturalize until the child was nine years old.

Is this a probable scenario? I should think so. It is my own – I am the child of that naturalized father. I find it absurd to think my status as a natural born citizen should depend on the historical accident of when my father happened to become a naturalized citizen, given that I was born in this country and have never called any other my home. Thankfully, that is not the case, as ample legal and historical evidence demonstrates.

Now here's another catch with the “secure” two-citizen-parent requirement you propose. Under U.S. law, when a person becomes a naturalized citizen, he renounces all other allegiances. But in the eyes of the UK, this renunciation is invalid unless it is made to the British Home Secretary. My father never did that, so he remained and remains in fact a dual citizen, even if the U.S. does not recognize his status as a subject of the queen.

As a male British citizen by birth, giving birth to a child outside the UK prior to 1983, my father passed his British citizenship to me by operation of UK law. So here's an interesting scenario: assuming my father became a naturalized U.S. citizen before I was born, he still would have been a British citizen at the time of my birth, as would I. Nonetheless, because both of us would have also been U.S. citizens, I would have fulfilled your proposed two U.S. citizen parent NBC requirement.

So much for the two-citizen parent requirement as preventing dual allegiances.

Like all birthers, you're repeating yourself. And like all birthers, you would find reason to believe any hospital records a forgery.

Also, Gunny darling – where is your wife's tribal ID, your daughter's Korean birth certificate and adoption papers, and proof of her boyfriend's church membership and former gang involvement? I keep asking and asking, and still nothing. What are YOU hiding?

You can't even spell “Charlton.”

So sad.

I was wondering what the zinger was you were setting up NC for. Nice shot!

My God. Here's my reply on a Saturday evening. I think we can all agree that Land's 43 page explanation as to why he sanctioned Orly will stand. And if I wanted it to rhyme. Land will Stand. I don't care if the nutcase from Orly's alma mater provided the text in this appeal. She's going to still come out $20,000 short plus any fees this nutcase from South Carolina can write for her.

You can buy a can of mixed nuts but they're still called nuts.

Why would he want to? As long as you birthtards are out there, it makes the Republican party look like a bunch of loons. Us Independents love the Democrats because of this even if they do pass this health care bill. We're out here to get rid of all of you mofo's that are trying to shove your religion and family values down our throats. To us, you're worse that then Red Commies.

I believe bearclaw has covered all of this in the past. Expect pretty much the same if NC responds – that or he/she will start all over from the beginning of his/her argument again.

Yes, brotha! Let us pray! Let us pray to JESUS! Let us pray that the birthtards will go down in history as the biggest LAUGHING stock in America. Let us pray that they will sill be grinding their teeth in their sleep as Obama holds the office of POTUS. Let us pray that their teeth will crack, rot and fall out. Oh, Jesus! We pray to you that these birthtards will finally come to the realization that they have failed – but only after they have sufficiently amused us! AMEN!

Orly needs to know that she not fear the Reaper. He is still coming but has been delayed.

AMEN brother! Let us all also pray that everyone has a safe and loving holiday season with their families. Let us also pray for all the troops fighting to defend our, and the blowers, freedoms so we can have these discussions in the spirit our forefathers intended. As a coming together in a clash of ideals for the betterment all.

Ya have to admit, WND is fairly smart. Here they are capitalizing on all of this birther shit. Even I have thought about putting up a blog where I sell t-shirts and bumper stickers with Obama lies on them. What does it hurt? Obama's not going away and the birthtards aren't ever going to get what they want. So why not make a few bucks off of these people with manure for brains? Best part is they'd be sending their money to me.

aaaah yes…BOC. And, when she loses again…”Go Go Godzilla!” and go collect her sanction!

The LAST thing Judge Land wanted was to see the Orly circus in town for another show. That has to be one of the most thorough thrashing of a simple dismissal he's probably ever put out. If you could read between the lines, I believe he's saying to the appeals court…”Do NOT send this batsh*t crazy woman back to my court!”

It has been reported that Mr&Mrs Obama vistited Kenya over summer of '61 break from college and Stannie was not allowed to board the 4-engine propjob for a trip over the Pacific due to her obvious late-stage of pregnancy w/baby Barack. Hence BHO2 was born in Kenya just like it says on 2 Kenyan BCs and in 3 African newspapers. Granny Obama & the Kenyan Ambassador both verbally agreed with that report. But even if the Obama was born in Hawaii he was born a Brit under British Common Law and at best a dual-citizen under U.S. Code. He could not have been a natural-born citizen due to his mother being under 19YO. Later he became an Indonesian and attended college as a Foreign Student.

Very simple to answer – younger child is not an NBC since father was not a US citizen at the time of child's birth. It does not mater how patriotic the father is.

It is impossible to have a perfect rule that could somehow weed out those who are not loyal to US from being eligible to run for POTUS. Nobody can tell the difference between your case and somebody who may not be loyal to USA only but qualifies to run under your interpretation of rules.

As I mentioned to bearclaw before, I have no doubt that majority of children born in such circumstances are loyal to US. But some of them are not and your interpretation leaves doors wide open for exploitation by enemies of the US.

The requirement that both parents be US citizens makes it more difficult for foreign agents to groom their child as a future US president. As a minimum the rule forces both parents to live in the US for a substantial amount of time before the naturalization and child's birth.

I have no illusion that my interpretation of NBC rule is absolutely secure – however it is MORE secure than your interpretation. Give the fact that the motivation for inclusion of NBC in the eligibility requirement is restriction on who can command the US military, my interpretation is more logic and consistent with the spirit of the Constitution.

When it comes to the national security, you should be advocating for more restrict rules. It is absurd to have children of illegal aliens eligible to run for POTUS.

This is interesting:
“…As a male British citizen by birth, giving birth to a child outside the UK prior to 1983, my father passed his British citizenship to me by operation of UK law….”.

Are you saying that Obama is still a British citizen?

——————————————————————————————————————-
“Are you suggesting that it is probable that a person born in this country, resident here for his entire life, but who happens to have a parent who had foreign citizenship, presents some articulable security risk as President of the United States?

And, to take it one step further, are you suggesting that it is realistic or reasonable that we should judge the loyalty of Obama on the basis of the citizenship of a father who he met only once beyond his infancy?
——————————————————————————————————————-

Obama is not a good example for your argument. He did not live in the USA as a young child. He was raised as a Muslim by a step father in Indonesia.

It is clear to me that a missing father was a big issue for Obama. Look at the title of his book. He was not talking about dreams of his mother.

As a US senator, Obama traveled to Kenya to campaign for Raila Odinga. It is obvious that connection with Kenya plays important role in his life.

Both rules (age 35 and 14 year residency) are heuristic ones. The same is true about the NBC requirement.

Nothing guarantees that persons older than 35 are more mature and responsible that younger folks. That was the motivation behind my question about the age restriction.
The similar reasoning can be applied to the residency requirement. There is no guarantee that person living in the USA for 14 years is more qualified for the job than someone who is resident for shorter period of time.

The NBC requirement is similar – there is no guarantee that a US born child to US citizen parents will be better qualified to be a POTUS than a child born to non-citizen parents.

However, there is no doubt in my mind that all three requirements limit the pool of eligible candidates to those that are more suitable for the office.

Your last sentence implies that naturalized citizens should also be eligible if the personal experience is the only thing that should count.

Using the term “birther” in a condescending, Orwellian manner to discredit decent, hard working Americans who believe that the US Constitution is the law of the land, will not be tolerated.
1. Barack Obama has employed a legion of private and government attorneys to prevent revealing his country of birth. Innocent and eligible persons seeking the office of president do not do that.
2. Barack Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya and a British citizen. “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” was explicitly written to deal with the issue of foreign allegiances at the time of the writing of the US Constitution.
3. Barack Obama’s citizenship and allegiance was further tainted when he was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and Obama became an Indonesian citizen.
4. Some combination of the above allowed Obama to travel to Pakistan in 1981 when travel there was restricted to US citizens.
5. The only document presented by the Obama camp is a Hawaii COLB. There has been no substantiation that it is authentic and it does not establish country of birth. As Lou Dobbs stated, “It is a piece of paper that refers to another piece of paper.”
6. All other documentation, all school records, that would establish country of birth have been kept hidden and restricted.
7. No authentic documentation has been presented to establish that Barack Obama was born in the US.
8. The records of all hospitals in Hawaii have been searched. There is no record of Stanley Ann Obama ever having given birth to a child.
9. Barack Obama’s paternal grandmother in Kenya has stated on multiple occasions that she was present at Obama’s birth in Mombasa.
10. Others have stated, including multiple family members, officials and press, that Obama was born in Kenya.
This has been presented in a manner that a fifth grader can understand. However, if you have any questions, please contact me on this blog.
Failure to learn more about and understand this critical issue and take appropriate measures can only be construed as apathy, ignorance or having an un American agenda. This includes the Mainstream Media and the Fox network.

Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”
Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”
Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”
http://my.wrif.com/mim/index.php?s=Ogego

Later on, Ogego’s assistant, denying that Obama was born in Kenya, insisted Ogego was speaking about Barack Obama Sr., and not President-elect Obama. She said she could not say why Ogego responded the way he did. Listening to the radio interview in its entirety, it is very obvious the interviewers were all talking about President-elect Barack Obama and not his father. We would also expect that Ogego would have said that Obama was not born in Kenya, but there is an attraction there to honor his father. If it were true that Ogego was referring to Obama’s Sr. and not Obama Jr., we should have heard about and received credible evidence as to what preparatory steps had already been taken in Kenya to honor the birth place of Obama Sr. In evaluating Ogego’s statement, we have to also remember that Obama’s grandmother also said that Obama Jr. was born in Kenya. Hence, Ogego’s assistant’s claim that Ogego thought they were talking about Obama’s father does not appear credible.

It is alleged that the Kenyan government authorities have refused to cooperate and have thwarted all efforts by anyone to obtain any documents concerning Obama.

Obama has refused all effort to have him release the following documents, relying on sealing of records and/or privacy laws: Punahou High School records, Occidental College records, Columbia College records, Columbia Thesis paper, Harvard College records, Selective Service Registration, medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Illinois State Senate schedule, Law practice client list, Certified Copy of original Birth Certificate, Harvard Law Review articles that were published, University of Chicago scholarly articles, exit and entry immigration records covering all of Obama's travels out of the United States; passports; and record of baptism, if any.

More likely explanation is that Congress realized that they had no power to redefine the phrase “natural born citizen” to include children born outside the USA.

Your theory hinges on the assumption that the word “natural” has no meaning when used in the phrase “natural born citizen”.

If the common understanding of the NBC definition, at the time when Constitution was written, was the one you advocate, the Constitution would not include the phrase NBC but BC. There would be no confusion in the first place to use the phrase NBC in the Naturalization law passed in 1790.

The following question should be an easy one for a legal expert with clerkship at California Supreme Court:

Was child born in the USA to British father and US mother in 1796 considered a US or a British citizen?

You used 14th Amendment as a basis for NBC definition, yet the person who wrote the 14th Amendment (John Bingham) mentioned parental status in his definition of NBC.

How do we reconcile this contradiction? Should we give preference to your interpretation of Bingham or take his words?

Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
Ambassador Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.”
Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”
Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.”
http://my.wrif.com/mim/index.php?s=Ogego
Later on, Ogego’s assistant, denying that Obama was born in Kenya, insisted Ogego was speaking about Barack Obama Sr., and not President-elect Obama. She said she could not say why Ogego responded the way he did. Listening to the radio interview in its entirety, it is very obvious the interviewers were all talking about President-elect Barack Obama and not his father. We would also expect that Ogego would have said that Obama was not born in Kenya, but there is an attraction there to honor his father. If it were true that Ogego was referring to Obama’s Sr. and not Obama Jr., we should have heard about and received credible evidence as to what preparatory steps had already been taken in Kenya to honor the birth place of Obama Sr. In evaluating Ogego’s statement, we have to also remember that Obama’s grandmother also said that Obama Jr. was born in Kenya. Hence, Ogego’s assistant’s claim that Ogego thought they were talking about Obama’s father does not appear credible.
It is alleged that the Kenyan government authorities have refused to cooperate and have thwarted all efforts by anyone to obtain any documents concerning Obama.
Obama has refused all effort to have him release the following documents, relying on sealing of records and/or privacy laws: Punahou High School records, Occidental College records, Columbia College records, Columbia Thesis paper, Harvard College records, Selective Service Registration, medical records, Illinois State Senate records, Illinois State Senate schedule, Law practice client list, Certified Copy of original Birth Certificate, Harvard Law Review articles that were published, University of Chicago scholarly articles, exit and entry immigration records covering all of Obama's travels out of the United States; passports; and record of baptism, if any.

The NBC requirement has been fulfilled. Obama is not naturalized, unlike you who has been. So, your complaint that somehow this requirement has not been followed is in your own imagination.

Sorry to repost this, but the fact of the matter is it must be effective. Every time I post one of these warnings, the blowers, or should I say NC and all her different monikers, then start typing their same BS with the idea of pushing it down until it no longer appears. So, don't click on their links, it cuts into their cash flow.

WARNING: I see the blowers are back with their web links. I discourage anybody from clicking on their links, they contain nothing but unprovable theories and forged documents. There have also been reports of some sites attempting to load viruses on your computers. These sites make their money by their traffic numbers, the best way to shut these folks down is to QUIT clicking on their links…maybe then they can get out of their mother's basements and get a real job.

Debunked months ago.

Have a nice Christmas, troll.

Asked, answered, and debunked months ago, as you well know.

Still waiting for any proof that your wife is a Native American, your daughter with the Japanese name was originally Korean, or her boyfriend the Hispanic was either born again or in a gang. Why are you hiding this crucial evidence that you aren't an inbred white bigot living in a trailer?

Second posting of the same debunked bullshit.

Word Net Daily, Newsmax, the Intellectual Conservative, Red State, the Free Republic, and the hoax sites you've been visiting are not credible news sources.

Also, please stop lying about Secretary Clinton's 2012 intentions, or your support of her at any time, in any way. It's not particularly attractive.

Utterly wrong. Have you spoken to a law professor yet? It's only been suggested about a hundred times over the last few months.

NC: “It is impossible to have a perfect rule that could somehow weed out those who are not loyal to US from being eligible to run for POTUS. Nobody can tell the difference between your case and somebody who may not be loyal to USA only but qualifies to run under your interpretation of rules.”

Again, it is not our interpretation of rules, it is the US interpretation. I know this because it isn't a secret who Obama's father was, it's out there for all to see and know. Nobody who has any knowledge of the constitution, Professors, Judges, Lawyers (except radical ones who can't stand a black man being President), etc. do not agree with you. The requirement eliminates you from running, since you are a naturalized citizen. That was the protection they had in mind when they wrote it. If you wish to change the rules, consult your congressman. Michael Steele can point out the ones that are scared of blacks for you, since they're also scared of him.

And, again, this was all known about him before the election. The voters are then allowed to weigh those facts for/against him. The majority decided he was the better person to lead the country. Your opinion is worth exactly 1 vote. You lost.

Sectioned redacted and edited for factual accuracy:
“As a US senator, Obama traveled to Kenya on a multi-nation African trip with other Senators and appeared with Raila Odinga. Odinga later used his appearance with Obama to inflate his candidacy without Obama's knowledge or sanction.”