"Don’t suppress the Spirit, and don’t stifle those who have a word from the Master. On the other hand, don’t be gullible. Check out everything, and keep only what’s good. Throw out anything tainted with evil."
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22 (The Message)

Can Anyone Vouch for Obama’s History? What About His Columbia Records?

It is already known that nobody has stepped forward to vouch for witnessing or being connected to Mr. Obama’s birth as alleged to have been in some Hawaiian hospital. And now it appears that nobody seems to while some individuals associated with Columbia University seem to remember their fellow classmate at Columbia University (see the mixed and varied commentary associated with this posting), nobody appears to be able to vouch for his records.

The Anti-Mullah blog posted this story last Sunday; I did some further research to find out from whence they pulled much of the verbiage in their posting.

First, Reason.com posted an article back in September, 2008 in which they interviewed the Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate, Wayne Allen Root (poignantly excerpted quotes):

Root is no fan of the Democratic nominee: “A vote for Obama is four years of Karl Marx, and no one should be happy about that,” he told us and a few genial young libertarian activists over cocktails. “He’s a communist! I don’t care what anybody says. The guy’s a communist…. And his mother was a card-carrying communist, and he says she’s the most important person in his entire life; he learned everything from her.”

But the thing Root really wanted to talk about was Obama’s grades. Specifically, he was willing to bet a million dollars that he earned a better grade point average at Columbia than his old classmate, and that the only reason Obama went on to Harvard Law School was the color of his skin. …

“I think the most dangerous thing you should know about Barack Obama is that I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever! … Where was Obama? He wasn’t an outgoing young man, no one ever heard of him. …

Class of ’83 political science, pre-law Columbia University. You don’t get more exact than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him. At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, 20th reunion, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! Who was he, and five years ago, nobody even knew who he was.” …

There’s much more at the posting.

It also appears that The New York Times had interviewed Mr. Root during the next month:

Neither one knew their famous Columbia classmate, Barack Obama. “I’ve not only not met him,” Mr. Root said, “I’ve not met anybody who met him.”

Part of Anti-Mullah’s posting covered reporting on the part of Fox News (h/t NewsHounds, August, 2008, excerpted):

The FOX website released a collection of information about Obama to go along with their examination of his “character and conduct’. The choice of material pretty much illustrates the message they crafted in last night’s piece. …

Although time was spent exploring Obama’s community work in Chicago there was very little emphasis on his teaching career at the University of Chicago. Although viewers were informed that after interviewing 400 Columbia University graduates none of them knew Barack Obama when he attended, they didn’t bother to interview even one of his students about their experiences in Obama’s class. Wouldn’t that have provided insight into the candidates character?

The friendship with Sohale Siddiqi who he meant when he left home for the first time at 18 to attend Occidental College was made into a big deal during the documentary. They made a point to note that Obama visited Pakistan at age 20 to visit Siddiqi’s family. Then gravely explored Obama rooming with him in New York when he first got there alone, broke and homeless to go to Columbia. Obama had written about being forced to sleep on the streets for a few nights and waking up in an alley with a chicken pecking at him. FOX News managed to use it to connect Obama to the drug world with a claim from a New York City detective that the alley was located in a rough neighborhood run by Dominican drug lords.It’s doubtful that they were trying to stress that Obama’s poverty had put him in danger. The article about Obama and Saddiqi on the website is far more positive and objective than last night’s coverage.

Part of the last link in the above quote to The Seattle Times:

The Obama campaign declined to discuss Obama’s time at Columbia and his friendships in general. It won’t, for example, release his transcript or name his friends. It did, however, list five locations where Obama lived during his four years here: three on Manhattan’s Upper West Side and two in Brooklyn – one in Park Slope, the other in Brooklyn Heights. His memoir mentions two others on Manhattan’s Upper East Side.

Naturally, there’s the question of Columbia’s yearbook. This question is more than fully covered by DBKP and further commentary over at FreeRepublic; both links are certainly worth investigating for more insights into next to no background on this President.

While part of the story is dealing with Mr. Obama’s presence at Columbia University, I would invite all of my readers to not miss the bigger point here:

There is clearly precious little evidence showing substantial bona fides for this President. And for someone who claims to want to operate within the realm of transparency, one could not be any more opaque.

In related eligibility news, here are two links regarding the now-dismissed but promised-to-be-appealed Kerchner v. Obama case:

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)

If you liked this post, subscribe to my RSS feed!

426 Responses to “Can Anyone Vouch for Obama’s History? What About His Columbia Records?

  • 1
    siseduermapierda
    October 21st, 2009 23:23

    “There is clearly precious little evidence showing substantial bona fides for this President. ”

    Are you trying to plant the suggestion Barack Obama didn’t earn a BA in Political Science from Columbia University in 1983? Because you’ll have to do a lot better than all that innuendo up there. But of course that’s what it all is isn’t – an ongoing smear of the President using rumor, speculation and innuendo. Very poorly done Phil. Frankly I’m surprised. You normally do much better than this.

  • 2
    Larry
    October 21st, 2009 23:31

    Thanks Phil.

  • 3
    Linda
    October 21st, 2009 23:59

    There was all those unpaid parking tickets that mysteriously got paid off with an anonymous credit card right before Hillary dropped out of the running.

    Would be interesting to see the dates on those tickets.

  • 4
    sus
    October 22nd, 2009 00:12

    An article written by Barack Obama published in the Columbia “weekly sundial”, 1983:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/10978031/Obama-1983-article

    Columbia’s President sent an email:

    “Dear Columbian,

    Yesterday’s election was historic, of course, and all of us who have graduated from Columbia have special reason for excitement. We note with pride that Barack Obama ‘83CC will be not only the first African-American but also the first Columbia degree-holder to occupy the Oval Office.

    At Columbia we think continually about our role in helping to prepare remarkable men and women for leadership. With one alumnus, David Paterson ‘78CC, now serving as Governor of New York and another elected to the nation’s highest office, we are reminded of the University’s core commitment to public service and its tradition of producing outstanding leaders for our nation and our world.

    You can read more about President-elect Barack Obama and Columbia in this Columbia news announcement. Whatever our political inclination, we can all take pride in having a Columbian in the White House.
    All the best,

    Lee C. Bollinger ‘71LAW
    President
    Columbia University”

    http://gawker.com/5078266/columbia-remembers-obama-even-if-libertarian-loser-vp-candidate-cant

    What is so strange about a guy who was admittedly a partier at Occidental, buckeled down and studied?

    Regarding the mysterious Thesis, Obama’s old professor Michael Baron says he recalls that Obama got an “A”:
    http://www.bwog.net/articles/obama_s_schoolwork_verily_a_mystery

    Barack Obama’s addresses as a student were listed in Columbia directories.
    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/recollections-of-obamas-ex-roommate/

    From the NYSun:

    “Federal law limits the information that Columbia can release about Mr. Obama’s time there. A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors, Mr. Connolly said, though specific information on his grades is sealed. A program from the 1983 graduation ceremony lists him as a graduate.

    More is known about Mr. McCain’s experience at the United States Naval Academy, where he was a self-described troublemaker and graduated in the bottom 1% of his class. The McCain campaign has declined to release his transcript, saying that his performance at the academy can only be viewed in the context of his larger military career.”

    http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/

    Phil, please tweet when you have Palin’s grades listed. Did she graduate Magna Cum Laude as Obama did?

    And McCain’s school records as well. Please. Just tweet when that article is up. :)

  • 5
    Anothereader
    October 22nd, 2009 00:33

    sise,

    Let’s see the proof that he graduated. Like an official diploma, or someone who remembers him being there. Or really, any independently verifiable evidence.

    Of course, I know what your answer will be. He has made a claim, and that is proof enough for you.

  • 6
    Lee
    October 22nd, 2009 01:59

    siseduermapierda.. where’s the proof he earned any degree or that he is who he says he is ????????

  • 7
    rtcr
    October 22nd, 2009 02:19

    In fact, he is: “A man whose Law School Admission Test scores and grades at Columbia University are known to have been mediocre, but was admitted to Harvard Law School through the intervention of a Saudi named Khalid al-Mansour.”

    http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=3132.msg17895;topicseen#new

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12716

  • 8
    rwoodward
    October 22nd, 2009 02:43

    Good Job Phil,

    Hopefully someday we will finally learn who this criminal is sitting in the white house. The Democrate party has sold thier soul to somebody or some “thing”. Lets paralyze this impostor in 2010 and hopefully we can just ignore him for the rest of his miserable term.

  • 9
    William
    October 22nd, 2009 02:55

    siseduermapierda? Did he? Just asking. I thought his records were sealed, so how do you know? What is the evidence that he did?

  • 10
    louisianacajun
    October 22nd, 2009 04:06

    hey siseduermapierda- then show us the records, like his birth, education, medical, travel, etc. like everyone else who runs has. that’s all

  • 11
    Sue
    October 22nd, 2009 05:51

    “In related eligibility news, here are two links regarding the now-dismissed but promised-to-be-appealed Kerchner v. Obama case:”

    Interesting how these attacks are always connected to another lawsuit being dismissed.

  • 12
    Sue
    October 22nd, 2009 05:56

    “There was all those unpaid parking tickets that mysteriously got paid off with an anonymous credit card right before Hillary dropped out of the running.”

    Anonymous credit card? Whoever called trying to find out information was informed: “due to privacy laws and security concerns, we cannot give out that information.”

    I sure hope nobody ever divulges my credit card information to anyone.

  • 13
    bystander
    October 22nd, 2009 06:09

    Phil – are you actually in doubt that Obama attended Columbia, or is it that it suits your agenda to portray everything in his background as shrouded in mystery? Do you think Columbia lied when they confirmed his attendance? Do you think every year book has been retrospectively photoshopped? And if so, to what end? Do you think he was somewhere else, and all witnesses to him being somewhere else have been mysteriously silenced? And finally, is there no end to birthers gullibility?

  • 14
    Pete
    October 22nd, 2009 08:17

    Bystander, siseduermapeirda,sue,

    I have seen the Columbia questions and quotes before. 1983 graduation seems a bit strange since he transferred from another college. During that time he would have lost MANY MANY credits in the transfer. Since he started college in 1979-1980, it would have been difficult to graduate in 4 years after a transfer mid-college. I have not been able to substantiate that he ever attended and graduated from Columbia. I have gone to Occidental College website and found confirmation that Obama spent two years there, did not graduate, and records are unreleased. I have not been able to confirm Columbia and Obama graduation. You have attacked phil, please provide a link to an official at Columbia University confirming Obama graduate there in 1983, as you say, with a BA.

    I am not saying that he didn’t graduate from there, I just can’t find an OFFICIAL statement from Columbia that he did so, and did it in 1983.

  • 15
    siseduermapierda
    October 22nd, 2009 08:26

    rwoodward says:
    October 22, 2009 at 2:43 am
    *somebody or some “thing”. *

    Are you suggesting the President of the United States is not a human being? Smear Smear Smear, stooping lower and lower and lower. Disgraceful.

  • 16
    siseduermapierda
    October 22nd, 2009 08:30

    Pete says:
    October 22, 2009 at 8:17 am
    *You have attacked phil, please provide a link to an official at Columbia University confirming Obama graduate there in 1983, as you say, with a BA.*

    What is it about not being able to understand the burden of proof? Phil smeared Barack Obama. The burden is on him and you and all the people accusing him of not being who he says he is to prove he’s not. Barack Obama has the benefit of the assumption that he is truthful until YOU prove otherwise. The whole mode of operation of the Obama deniers is to continue to try to shift the burden of proof onto Obama. You’re not fooling anyone.

    As far as transferring credits, you have no way of knowing what transferred and what didn’t. But you want to smear him anyway. Smear and Smear and Smear some more. Sickening.

  • 17
    Black Lion
    October 22nd, 2009 08:32

    “It is already known that nobody has stepped forward to vouch for witnessing or being connected to Mr. Obama’s birth as alleged to have been in some Hawaiian hospital..”

    That is not a fair statement. To expect hospital workers to remember a specific birth from 48 years ago is nearly impossible. And for those people to be alive now is also nearly impossible. That is why the COLB exists. And that is why the vital records of the state of HI exist. So that we don’t need someone to “verify” that I was born somewhere. The COLB, or BC is all the proof you need. And at last check what hospital is irrelevant. The only relevant fact is whether or not President Obama was born in HI. And all of the admissible evidence says yes.

    “But the thing Root really wanted to talk about was Obama’s grades. Specifically, he was willing to bet a million dollars that he earned a better grade point average at Columbia than his old classmate, and that the only reason Obama went on to Harvard Law School was the color of his skin. …”

    I guess Mr. Root is channeling his inner Pat Buchannan or David Duke. In other words the only way someone of color could attend Harvard is because of affirmative action. Because in Mr. Root’s eyes there is no way someone of color could be smart enough to get into Havard Law School. And I am sure that is why he was made editor of the law review. Just because of his skin color.

    “I think the most dangerous thing you should know about Barack Obama is that I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knows him, and they all know me. I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever! … Where was Obama? He wasn’t an outgoing young man, no one ever heard of him. …

    This statement by Wayne Allen Root means that he is basically implying that somehow Columbia University is lying or covering up for the President. That is ridiculous. I can tell you right now the teachers I had at schools I went to for undergrad and grad would not remember me. And with the exception of a couple of friends, no other classmates would remember me either. Unless a person was in the student government or an athlete, or unless you went to a small college or university, the odds of being remembered by staff 20 plus years later is small also. So unless they ran in the same circles, it is very plausible that they wouldn’t know each other.

    Either way it is incubment on Mr. Root or others to prove that he didn’t go to Columbia. Columbia has verified he has attended and what his degree was in. And under privacy laws that is all what they are allowed to verify. It seems like some people want the federal privacy laws, which protect all Americans, to not apply in this instance. Most Americans are fine with Columbia and Harvard verifying that he attended and obtained a degree. The implication that somehow some of the finest institutions in America would be lying is ridiculous and farfetched. Even if you were applying for a job, which is what the birhters always like to say, no employer would ask for or be entitled to more information than that. This is a definate non story.

  • 18
    siseduermapierda
    October 22nd, 2009 08:36

    Here you go Smear- mongers! Front page of the Columbia News Nov 5, 2008: Barack Obama, CC’83, First Columbia Graduate Elected President of the United States

    With an official acknowledgement by the President of Columbia University that Barack Obama is a graduate of Columbia University.
    “We note with pride that Barack Obama will not only be the nation’s first African American president, he will also be the first Columbia graduate to occupy the Oval Office,” Columbia president Lee C. Bollinger said.

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/08/11/obama.html

    Where’s your retraction Phil?

  • 19
    bystander
    October 22nd, 2009 08:38

    Pete got confused and said:

    You have attacked phil, please provide a link to an official at Columbia University confirming Obama graduate there in 1983, as you say, with a BA.

    Please re-read my post. I asked if Phil doubted Obama’s attendance. I made no mention of graduation.

  • 20
    Sue
    October 22nd, 2009 08:49

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/08/11/obama.html
    “We note with pride that Barack Obama will not only be the nation’s first African American president, he will also be the first Columbia graduate to occupy the Oval Office,” Columbia president Lee C. Bollinger said. “Senator John McCain is also a member of the Columbia family, as the McCains’ daughter is a recent graduate of Columbia College. We wish him well in continuing his record of service to our country.”

  • 21
    nicknack
    October 22nd, 2009 08:55

    We have a pool on the rachel maddow show. We are trying to figure out what Ovamits birth weight was. If anyone knows please pass it on.

  • 22
    Black Lion
    October 22nd, 2009 09:12

    An article on President Obama from February 6, 1990 regarding Havard….

    http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html

    “The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago’s South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.”

    From the Harvard Crimson…

    “The presidential hopeful graduated magna cum laude from the Law School in 1991; his wife earned the degree three years earlier.”

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=516664

    Excerpts from a 2005 article from Columbia…

    Barack Obama ’83 was sworn in this month as the sole African American in the U.S. Senate, and only the fifth in history. He is the highest-ranking African-American elected official in the United States.

    “He changed course junior year when he transferred to Columbia.”

    “As he pursued a political science degree, specializing in international relations, Obama says he was somewhat involved with the Black Students Organization and participated in anti-apartheid activities. “Mostly, my years at Columbia were an intense period of study,” he says. “When I transferred, I decided to buckle down and get serious. I spent a lot of time in the library. I didn’t socialize that much. I was like a monk.”

    http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct_archive/jan05/cover.php

    From Wikpedia…

    “Following high school, he moved to Los Angeles in 1979 to attend Occidental College. After two years he transferred in 1981 to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science with a specialization in international relations and graduated with a B.A. in 1983.”

    “Obama entered Harvard Law School in late 1988. He was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review at the end of his first year, and president of the journal in his second year. During his summers, he returned to Chicago, where he worked as a summer associate at the law firms of Sidley Austin in 1989 and Hopkins & Sutter in 1990. After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude from Harvard in 1991, he returned to Chicago”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Hussein_Obama#cite_note-21

    The information was easy to find. If you think that the newspapers from Harvard or Columbia would write about someone that did not attend or graduate from their schools, you are mistaken. These universities know that the President attended. And they have celebrated it. Of course they cannot release grades or transcripts, but that is irrelevant. The bottom line is that regardless of the innuendo, the only people that do not think that he attended these schools are crazy and are looking to believe anything negative about the President. These allegations are just another smear attempt by the birthers.

  • 23
    Anonymous
    October 22nd, 2009 09:35

    Phil,

    Thanks for all you do. I really am disgusted with all the obot comments on your site and don’t visit or comment as much as I used to because of them.

    You realize of course, the more the obots spout off and try to derail your postings, the more they show that you are getting to them and they have to work that much harder at discrediting you and anyone who asks simple questions like “prove it”.

    Sometimes, I’d like to see the obots go away, but when I realize they wouldn’t be here at all if there wasn’t something to what you say, I want more to show up. WTG!

    Am I sick and twisted, or what?

    Maybe you could push the Larry Sinclair story more and keep them busy with that bombshell!

    Thanks again, Phil. You do great things by keeping this blog going!

  • 24
    siseduermapierda
    October 22nd, 2009 09:40

    Can anyone vouch for Obama? Oh yes the President of Columbia Did!

    Nov 5 2008, Columbia News:

    “We note with pride that Barack Obama will not only be the nation’s first African American president, he will also be the first Columbia graduate to occupy the Oval Office,” Columbia president Lee C. Bollinger said.

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/08/11/obama.html

  • 25
    JBH
    October 22nd, 2009 09:51

    Why don’t we to continue ask the questions no one has answered yet from the WH?

    1. Which of the two hospitals was BO born in???????????????????
    2. And who was his doctor??????

    JBH

  • 26
    misanthropicus
    October 22nd, 2009 09:53

    When “The Truman Show” Goes “The Manchurian Candidate” -

    Phil, excellent & timely piece – now, when Obama is rapidly (and deservedly) declining in polls, his leadership abilities are more and more questioned, and Obama’s true political views and INTENTIONS HAVE BECAME A MAJOR SOURCE OF ANXIETY for this nation and (finally!) for his absurd overseas adorers, your piece should become a MUST read for everybody.

    I have add though that you were a bit too merciful with this dangerous fraudster that Obama is, by not mentioning another facet of the mascarade that his “immersed in study”, “Columbia tenure” was/ is – i.e. his graduation work there:

    Obama claimed, in his full of immediacy (Bill Ayres written) autobiography “Dreams From My Father” that his Columbia graduation thesis was “US-Soviet Nuclear Dissarmament Issues In The 80-s” – however, in his second autophiographical installement, equally full of immediacy (& equally Bill Ayres written & Revered Wright inspired), “The Audacity Of Hope”, he claims that the topic and title of his Columbia graduation thesis was… “North-South Relationships In The Post Colonial World”.

    Very impressive achievements, indeed – yet, as all other Obama Columbia records you mentioned, neither thesis is available for scrutiny, and apparently mister Obama is really upset when queried about them, and about their (hypothetical) content and views.

    And topping this curious situation we have a third remarkable element – Columbia U, under questioning acknowledged that the school actually DIDN”T EVEN HAVE AT THAT TIME A THESIS AS GRADUATION REQUIREMENT FOR THE TRACK OBAMA CLAIMS THAT HE WAS ENROLLED IN.

    When you lie too much, you’ll eventually get entagled in your lies -not news, and (still president) Obama’s situation shows –

    Barack Obama, paragon of promise, of integrity, of transparency, of honesty, of positive intentions is un-masked as the main character of an enormous Potempkiniade (I call it “When The Truman Show Goes The Manchrian Candidate”) – a petty, vain, magalomanic charlatan, supported by enormous staging, extras, secondary characters, complicit media, cynical, anti-American enablers, and… certainly other forces that wish no good to America.

    Good job, Phil, keep the irons hot -

  • 27
    Sue
    October 22nd, 2009 09:54

    President Obama’s Columbia college records “sealed?” Nope. Don’t any of you have children who are college students? You cannot even get your child’s college records. So, are your child’s college records “sealed?” Yet, you “demand” President Obama’s college records. Too funny.

    http://www.hartwick.edu/x1964.xml

    “Why can’t I get my son/daughter’s grades/schedule? I’m paying the bills!
    FERPA does not permit Hartwick to release non-directory information without the signed consent of your child. Per Hartwick policy, regardless of whether written consent has been granted by a student, we do not release grade (including GPA) or registration (class schedule, etc.) information over the phone.”

    http://www.registrar.psu.edu/confidentiality/FERPA_scenarios.cfm

  • 28
    misanthropicus
    October 22nd, 2009 09:57

    RE siseduermapierda says:

    “[...] Are you trying to plant the suggestion Barack Obama didn’t earn a BA in Political Science from Columbia University in 1983?
    [...]”

    Yes, Sise, Obama didn’t earn a BS i n political scient from Columbia U in 1983 – iy yes, prove it Sise, prove it, come with anything from Columbia that could prove that Obama was ever registered for a class there.

    Provide this evidence, Sise, come, provide this evidence -

  • 29
    misanthropicus
    October 22nd, 2009 10:00

    RE siseduermapierda:

    [...] Are you suggesting the President of the United States is not a human being? Smear Smear Smear, stooping lower and lower and lower. Disgraceful. [...]

    My. Sise, but when you are indignant, you sure are indignant -

  • 30
    siseduermapierda
    October 22nd, 2009 10:02

    misanthropicus says:
    October 22, 2009 at 9:53 am
    *Phil, excellent & timely piece*

    Timely? It’s completely wrong!!! And so easily debunked it’s sad. Poorly researched smear.

    Nov 5 2008, Columbia News:

    “We note with pride that Barack Obama will not only be the nation’s first African American president, he will also be the first Columbia graduate to occupy the Oval Office,” Columbia president Lee C. Bollinger said.

    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/08/11/obama.html

  • 31
    misanthropicus
    October 22nd, 2009 10:08

    RE (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/08/11/obama.html)
    “We note with pride that Barack Obama will not only be the nation’s first African American president, he will also be the first Columbia graduate to occupy the Oval Office,” Columbia president Lee C. Bollinger said.”

    You, all pathetic Obamatons – Bollinger’s words in a student newspaper are NOT PROOF THAT OBAMA EVER ATTENDED OR GRADUATED FROM THAT SCHOOL.

    Exactly like in Fukino’s case, we need the ORIGINAR DOCUMENT ON WHICH THAT STATEMENT WAS BASED UPON.

    Transcript, baby, transcript – otherwise, you Obamatons, keep wearing red-noses, yellow pants, glowing green wigs and keep squeaking ballons at the street corners and yell that Obama is a legitimate president -

    Transcripts, baby, transcripts – and at the end of your wits you are – heh-heh-heh -

  • 32
    misanthropicus
    October 22nd, 2009 10:11

    RE siseduermapierda says:

    [...] As far as transferring credits, you have no way of knowing what transferred and what didn’t. [...]

    Of course you can, Sise, of course – Sise apparently Phil hit in a really weak point in Obama’s facade.
    I haven’t seen you so hysterical and inconclusive for long – heh-he-heh!

  • 33
    misanthropicus
    October 22nd, 2009 10:16

    Phi, you are a winner.
    It’s so funny to see how disoriented and angry these Obamatons are – in the Obama’s Columbia fraudulence (as in most other cases regarding the larger fraud that the Obama presidency is), they cannot come with a defense other than hollering “smear” “racism” etc. etc.

  • 34
    Sue
    October 22nd, 2009 10:19

    “Provide this evidence, Sise, come, provide this evidence -”

    First of all, this has absolutely nothing to do with the eligibility issue.

    Second, Sise doesn’t have to prove or provide anything. YOU have to prove President Obama didn’t graduate from Columbia University. The burden of proof is on you.

  • 35
    Black Lion
    October 22nd, 2009 10:24

    misanthropicus says:
    October 22, 2009 at 10:08 am

    Transcript, baby, transcript – otherwise, you Obamatons, keep wearing red-noses, yellow pants, glowing green wigs and keep squeaking ballons at the street corners and yell that Obama is a legitimate president -

    Transcripts, baby, transcripts – and at the end of your wits you are – heh-heh-heh
    ___________________________________________________________________
    The so called “Obamatons” are not the ones at their wits end. It is the birthers, losing all of the cases out there and grasping for straws, which in this case repeating innuendo from some guy that did not like Obama saying that he could not find anyone that remembered him. This is so pathetic that it borders on ridiculous.

    The transacripts are protected by privacy regulations, so they will never be seen. And nor should they. The President of a university knows who attended and did not attend his university. Anyone with half a brain knows that if the President did not go to these schools they would have released a statement saying that there is no records of Obama attending these schools. You birthers need to find some evidence that he did not attend Columbia or Harvard. The President does not have to prove that he did.

    Where is the evidence that the President did not go to those schools? So far there has been NO evidence that suggests otherwise. All we have is some jealous bigot by the name of Root making unfounded allegations with no proof. Until there is some real proof, this is a non-story. Just another case of attempting to smear the President of the United States.

  • 36
    Black Lion
    October 22nd, 2009 10:41

    misanthropicus says:
    October 22, 2009 at 10:16 am
    Phi, you are a winner.
    It’s so funny to see how disoriented and angry these Obamatons are – in the Obama’s Columbia fraudulence (as in most other cases regarding the larger fraud that the Obama presidency is), they cannot come with a defense other than hollering “smear” “racism” etc. etc.
    __________________________________________________________________
    So you support smearing someone or making allegations against a person without providing any proof? That is basically what you are saying. There is no EVIDENCE of any “fraudlence” other than a jealous bigot named Root making unsubstantiated claims. No one defending President Obama’s right to be President is worried by this non-story, since it is so easily debunked by anyone with common sense.

    We all know that if you are predisposed to believe in the fake Kenyan BC’s, the gigantic conspiracy theory about giving birth in Kenya and making it to HI, and the other crazy birther rants, then you will believe this obvious false allegation. Most others with common sense see it for what it is. More of the same birther crap.

  • 37
    Anonymous
    October 22nd, 2009 10:53

    OK, count them. How many obots posted since I said that about Larry Sinclair?

    Too funny, especially you sise! hahahaha

    Thanks for proving my point!

    You should be tired of this. What motivates you so?

  • 38
    Black Lion
    October 22nd, 2009 10:53

    misanthropicus says:
    October 22, 2009 at 9:53 am

    Obama claimed, in his full of immediacy (Bill Ayres written) autobiography “Dreams From My Father” that his Columbia graduation thesis was “US-Soviet Nuclear Dissarmament Issues In The 80-s” – however, in his second autophiographical installement, equally full of immediacy (& equally Bill Ayres written & Revered Wright inspired), “The Audacity Of Hope”, he claims that the topic and title of his Columbia graduation thesis was… “North-South Relationships In The Post Colonial World”.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    So now birthers are reduced to repeating every possible smear? The “Bill Ayers” written book. That would be nice if it was true.
    Even Newsmax, a conservative as they come, has given up on that lie…

    Obama Wrote His Own Book — Unlike JFK

    http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/obama_jfk_author/2009/10/15/272859.html

    “You don’t have to be an FBI agent to recognize that even if true, no one would make such an admission in those circumstances. Moreover, having read the book and Obama’s more recent “The Audacity of Hope,” I can say that the writing in both books is so exceptional that very few authors — and certainly not Ayers — could have written them.”

    Just to show you that the right did try and get an expert to make that statement, an English professor in Oxford named Peter Millican, and his preliminary analysis seemed to not support the allegations of Cashill…..

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?from=20090115

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5063279.ece

    “Millican took a preliminary look and found the charges “very implausible”. A deal was agreed for more detailed research but when Millican said the results had to be made public, even if no link to Ayers was proved, interest waned. Millican said: “I thought it was extremely unlikely that we would get a positive result. It is the sort of thing where people make claims after seeing a few crude similarities and go overboard on them.”

    In other words all of these so called smears against the President of the United States are easily disproved. That is what makes this most entertaining. No matter what lie the birthers make up, it can be easily disproven. I am sure what is next is that the President never went to Harvard or was admitted to the bar in IL. Sooner or later we will see that smear because the birthers are getting desperate.

    What is most amazing is how the birthers will believe anything negative about the President without any proof but any evidence that supports the proof they require some sort of higher standard. It really shows underneath what their true motives really are.

  • 39
    Jim Delaney
    October 22nd, 2009 10:53

    I just scanned these posts hoping for a stream of cogent, instructive and intelligent discussion. Despite the gravity of this subject, I am amazed and deeply disappointed by the level of meaningless vitriol primarily emanating from Obama supporters. Very troubling. Everyone needs to calm down and eschew ideology and political party affiliation in favor of rational discourse. For those trying to be evenhanded and thoughtful, my hat is off to you.

  • 40
    Sue
    October 22nd, 2009 10:59

    “Exactly like in Fukino’s case, we need the ORIGINAR DOCUMENT ON WHICH THAT STATEMENT WAS BASED UPON.”

    “We” will never have the “original document.” The only document that “might” ever be released would be a certified copy of the original birth certificate and it would not be released to “We.”

    You cannot even obtain your “original birth certificate.”

    http://www.wikihow.com/Get-Your-Original-Birth-Certificate
    “First thing to know, you can never get your “original” birth certificate. That forever remains on file with the town or city where you were born. What you need to get it a Certified Copy of your original birth certificate.”

  • 41
    Sue
    October 22nd, 2009 11:04

    “What motivates you so?”

    To correct false and misleading information.

  • 42
    misanthropicus
    October 22nd, 2009 11:08

    RE Black Lion, Sue, Sise & the rest of Obamatons:

    Prove it, prove it! You Obamatons are nothing but a bunch of frustrated losers. With Obama’s – sorry, Milli-Vanilli’s – sorry Truman’s Show – sorry, Manchurian candidate’ – rating approval at an all time low (and no betterment is sight, as well), all what you can do is to swarm around, trying to confuse and obfuscate.

    And here is a perfect example – I said in my post vis-a-vis Phil’s analyzing Obama’s strange Columbia record:

    “[...] Obama claimed, in [...[ autobiography “Dreams From My Father” that his Columbia graduation thesis was “US-Soviet Nuclear Dissarmament Issues In The 80-s” – however, in his second autophiographical installement, [...] “The Audacity Of Hope”, he claims that the topic and title of his Columbia graduation thesis was… “North-South Relationships In The Post Colonial World”.
    [...] as all other Obama Columbia records you mentioned, neither thesis is available for scrutiny, and apparently mister Obama is really upset when queried about them, and about their (hypothetical) content and views. [...]
    And topping this curious situation we have a third remarkable element – Columbia U, under questioning acknowledged that the school actually DIDN”T EVEN HAVE AT THAT TIME A THESIS AS GRADUATION REQUIREMENT FOR THE TRACK OBAMA CLAIMS THAT HE WAS ENROLLED IN. [...]”

    And my addition belongs to the core of Phil’s article describing Obama’s bizzare academic record, ISSUE you stubbornly (and clumsily) avoid to touch, trying to push the discussion on irrelevant tangents -
    So, explain this, collection of Obots, explain this – and stop yakking about smear etc.
    Explain Obama’s Columbia U thesis problem – great opportunity to move from Clowns Central temps in full time positions -

    Explain – heh-heh-heh -

    Poor Brygenon, call him, he might come with a new way of twisting those balloons -

  • 43
    misanthropicus
    October 22nd, 2009 11:16

    RE: Black Lion RE misanthropicus:

    [...] So now birthers are reduced to repeating every possible smear? The “Bill Ayers” written book. That would be nice if it was true.[...]

    Heh, you’re trying to deflect the real issue of this discussion, i.e. Obama’s Columbia fraudulence as very well described by Phil.
    And part of this is my addition mentioning Obama’s mystery graduation thesis at Columbia -

    Black Lion, that’s the issue you need to address in this discussion, not Bill Ayres or Newsmax -

    Come, Black Lion be a nice sport and address Obama’s double Columbia U graduatio n thesis (at a time when Columbia had no such requirment) –

    Do it, BL, show us that you really can -

  • 44
    SanDiegoSam
    October 22nd, 2009 11:29

    Quickly running between meetings, I don’t have time to provide more than this link:

    http://www.wikicu.com/Barack_Obama

    In it, he is remembered by professors and friends at Columbia, and an article he published for a campus newspaper is also mentioned. I’ll find more such references when I can get back later today.

  • 45
    Sue
    October 22nd, 2009 11:44

    As always, with yet another birther lawsuit dismissed, the anti Obama blogs start recycling the same old debunked smears.

    Orly’s will be next.

  • 46
    Chris
    October 22nd, 2009 11:44

    Then there is the curious statement when he was running for the Senate against Alan Keyes. Keys says someting like, “You are not even a US citizen, you were born in Kenya.” To which Hussen replies, “So what? I running for Senator, not the Presidency.” AP carried this headline: “Kenyan-Born Obama Runs for the Senate”. I remember reading it while the election was underway. Not many Kenyans run for office in the US.

    Having virtually admitted he was born in Kenya and now that he is President, he seems to have been reborn in Hawaii. Makes one’s head spin.

  • 47
    jvn
    October 22nd, 2009 12:03

    I find it kind of ironic Phil, that you accuse me of “smearing” birthers because I point out the calls for violent sedition that are made on occasion here, even though anybody who can read can see those calls – they’re not subtle – yet you publish claims that the President didn’t attend Columbia despite Columbia’s statement’s of pride about a Columbia graduate being elected President?

    Out of the thousands who attended Columbia during the time the President was there (how many in total 100,000? More?), one guy – ONE GUY – says neither he nor “anybody he knows” remembers the President – and THAT is “proof” over the statements from the university itself?

    You’ve had a reputation for being someone who was fair and balanced in pursuit of the truth – are you giving that up now?

  • 48
    Anonymous
    October 22nd, 2009 12:06

    Sue,

    Wish you’d work as hard on Obama in regards to truth!

    Oops, I mean corrections for false and misleading information!

  • 49
    jvn
    October 22nd, 2009 12:10

    Oh, and maybe y’all should take a look at this story:

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

    Teacher from Kenmore recalls Obama was a focused student

    By Paula Voell
    NEWS STAFF REPORTER

    When Barack Hussein Obama places his hand on the Bible today to take the oath of office as 44th president of the United States, Barbara Nelson of Kenmore will undoubtedly think back to the day he was born. It was Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu.

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

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

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

    —————————————————–

    More at the link…

  • 50
    Sue
    October 22nd, 2009 12:29

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/01/15/obama_juvenalia_popping_up_all.html
    “Obama Juvenilia Popping Up All Over
    By Robin Shulman
    Few people want to be judged in later life by what they did and said in college. But when someone is about to become president of the United States, his juvenilia, when it surfaces, is immediately combed in full public view for clues about the man he has become.

    This week, it was a Barack Obama’s 1983 foray into journalism that came to light, a piece about the campus antiwar movement published in a Columbia University newspaper, The Sundial. Interesting in and of itself, it’s just one of a series of pieces of Obama’s past to surface recently that spotlight the political development Obama himself has charted in two memoirs, “Dreams From My Father,” and “The Audacity of Hope.””

  • 51
    Black Lion
    October 22nd, 2009 12:30

    misanthropicus says:
    October 22, 2009 at 11:08 am
    RE Black Lion, Sue, Sise & the rest of Obamatons:

    Prove it, prove it! You Obamatons are nothing but a bunch of frustrated losers. With Obama’s – sorry, Milli-Vanilli’s – sorry Truman’s Show – sorry, Manchurian candidate’ – rating approval at an all time low (and no betterment is sight, as well), all what you can do is to swarm around, trying to confuse and obfuscate.

    And here is a perfect example – I said in my post vis-a-vis Phil’s analyzing Obama’s strange Columbia record:

    “[...] Obama claimed, in [...[ autobiography “Dreams From My Father” that his Columbia graduation thesis was “US-Soviet Nuclear Dissarmament Issues In The 80-s” – however, in his second autophiographical installement, [...] “The Audacity Of Hope”, he claims that the topic and title of his Columbia graduation thesis was… “North-South Relationships In The Post Colonial World”.
    [...] as all other Obama Columbia records you mentioned, neither thesis is available for scrutiny, and apparently mister Obama is really upset when queried about them, and about their (hypothetical) content and views. [...]
    And topping this curious situation we have a third remarkable element – Columbia U, under questioning acknowledged that the school actually DIDN”T EVEN HAVE AT THAT TIME A THESIS AS GRADUATION REQUIREMENT FOR THE TRACK OBAMA CLAIMS THAT HE WAS ENROLLED IN. [...]”

    And my addition belongs to the core of Phil’s article describing Obama’s bizzare academic record, ISSUE you stubbornly (and clumsily) avoid to touch, trying to push the discussion on irrelevant tangents -
    So, explain this, collection of Obots, explain this – and stop yakking about smear etc.
    Explain Obama’s Columbia U thesis problem – great opportunity to move from Clowns Central temps in full time positions -

    Explain – heh-heh-heh -
    ___________________________________________________________________
    First of all can you explain how if someone did not graduate from Columbia, how the president and other officials would celebrate that he did graduate from there? Can you explain how if he did not graduate from Columbia, how was be able to attend Harvard Law School? Harvard is one of the top universities in America. I seriously doubt that they would accept someone that did not graduate from an undergraduate program. Most important of all can you find any evidence that is contrary or shows that President Obama did not attend and graduate from Columbia?

    And regarding the thesis. Can you show us where in the records of Columbia that is says for President Obama’s major, that a thesis was unnecessary? I mean evidence, not someone’s statement. Remember, I am just requesting the same standard that you require. Proof that this requirement did not exist. An article from Columbia or a professor from that time period that states that there was no thesis requirement.

    And regarding the conflicting thesis statements in his books, there are many plausible explanations. Maybe he confused his thesis with another paper he had to write for another class. Maybe he did write 2 and had to choose which one to submit. Or maybe he made a mistake. Either scenario is plausible. Either way the bottom line is that you are implying that Obama did not attend Columbia. Since that is the implication, then all that is needed is some sort of evidence that supports your claim. Maybe someone at another college that remembers him going there. Maybe a transcript from another school. Come on, that is not that hard. Remember you were able to find “Kenyan BC’s” fairly easily. There is noting “bizzare” about his academic record. He has a degree from Columbia and Harvard. That is impressive, not bizzare.

  • 52
    Phil
    October 22nd, 2009 12:36

    siseduermapierda,

    “There is clearly precious little evidence showing substantial bona fides for this President. ”

    Are you trying to plant the suggestion Barack Obama didn’t earn a BA in Political Science from Columbia University in 1983?

    Well, at least you did a pretty good job of quoting me, though you weren’t fully contextual about it:

    While part of the story is dealing with Mr. Obama’s presence at Columbia University, I would invite all of my readers to not miss the bigger point here:

    There is clearly precious little evidence showing substantial bona fides for this President. And for someone who claims to want to operate within the realm of transparency, one could not be any more opaque.

    As you can clearly see, the first paragraph of my pull quote leads to the observation of my own via the second paragraph. That is, moving beyond the mere questions regarding Mr. Obama’s Columbia days, there continues to be the overall lack of sharing background documentation on the part of the President that is still at issue.

    Frankly, I’m not sure how else I can spell out my thoughts to you.

    -Phil

  • 53
    Phil
    October 22nd, 2009 12:42

    bystander,

    Excellent questions:

    Phil – are you actually in doubt that Obama attended Columbia, or is it that it suits your agenda to portray everything in his background as shrouded in mystery?

    I think what’s fascinating about Mr. Obama is that individuals such as myself have to do next to nothing to “portray everything in his background as shrouded in mystery.” The truth of the matter is that, as far as I can see, there is zero actual original official background documentation (from the year in which any such documentation was alleged to be created) concerning any aspect of this man that is publicly verifiable, much less forensically inspected.

    In other words, by definition, this man is a mystery.

    Do you think Columbia lied when they confirmed his attendance?

    I don’t know.

    Do you think every year book has been retrospectively photoshopped?

    I don’t know.

    And if so, to what end?

    I don’t know.

    Do you think he was somewhere else, and all witnesses to him being somewhere else have been mysteriously silenced?

    I don’t know.

    And finally, is there no end to birthers gullibility?

    Speaking for myself, I continue to maintain the stance that I don’t know whether or not Mr. Obama is eligible for the presidency. Therefore, since his actions may and can have a direct bearing upon my livelihood, it is incumbent upon me to question this man until such time as I am sufficiently satisfied that he has truly earned the constitutional privilege (not a right by any means) to be POTUS.

    -Phil

  • 54
    bystander
    October 22nd, 2009 12:42

    Phil – care to define “substantial bona fides”?

    If it means, Phil isn’t allowed to read all Obama’s student papers, I guess you are right. But who cares? Can’t imagine any other definition that fits the facts – would you be able to provide one?

  • 55
    Phil
    October 22nd, 2009 12:49

    siseduermapierda,

    Phil smeared Barack Obama.

    Per dictionary.com:

    “smear”

    verb:
    Slang. to defeat decisively; overwhelm: They smeared the home team.

    noun:
    vilification: a smear by a cheap gossip columnist.

    I presume that you’re referring to the noun usage of the word, “smear.” If so, it would appear that, per the verbiage of this posting, I have not personally “smeared” the President. Rather, I have brought up questions concerning this President’s past (which, I will admit, appears to some who do not wish to question their political leaders as a “smear”).

    Therefore, unless you can quote where I have stated anything conclusively regarding Mr. Obama and his background in an unsubstantiated fashion, I think you’re invoking the term “smear” inappropriately.

    -Phil

  • 56
    Phil
    October 22nd, 2009 12:56

    Jim Delaney,

    I just scanned these posts hoping for a stream of cogent, instructive and intelligent discussion. Despite the gravity of this subject, I am amazed and deeply disappointed by the level of meaningless vitriol primarily emanating from Obama supporters. Very troubling. Everyone needs to calm down and eschew ideology and political party affiliation in favor of rational discourse. For those trying to be evenhanded and thoughtful, my hat is off to you.

    Firstly, I can assure you that this is all a group effort. I correspond with many concerned citizens who bring interesting finds to me all the time.

    Secondly, as I’ve already commented, every time that I have ever asked an individual with an opposition mindset a very specific question regarding eligibility and they don’t know how to answer, instead of simply saying, “I don’t know,” they always — always — respond back in an irrational, emotional tirade.

    Of course, anyone is free to react as they see fit, but if a proper discussion is to move forward, it must be respectful, civil, logical, and held under the auspices of goodwill.

    -Phil

  • 57
    Phil
    October 22nd, 2009 12:58

    jvn,

    You’ve had a reputation for being someone who was fair and balanced in pursuit of the truth – are you giving that up now?

    You have been previously mislead. I have never claimed to be a “fair and balanced” individual on my site. Instead, I claim to be a libertarian-leaning conservative who not only questions everything, in love, for the truth, but when said truth is found, does everything to hold onto it for dear life.

    -Phil

  • 58
    Roderick
    October 22nd, 2009 13:00

    As I have said before and will repeat once again for those who are deaf, this imposter in the white house is the biggest con-man in the history of the world. Cries about slavery and the Bible and Jesus Christ and anything else that is remotely awe inspiring to a few stupid people and then incites riots or riotous activities. First of all slavery in the Bible is never condoned in the sense of what any African-American had to endure 175 years ago. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to whip your slave and I will continue this discussion later. If you have trouble understanding what I just wrote re-read it.

  • 59
    Bob
    October 22nd, 2009 13:22

    I don’t know.

    Do you know whether George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc. were natural born citizens?

  • 60
    DCA
    October 22nd, 2009 13:39

    Wow this was just too easy – completely wrong like usual.

    From Columbia Uuniversity’s OFFICIAL alumni site!
    “Barack Obama ’83, My Columbia College Roommate”
    http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan_feb09/alumni_corner

    So wrong on both counts: (1) Columbia says he is an alumni, and (2) his roomate clearly remembers him.

    Is Columbia in on the conspiracy as well?

    Fox News in on it as well! Who knew!
    http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Jan18/0,4670,InaugurationColumbia,00.html

    It was an AP story as well.

    So what do you have Phil?

  • 61
    qwertyman
    October 22nd, 2009 13:46

    So what do you have Phil?

    He has the fact that a bunch of people don’t remember a classmate from 25 years ago. The statements of the president of the university, the official alumni website, statements of other friends are of course either forged or fraudulent. And he managed to forge this about 20 years ago so that he was able to get into Harvard Law.

    I mean, if this Root fellow doesn’t know anybody who knew Obama back then it’s obvious that he didn’t go there at all! Root knew EVERYBODY!

    It’s almost sad to see that the birthers on this site have such a fundamental distrust of every single thing Obama has ever done in his life, or even anybody connected to him that you’re willing to believe that the president of a major university will tell blatant lies about the attendance and graduation of an alum.

    As for the “two theses,” my hypothesis would be that he wrote papers on these topics. After all, he did study political science with an international relations focus. He called them theses because he considered them serious papers.

    You are looking for elephants in mouseholes, seeing a conspiracy to commit fraud and mislead the American people around every corner. It’s pure paranoia.

  • 62
    David
    October 22nd, 2009 13:51

    I would like to know what standard of evidence is acceptable for public consumption and verification in today’s world. I don’t believe any rational person can admit that what has been so far provided by Obama is sufficient evidence to support his numerous claims. And this is not about legal evidence – it’s about common sense.

    Obama says he was born in Hawaii. OK, I’ll take him at his word at first. But when questions arise and that claim is doubted – at any level or in any way – I would expect, at minimum, an effort to definitively refute any counterclaims. Instead, we get obfuscation and legal defenses based on technicalities, rather than supplying all available evidence of the birth. Does that mean he wasn’t born in Hawaii? I don’t know – but it sure seems like there is something to hide. And it’s nobody’s fault that it seems that way except Obama’s.

    Obama claims that he attended and graduated from Columbia University. OK, I’ll take him at his word at first. But again, this has been disputed. And what has Obama done to help the inquiring public discover the truth for themselves? He has kept all relevant records sealed from the public. Does that mean he never attended Columbia or that he didn’t graduate? I don’t know – but it sure seems like there is something to hide. And once again, it is only Obama’s fault that it seems that way.

    The only way to ensure that our nation is being lead by responsible and qualified leaders is to know and understand them. We rely on the history from both their public and private lives to make a determination on whether or not they deserve to hold the highest positions in our federal government. If we are not getting the information we need to make those decisions – or worse, we do not care to know that information before making a decision – then we are not simply being irresponsible, but we are setting ourselves up for potential ruin.

    Questioning Obama’s past – specifically when he refuses to release records that may or may not support his claims – is not partisan, racist, or a conspiracy-theory…it’s common sense. It’s our duty as citizens. If we choose to ignore it when all of the signs point to a man trying to hide nearly everything important from his past, then we have failed to remain an informed public and have chosen to live under the authority of, essentially, a stranger. At worst, we could be living under the authority of a fraudulent branch of government.

    The birth certificate and Columbia are just two examples. How much longer are we willing to proceed with Obama as our alleged “leader” before we finally demand, as a larger public, to see the records Obama is unwilling to release? What if he really isn’t what he claims to be?

    For those who do not question: What is your evidence that Obama is who he says he is? And is that evidence acceptable to you? What would it take to start questioning his claims?

    For those who question: Never stop until you get the evidence, the documents…actual, verifiable facts.

    What good are we if we blindly accept and follow? How long can we last as a society acting that way?

  • 63
    siseduermapierda
    October 22nd, 2009 13:58

    David says:
    October 22, 2009 at 1:51 pm
    *I would like to know what standard of evidence is acceptable for public consumption and verification in today’s world….I would expect, at minimum, an effort to definitively refute any counterclaims.*

    Don’t any Obama deniers understand the basis for our justice system? The burden of proof is always, always, always on the accuser. It is for those who accuse to Prove what they claim, not for Barack Obama to refute. Barack Obama has the benefit of the assumption, that is, until it is proven otherwise, what he says about himself is taken as the truth. How would you like it David if this were turned on you. If your neighbor, co-worker accused you of being a child-molester? Do you think you would have an obligation to prove you’re not? That’s exactly what you seem to be asking of President Obama is turn the burden of proof back on him. I don’t think you’d want that to be the standard if you were being accused of being a child-molester. This smearing of the President’s name needs to stop.

  • 64
    siseduermapierda
    October 22nd, 2009 14:03

    Phil says:
    October 22, 2009 at 12:49 pm
    “smear”

    Dictionary.com
    Smear (verb)
    4. To sully, villify or soil ( a reputation, good name, etc)

    Used in a sentence: “President Obama deniers smear the good name of the President by accusing him of not graduating from Columbia University even after the preponderance of the evidence, posted here today, shows he did.”

    You are an expert cherry picker. You skipped right by the standard definitions of “smear” to a slang definition.

  • 65
    Greg Goss
    October 22nd, 2009 14:07

    Mainstream Media ignores President elect Obama’s George Bush’s refusal to release his long form birth certificate.

    Mainstream Media ignores President elect Obama’s George Bush’s refusal to release his Occidental college records.

    Mainstream Media ignores President elect Obama’s George Bush’s refusal to release his Columbia college records.

    Mainstream Media ignores President elect Obama’s George Bush’s refusal to release his Harvard Law School records…..

  • 66
    Sue
    October 22nd, 2009 14:36

    Neither McCain or Palin released their educational records. How do we know they are telling the truth?

    http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2008/10/john-mccains-gpa-and-college-records/#

    http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2008/10/sarah-palins-gpa-and-college-record/#

  • 67
    Phil
    October 22nd, 2009 14:51

    siseduermapierda,

    Phil says:
    October 22, 2009 at 12:49 pm
    “smear”

    Dictionary.com
    Smear (verb)
    4. To sully, villify or soil ( a reputation, good name, etc)

    Used in a sentence: “President Obama deniers smear the good name of the President by accusing him of not graduating from Columbia University even after the preponderance of the evidence, posted here today, shows he did.”

    You are an expert cherry picker. You skipped right by the standard definitions of “smear” to a slang definition.

    You are apparently failing the goodwill aspect of commentary on my site by suggesting that I intentionally and purposefully didn’t exhaustively define “smear.” That was not the case.

    However, to the main point:

    When you can show me where I have specifically stated that Mr. Obama did not graduate from Columbia University, then you will have a point.

    -Phil

  • 68
    Sue
    October 22nd, 2009 14:58

    “10/22/2009 87 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE filed by Defendants Michelle LR Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Robert M Gates, Joseph R Biden, Barack Hussein Obama, United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(West, Roger) (Entered: 10/22/2009)”

    “Defendants, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby request the Court to take Judicial Notice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, of the recently issued Order and Opinion in Kerchner v. Obama, CV 09-253 (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey 2009). True and correct copies of that Order and Opinion are attached to this Request as Exhibits A and B.”

  • 69
    DCA
    October 22nd, 2009 15:06

    Phil’s exact claim:
    “And now it appears that nobody seems to remember their fellow classmate at Columbia University.”

    “Barack Obama ’83, My Columbia College Roommate by Phil Boerner ’84″
    Source: Columbia Unversity

    Ok Phil, that one is 100% refuted with 100% verifiable sources.. you got nothing…Move On. Next!

  • 70
    Phil
    October 22nd, 2009 15:13

    DCA,

    “Barack Obama ’83, My Columbia College Roommate by Phil Boerner ’84″
    Source: Columbia Unversity

    Interesting. I guess this was one individual that Fox News missed out of the 400 +/- individuals they interviewed (tried to interview?) concerning Mr. Obama.

    Of course, we apparently also know that Fox News isn’t a news reporting agency, according to the Obama White House, right?

    I wonder who’s going to show up next on the political witch hunt list.

    -Phil

  • 71
    smrstrauss
    October 22nd, 2009 15:24

    Re: the claim that Obama did not attend Columbia. Then how did he get into Harvard Law? (from which he graduated Magna Cum Laude.)

    As for his birth in Hawaii, Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, of which the Wall Street Journal commented: ‘Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”

  • 72
    DCA
    October 22nd, 2009 15:34

    Phil,
    Your claim was refuted with clear facts from primary sources. Rather than simply acknowleging the correction and facts you misdirected to a fact-free bit about Fox News innuedo mumbo -jumbo.

    My source is COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY itself – a primary source – DIRECTLY refuting you – its THEIR Alumni website under the Columbia.edu URL.

  • 73
    siseduermapierda
    October 22nd, 2009 15:37

    “And now it appears that nobody seems to remember their fellow classmate at Columbia University.”
    “Naturally there’s the question of the yearbook.”
    “While part of the story is dealing with Mr. Obama’s presence at Columbia University…”
    “There is clearly precious little evidence showing substantial bona fides for this President.”

    You clearly attempt to imply Barack Obama didn’t attend and graduate from Columbia University. From the links to announcements by Columbia University and comments from his classmates posted here, it is clear he did attend and graduate Columbia. You’re proven wrong. You should delete this poorly researched and handily debunked article and move on instead of trying to defend it.

  • 74
    Bob
    October 22nd, 2009 15:51

    You clearly attempt to imply Barack Obama didn’t attend and graduate from Columbia University.

    As evidenced by the headline, “Can Anyone Vouch for Obama’s History? Not at Columbia!”

    As demonstrated, multiple sources can (and have) “vouched” for Obama’s attendance at Columbia (including, notably, Columbia).

  • 75
    Observer
    October 22nd, 2009 16:02

    A bit more info for the inquiring mind? (maybe there is another reason for the Saudi bow):

    http://www.votethemouttoday.com/pdf/Obamatimeline.pdf

    Obama writes an anti-war article for Columbia University’s magazine, Sundial. “Breaking the War Mentality” contains grammatical errors, atrocious punctuation, bad spelling, and contradictory statements. Even the best English teachers would be hard-pressed to diagram this distorted and confused sentence from Obama’s article: “When Peter Tosh sings that ‘everybody’s asking for peace, but nobody’s asking for justice,’ one is forced to wonder whether disarmament or arms control ensues, severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem instead of the disease itself.” In the article Obama bemoans the fact that the military’s introduction of additional Pershing II and Cruise Missiles will “cut down (the) warning time for the Soviets to less than ten minutes,” suggesting that Obama apparently prefers a U.S. policy that gives the Soviets as much advance warning as possible in order to provide them with a better chance of defeating the United States. [990]

    After graduation from Columbia, Obama joins the New York Public Interest Research Group, an organization founded by Ralph Nader. Obama becomes an organizer at Harlem’s City College, working with student volunteers on recycling programs. [31]

    Obama works briefly for Business International Corporation in New York, a small newsletter publishing and advisory firm that prints articles relating to global business and which assists American companies operating overseas. Obama later embellishes his job description, saying he was hired as a research assistant by a “consulting house to multinational corporations” where he had his own private secretary and dealt with Japanese financiers and German bond traders. His former co-workers say Obama’s accounts of his job are grossly inflated and that he wore jeans, shared cubicles with others in a dumpy office, had no secretary, and mostly rewrote articles for newsletters. Employees referred to the environment as “high school with ash trays.” Obama remarks later in life that the job exposed him to the “coldness of capitalism.” (The company has reportedly been used by the CIA as a “front operation.”) [30, 31, 32, 1038, 2218, 2327]

    So how does someone bereft of funds with poor grades in first two years of college (admitted to by sister in interview; as well as admitted drug use) get into Columbia and then, without graduating with any kind of honors there and little nothing job experience get into Harvard??

    In the fall of 1988 Obama begins his studies at Harvard Law School (HLS).
    Helping Obama gain acceptance at Harvard is a letter of recommendation from
    civil rights activist and Malcolm X attorney Percy Sutton. Asking Sutton to write
    the letter is Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour (aka “Donald Warden”), a radical
    Muslim and vitriolic anti-Semite, mentor of Black Panther Party founders Huey
    Newton and Bobby Seale, close associate of Nation of Islam leader Louis
    Farrakhan, and friend of Obama.

    Khalid lobbied hard for funds to further Obama’s education. Khalid is close friends with Saudi prince Alaweed bin Talal. Khalid has tapped into the saudi’s for monies before. Ergo, beholdin bow!!

    A Harvard letter of recommendation for Obama is also written by John McKnight,
    who serves on the Gamaliel Foundation’s Board of Directors, as well as the
    board of National People’s Action (NPA), yet another Alinsky-inspired activist
    group. The NPA consists of thugs and agitators who, when picketing the homes
    of business and government leaders to demand more welfare benefits and
    government hand-outs sing: “Who’s on your hit list, NPA? Who’s on your hit list
    of today? Take no prisoners, take no names. Kick ’em in the ass when they play
    their games.” [230,267]

    finally:

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080904062950AAPsokQ

    In Obama’s book he says he wants to finish out Malcolm’s dream to unite the people in the name of Islam- OBAMA’s WORDS! Page 86! He also said that he would look for leaders to help him accomplish this new world. OBAMA’s WORDS!

    Wow! Since most good parents wouldn’t allow their youngsters to get anywhere near “characters” like this (along with that list of personally chosen pres. advisors), I would suggest against any White House sleep overs!

  • 76
    SanDiegoSam
    October 22nd, 2009 16:04

    Okay. I’m back. I see a couple folks already found the first one:

    Barack Obama ’83, My Columbia College Roommate

    http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan_feb09/alumni_corner

    “We both transferred from Oxy to Columbia in fall 1981. Barack had found an apartment on West 109th Street, between Amsterdam and Columbus, and suggested that I room with him. Our sublet was a third-story walk-up in a so-so neighborhood; the unit next door was burned out and vacant. The doorbell didn’t work; to be let in when I first arrived I had to yell up to Barack from the street. It was a railroad apartment: From the kitchen, you walked into Barack’s room, then my room, and lastly the living room. We didn’t have a television or computers. In that apartment we hosted a number of visitors, mostly friends from Oxy who stayed overnight when they were passing through town. Barack was very generous to these visitors. As a host and roommate, he sometimes did the shopping and cooked the chicken curry.”

    Here’s another where, Obama’s Professor at Columbia Talks of Obama’s Senior Thesis:

    http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics.bush/2008-07/msg01884.html

    “His former professor, Michael Baron, recalled in an interview
    with NBC News that Obama easily aced the year-long class. But Baron
    says he never had any inkling that the gangly senior would scale such
    heights.

    “You wouldn’t say, ‘Oh, he’s going to be secretary of state or
    president someday’,” Baron said. Obama was whip smart and “clearly one
    of the top one or two students in the class,” he said, but Obama’s
    seven classmates also could hold their own. “No real dolts in the
    class,” Baron remembered.

    Twenty-five years later, Baron is president of a digital-media company
    in Florida and has hung up his professorial tweeds for good. He had
    saved Obama’s senior paper for years, and even hunted for it again
    this month in some boxes. But he said his search was fruitless, and he
    now thinks he tossed it out eight years ago during a move.

    Baron described the paper as a “thesis” or “senior thesis” in several
    interviews, and said that Obama spent a year working on it. Baron
    recalls that the topic was nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union.

    “My recollection is that the paper was an analysis of the evolution of
    the arms reduction negotiations between the Soviet Union and the
    United States,” Baron said in an e-mail. “At that time, a hot topic in
    foreign policy circles was finding a way in which each country could
    safely reduce the large arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at the
    other … For U.S. policy makers in both political parties, the aim was
    not disarmament, but achieving deep reductions in the Soviet nuclear
    arsenal and keeping a substantial and permanent American advantage. As
    I remember it, the paper was about those negotiations, their tactics
    and chances for success. Barack got an A.”

    Here’s another Classmate, Michael Wolf, talking about Obama during a seminar at Colunbia

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=2&sq&st=cse%22%22michael%20j.%20wolf&scp=9

    “Michael J. Wolf, who took the seminar with him and went on to become president of MTV Networks, said: “He was very smart. He had a broad sense of international politics and international relations. It was a class with a lot of debate. He was a very, very active participant. I think he was truly distinctive from the other people in that class. He stood out.”

    Here’s an Obama Article published in the campus periodical The Sundial while at Columbia:

    http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_obamaessay.html

    How hard was that?

    Not very.

  • 77
    Black Lion
    October 22nd, 2009 16:07

    Phil says:
    October 22, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    Of course, we apparently also know that Fox News isn’t a news reporting agency, according to the Obama White House, right?

    I wonder who’s going to show up next on the political witch hunt list.

    -Phil
    _________________________________________________________________
    Phil, FOX is not exactly innocent in this so called battle with the White House. FOX themselves admit to being in opposition to the Obama administration and it’s policies. They like to claim to be “fair and balanced”, but if you watch them it is obvious that is not the case.

    For instance there are numerous instances of FOX opposing something from the White House, not reporting on it. If they are journalists, then they need to report the facts, even when they might not like it. They cannot make the news, they are just supposed to report it.

    http://mediamatters.org/reports/200909110016

    For instance in this article…

    “A March 23 report on NPR’s Media Circus featured clips of Fox News vice president for programming Bill Shine saying of Fox News: “There were a couple of people who basically wrote about our demise come last November, December, and were, I guess, rooting for us to go away. … With this particular group of people in power right now, and the honeymoon they’ve had from other members of the media, does it make it a little bit easier for us to be the voice of opposition on some issues?”

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102254703&ft=1&f=1014

    Or here…

    “Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer similarly acknowledged that Fox News is the “voice of opposition in the media” during the June 17 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier.”

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906170039

    “But before Beck could say anything, Ailes shared a message of his own: The country faced tough times, he said, and Fox News was one of the only news outlets willing to challenge the new administration. “I see this as the Alamo,” Ailes said, according to Beck. “If I just had somebody who was willing to sit on the other side of the camera until the last shot is fired, we’d be fine.”

    http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/06/entertainment/et-foxnews6#

    In his March 30 Washington Post column, media critic Howard Kurtz wrote, “Fox [News] executives maintain that the channel’s reporting is aggressive but not ideological,” adding, “Senior Vice President Bill Shine says that ‘our reporters, people like Major Garrett, have been asking tougher questions’ than their rivals, such as scrutinizing efforts to increase White House involvement in the 2010 Census.” But Fox News’ strategy in covering the new administration is not limited to ” ‘asking tougher questions’ than their rivals”; Shine recently suggested that Fox News could serve as “the voice of opposition on some issues” with Democrats in power in Washington.

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200903300014

    And the people coming to the defense of FOX, are the conservatives…

    House Republican leaders on Thursday rushed to the defense of conservative commentators after President Obama dismissed Fox News as “talk radio” — part of the White House campaign to marginalize opposing viewpoints.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/22/house-republicans-defend-conservative-commentators-decry-white-house-feud/

    So for FOX to claim to be a news agencey and to be fair and balanced is refuted by their own words and actions. Relishing in the role of being the “opposition party” is not the way to be a news agency or fair. That was the point the White House was trying to make.

  • 78
    Observer
    October 22nd, 2009 16:09

    DCA:

    My source is COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY itself – a primary source – DIRECTLY refuting you – its THEIR Alumni website under the Columbia.edu URL.

    So maybe he mailed it in … from his various and sundry addresses – or attended class with a bag over his head. He certainly has grown out of his apparent social reticence of those days with all kinds of “audacity” later!

  • 79
    Observer
    October 22nd, 2009 16:17

    Bob says:
    October 22, 2009 at 1:22 pm
    I don’t know.

    Do you know whether George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc. were natural born citizens?

    Yes!

  • 80
    Black Lion
    October 22nd, 2009 16:22

    Observer says:
    October 22, 2009 at 4:02 pm
    A bit more info for the inquiring mind? (maybe there is another reason for the Saudi bow):
    _________________________________________________________________
    Observer, so you can supply actual proof that this individual wrote the letter or the Saudi’s paid for the education right? Or that Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour (aka “Donald Warden”) helped Obama get into Harvard, right? Or is this more of the lets just repeat unsubstantiated rumors about the President day? The entire article you posted is rife with innuendo and speculation, and of course no tangible proof. It actually looks like a hatchet job from WND or some anti-Obama site. When you can actually link to proof, or sites that are not personal, then maybe it would be believable…

    Besides Obama has denied this, but as usual even though no proof was supplied, it has to be true, correct?

    “Barack Obama’s campaign is flatly denying a story told by former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton, who cast an ex-Black Panther turned Muslim businessman and lecturer as a key Obama mentor but whose story seems off in at least one key detail.

    LaBolt said Obama doesn’t have a relationship with Sutton and that “to our knowledge, no such letter was written.” Obama was in Chicago, not New York, when he applied to Harvard.

    Sutton’s story is particularly difficult to follow at one point: that al-Mansour was “raising money” for Obama. Obama attended Harvard with the help of student loans, as the Sun-Times’ Lynn Sweet reported in detail at one point, writing that he had $42,753 in debt.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_camp_denies_Sutton_story.html?showall

  • 81
    SanDiegoSam
    October 22nd, 2009 16:25

    Observer:

    In Obama’s book he says he wants to finish out Malcolm’s dream to unite the people in the name of Islam- OBAMA’s WORDS! Page 86! He also said that he would look for leaders to help him accomplish this new world. OBAMA’s WORDS!

    Show us.

  • 82
    Bob
    October 22nd, 2009 16:28

    Do you know whether George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc. were natural born citizens?

    Yes!

    I wasn’t asking you, but how do you know?

  • 83
    brygenon
    October 22nd, 2009 16:30

    Chris wrote:

    Then there is the curious statement when he was running for the Senate against Alan Keyes. Keys says someting like, “You are not even a US citizen, you were born in Kenya.” To which Hussen replies, “So what? I running for Senator, not the Presidency.”

    Oddly, there’s no recording or contemporaneous record of it, and Alan Keyes does not remember any such exchange. Some eligibility-deniers claim that it was recorded on video but all the records have been “scrubbed”. In everything we can actually check, Obama has consistently said he was born in Hawaii, both before and after the alleged exchange.

  • 84
    Observer
    October 22nd, 2009 16:39

    Bob says:
    October 22, 2009 at 4:28 pm
    Do you know whether George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, etc. were natural born citizens?

    Yes!

    I wasn’t asking you, but how do you know?

    That is former Presidential, thus privileged information for which you will need your own written notarized request – or you could request through the court. And, a bit Johnny come lately I would think … rather moot at the moment.

  • 85
    Bob
    October 22nd, 2009 16:44

    That is former Presidential, thus privileged information for which you will need your own written notarized request – or you could request through the court.

    The question was how do you know. A court order is needed for you to explain how you know?

    And, a bit Johnny come lately I would think

    Exactly.

  • 86
    Observer
    October 22nd, 2009 16:52

    Black Lion,

    Observer, so you can supply actual proof that this individual wrote the letter or the Saudi’s paid for the education right?

    Well, you could request the actual letter …. but I just bet it would be amongst the massive sealed history of “Mr. Transparent”!

    Got you in a bind too there – then again, all you have to reply, parrot style and sound bite style is … “show us”, knowing all too well that “Mr. Transparent” has furnished you with the perfect foil line, but alas, not even letting you, his most loyal foot persons, in on the “One’s” grand mysterious scheme.

    I thought love was more or less a given thing,
    Seems the more I gave the less I got.
    What’s the use in tryin’?
    All you get is pain.
    When I needed sunshine I got rain.

    Then I saw her (his) face, now I’m a believer
    Not a trace of doubt in my mind.
    I’m in love, I’m a believer!
    I couldn’t leave her (him)if I tried.

  • 87
    Observer
    October 22nd, 2009 16:59

    Bob:

    The question was how do you know. A court order is needed for you to explain how you know?

    Why not? Everything’s a secret these days. What’s good for the goose, etc. Your expectations appear rather “epic” in their demands. Perhaps after they meet the “comprehensive and complete” level (as was alluded to elsewhere here) you might have success in getting somewhere! But … nay.

  • 88
    Sue
    October 22nd, 2009 17:00

    Wonder why the DOJ filed the motion for Request For Judicial Notice today with Judge Carter?

    This article explains why.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=4007
    Kirchner v. Obama—DISMISSED!
    excerpt

    “Apuzzo in Kirchner v. Obama presents his arguments far more coherently (though his briefs are also much too long and wordy) than Orly Taitz ever managed to in Barnett v. Obama, and there are some substantive differences, but the matters Judge David O. Carter is concerned about, as he ponders a ruling on a Motion to Dismiss in her California case, are the same.

    Standing
    Justiciability
    Political Question Doctrine

    Same for any Federal judge; same for any Birther lawsuit.”

  • 89
    smrstrauss
    October 22nd, 2009 17:06

    You know, no one stepped forward and said that he or she had witnessed George Bush’s birth either, and Bush did not show his birth certificate to anyone. And that goes for ALL the presidents before Obama. None of them showed a birth certificate.

    Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Of it, the Wall Street Journal said: “Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn.”

  • 90
    Bob
    October 22nd, 2009 17:50

    Why not? Everything’s a secret these days. What’s good for the goose, etc. Your expectations appear rather “epic” in their demands. Perhaps after they meet the “comprehensive and complete” level (as was alluded to elsewhere here) you might have success in getting somewhere! But … nay.

    What tap dancing.

    Simple question: How do you know that George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. are natural born citizens?

    My expectations are not epic; you said these individuals were natural born citizens; it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

  • 91
    Observer
    October 22nd, 2009 18:36

    Bob:

    Simple question: How do you know that George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc. are natural born citizens?

    Nope, nope, nope! You haven’t tried hard enough – you haven’t phrased the question to my satisfaction – so my info is sealed until you do. And, btw, you’re becoming annoying with so many attempts at the same thing!

  • 92
    siseduermapierda
    October 22nd, 2009 18:41

    Chris wrote:
    *Then there is the curious statement when he was running for the Senate against Alan Keyes. Keys says someting like, “You are not even a US citizen, you were born in Kenya.” To which Hussen replies, “So what? I running for Senator, not the Presidency.”*

    Keyes says he can’t remember that exchange and his campaign manager says it never happened. More birther fantasy. ( And I don’t provide a citation because Pat Smith says that my citing everything is meaningless.)

  • 93
    Bob
    October 22nd, 2009 18:43

    Nope, nope, nope! You haven’t tried hard enough – you haven’t phrased the question to my satisfaction – so my info is sealed until you do.

    Your inability to answer a simple question about your own beliefs speaks volumes about your lack of intellectual honesty. And credibility.

    (And to Phil: please note who can’t can’t answer a specific question. A question which was originally for you, BTW.)

    And, btw, you’re becoming annoying with so many attempts at the same thing!

    Oh, the irony.

  • 94
    Sue
    October 22nd, 2009 19:06

    “And I don’t provide a citation because Pat Smith says that my citing everything is meaningless”

    Meaningless? No. Waste of time? Yes.

  • 95
    Observer
    October 22nd, 2009 19:08

    Bob:

    Oh, the irony.

    You got it!

  • 96
    Black Lion
    October 22nd, 2009 19:40

    Phil says:
    October 22, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    Of course, we apparently also know that Fox News isn’t a news reporting agency, according to the Obama White House, right?

    I wonder who’s going to show up next on the political witch hunt list.

    -Phil
    _____________________________________________________________________

    Good article in Slate regarding this issue and a follow up to my earlier post….Basically FOX proves their bias in their coverage of the President and his policies…

    “Last week, when White House communications director Anita Dunn charged the Fox News Channel with right-wing bias, Fox responded the way it always does. It denied the accusation with a straight face while proceeding to confirm it with its coverage.”

    “There is no longer any need to get bogged down in this phony debate, which itself constitutes an abuse of the fair-mindedness of the rest of the media. One glance at Fox’s Web site or five minutes randomly viewing the channel at any hour of the day demonstrates its all-pervasive political slant. The lefty documentary Outfoxed spent a lot of time mustering evidence about Fox managers sending down orders to reporters to take the Republican side. But after 13 years working for Roger Ailes, Fox employees don’t need to be told to help the right any more than fish need a memo telling them to swim.”

    http://www.slate.com/id/2232563/?GT1=38001

  • 97
    Phil
    October 22nd, 2009 20:30

    siseduermapierda,

    It is unfortunate that I must further explain my own quotations from your out-of-context interpretations, but I shall oblige, for the moment:

    “Naturally there’s the question of the yearbook.”

    A reasonably intelligent individual, I rhetorically and indirectly presumed, would ask the question, “Well, wasn’t he in the Columbia U yearbook?” Therefore, the links to which I referenced go into reasonably well-researched detail on this subject.

    “While part of the story is dealing with Mr. Obama’s presence at Columbia University…”

    It is true that Anti-Mullah’s posting dealt with Mr. Obama’s presence at Columbia U. That’s a fact. How you wish to interpret that fact is another issue altogether.

    “There is clearly precious little evidence showing substantial bona fides for this President.”

    And this was pulled for the lower part of my posting where I’ve already commented that I switched gears to see the proverbial forest from the trees to state another obvious fact. And yes, it’s a fact that Mr. Obama’s collegiate records — the original documentation — is nearly extinct in terms of public view.

    Now to deal with your interpretations:

    You clearly attempt to imply Barack Obama didn’t attend and graduate from Columbia University.

    While you’re entitled to your own interpretation of my posting, I think I’ve already quite clearly and profusely provided context for rectifying the basis for why you’ve just made this statement.

    From the links to announcements by Columbia University and comments from his classmates posted here, it is clear he did attend and graduate Columbia.

    Perhaps you’re satisfied with what you’ve seen, to date. Excellent.

    You’re proven wrong.

    Hmmm. How many times have I heard this allegation from the opposition?

    You should delete this poorly researched and handily debunked article and move on instead of trying to defend it.

    Delete the posting? Really? And miss such diatribes of castigation against things I never explicitly claimed from the likes of opposition commenters such as yourself? Why delete the fun?

    In reality, I’m not defending anything in the posting except for the myths that have been lobbed against me, such as the idea that I ever claimed anything about the President regarding his history (except for the fact that he has shown the American public virtually no original documentation concerning his background).

    And to turn the whole “the onus is on the petitioner to prove the allegations” concept, if you have a problem with my site, while I’m certainly not stopping you from commenting, you can certainly move on, if you like. I have zero problems in your thinking that I’ve been debunked or whatever favorite conclusion you wish to draw about my postings.

    When you become the final authority who determines the efficacy of questions regarding the President’s background, I might think about taking your thoughts seriously.

    -Phil

  • 98
    Observer
    October 22nd, 2009 21:01

    Black Lion’s choice:

    “Last week, when White House communications director Anita Dunn charged the Fox News Channel with right-wing bias, Fox responded the way it always does. It denied the accusation with a straight face while proceeding to confirm it with its coverage.”

    So when anyone comments on a nutcase – obvious split personality too since she can’t see the great divide that exists existentially between two diametrically opposed individuals (one humane and one inhumane) – one is demonstrating “bias”. Actually one, in this case, is demonstrating rationality. These various examples of White House selectivity truly make up the gang that can’t shoot straight on anything, including philosophy and theology (and reality added in there). And the most pitiful part is that they blatantly advertise their immense lack of any kind of intellectual clarity and credibility. Of course, as the saying goes, sin DOES make you stupid, so those who feel it’s fine and dandy to continue the most recent slaughter of human life – now around 50,000,000 – might juuust think another character who was responsible for the slaughter somewhere close to that number himself is not only not objectionable but a model “to go to”. Not only irrational but sick. And those who can’t or won’t call her on it are also sick.

  • 99
    Observer
    October 22nd, 2009 21:09

    smrstrauss says:
    October 22, 2009 at 5:06 pm
    You know, no one stepped forward and said that he or she had witnessed George Bush’s birth either, and Bush did not show his birth certificate to anyone. And that goes for ALL the presidents before Obama. None of them showed a birth certificate.

    Apparently there wasn’t a reason to doubt. But if you thought so you should have brought it up when it was applicable – you could have then been a “birther” too! It’s a little late now – like Obama being a little late backing up our brave military who are protecting his dithering butt.

  • 100
    James
    October 22nd, 2009 21:50

    I think this may be a quick fix. Mr. Obama never attended Columbia University,at all. He attended Columbia College, an under-graduate school at the University. Columbia College have schools all over the country and one in New York. In other words,”he just lived in the nieghborhood”. He is not a graduate of Columbia University and never even enrolled or did anything at the University,such as writing thesisces or teaching Constitutional law.

  • 101
    siseduermapierda
    October 22nd, 2009 22:05

    Phil says:
    October 22, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    *When you become the final authority who determines the efficacy of questions regarding the President’s background, I might think about taking your thoughts seriously.*

    Each one of us is the final authority when we pull the lever in the voting booth. If you don’t think he’s eligible, don’t vote for him. You have three other options: convince a Congressman to file a resolution for articles of impeachment, a majority of the House to Vote to impeach and 2/3 of the Senate to convict – or – find a candidate who can win more votes in 2012 – or – wait until Jan 20, 2017 when you can shout from the rooftops “he’s not eligible”, and you will be right by way of the 22nd amendment.

  • 102
    James
    October 22nd, 2009 22:07

    Just to clarify, I came across a responce that no one knew him. Well here’s a posting from the homepage of Columbia. The article says University,the homepage says College. Two completely differant schools. http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan_feb09/alumni_corner

  • 103
    Geoff
    October 22nd, 2009 22:38

    James recently wrote:

    Just to clarify, I came across a responce that no one knew him. Well here’s a posting from the homepage of Columbia. The article says University,the homepage says College. Two completely differant schools. http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan_feb09/alumni_corner

    Umm, that’s not the case. “Columbia College” is the primary undergraduate college at Columbia University. So if somebody tells you they’re an undergrad at Columbia, they likely mean Columbia College, part of Columbia University.

  • 104
    ramjet767
    October 23rd, 2009 00:37

    SmrStrauss,

    The DNC Marxist and Chairman Mao loving caucus in control of Congress made McCain produce a copy of his long-form typed original birth certificate, and he did. There is a copy of it in the Hollander vs. McCain legal file. McCain’s college/academy records are released too. What is Obama hiding that he has hidden and sealed all his early life records?

    http://www.thebirthers.org/

    RJ

  • 105
    brygenon
    October 23rd, 2009 02:52

    ramjet767 says:

    The DNC Marxist and Chairman Mao loving caucus in control of Congress made McCain produce a copy of his long-form typed original birth certificate, and he did. There is a copy of it in the Hollander vs. McCain legal file.

    Same bunk, over and over. Congress did not make John McCain produce a birth certificate, and he did not release it. McCain but showed a copy to Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post, who reported that McCain was born at Coco Solo submarine base. There was a contemporaneous birth announcement in The Panama American that places the birth “at the submarine base hospital”.

    The alleged McCain long-form birth certificate was introduced by the plaintiff in Hamblin v. McCain, not by McCain. It is sourced to one Donald Lamb, a man known in Panama for trying to charge rent on all of Colon, based on his own theory that he represents the owners of the Panama Railroad Company. Note how a 1936 typewriter somehow alternates between a fixed-width font and a proportional font.

    McCain’s college/academy records are released too. What is Obama hiding that he has hidden and sealed all his early life records?

    McCain admitted being near the bottom the class, but did not release his complete records. Presidents have varied in what personal records they choose to release, and Barack Obama is the only one who publicly showed his birth certificate.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mccain_announcement_041708.pdf

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/the-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

  • 106
    dunstvangeet
    October 23rd, 2009 03:08

    ramjet, the copy in Hollister v. McCain was actually a copy that was produced from an internet hoax, much like the two Kenyan Birth Certificates that have popped up. It was proven to be a fraud.

    McCain never released his birth certificate.

  • 107
    bystander
    October 23rd, 2009 03:43

    Observer made up:

    In Obama’s book he says he wants to finish out Malcolm’s dream to unite the people in the name of Islam- OBAMA’s WORDS! Page 86! He also said that he would look for leaders to help him accomplish this new world. OBAMA’s WORDS!

    I’ve lost count of the number of times a birther tells me that Obama said something in his books that turns out to be completely fabricated. Here’s another example. This is the problem with birthers – they accept everything they are told at face value, and never seem to check any sources.

  • 108
    Sue
    October 23rd, 2009 03:57

    Internet rumors:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/22/796125/-Truth-or-Prank-Orlys-Star-Witness-Tells-All

  • 109
    David
    October 23rd, 2009 04:03

    siseduermapierda,

    “Don’t any Obama deniers understand the basis for our justice system? The burden of proof is always, always, always on the accuser. It is for those who accuse to Prove what they claim, not for Barack Obama to refute. Barack Obama has the benefit of the assumption, that is, until it is proven otherwise, what he says about himself is taken as the truth. How would you like it David if this were turned on you. If your neighbor, co-worker accused you of being a child-molester? Do you think you would have an obligation to prove you’re not? That’s exactly what you seem to be asking of President Obama is turn the burden of proof back on him. I don’t think you’d want that to be the standard if you were being accused of being a child-molester. This smearing of the President’s name needs to stop.”

    You failed to comprehend what I wrote. I was not referring to legal cases. Nice attempt at trying to misrepresent my point. What I wrote was this:

    “And this is not about legal evidence – it’s about common sense.”

    My comment was about public information and the purpose of knowing everything we can about our leaders in government, not just blindly accepting their personal narrative as absolute truth.

    Your example of a neighbor or co-worker accusing me of being a child-molester is not at all comparable. In fact, if they made such an accusation publicly, they could be sued for slander or libel. Questioning Obama’s story about himself, particularly when “irregularities” arise, is entirely different. I understand that it’s hard for a blind follower to see a difference in the two scenarios, but rest assured that Obama is not being “smeared” by asking for proof of his claims. The doubts are only compounded when he refuses to release records that verify what he claims he is or has done.

    If Obama says he graduated with honors from Columbia, and someone asks him to show them his transcripts to verify that claim, how is that a smear? If Obama said he was born in the Statue of Liberty on the Fourth of July to descendants of George Washington and Abigail Adams, and someone asked him for the records to verify it, how would that be a smear? The burden of proof is not on the questioner. If the claim is made and it is not a matter of public record, then the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

    The public is not a court. This is not a trial. Providing the records would merely be an act of good faith, a way to gain trust from the People. Positive public opinion and the need for information to make sound judgements is essential for the success of both a president and the nation as a whole. If we are denied that information, then we cannot make decisions that are in our best interest.

    If Obama has nothing to hide, then he can and should release his records. If the public asks for it, he should be confident enough with his claims and he should provide it. By keeping all of his records under seal he is only prolonging and increasing the suspicion. It seems that he would rather allow continued conjecture and suspicion than provide evidence that supports his public claims. That is not an act of good faith. It is a calculated risk and apparently an intentional deceit. He wants much of his past to remain unknown. Obviously, there is a reason – and he seems to think it’s a pretty good one. We can only speculate as to what that is. It’s up to him to prove the speculation wrong by offering up verifiable facts that support his claims.

    As long as this continues, and as long as he seeks to maintain political power, the justice system is the least of his worries.

  • 110
    elspeth
    October 23rd, 2009 08:24

    David,

    Thank you for stating so clearly and without malice all that you said to siseduermapierda. You stated the situation eloquently and patiently. I personally wish I had your talent.

    Logic leads me to believe this is how Obama wants it. And why? I can only guess to keep the country divided and distracted; certainly not united — or if it is united he wants, he sure is going about it in a very odd way.

    I personally call for full disclosure. A win-win for all!

  • 111
    Sue
    October 23rd, 2009 08:25

    This is a rather interesting article.

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=261363BB-18FE-70B2-A8C3E21BE35E7F17
    What are the candidates hiding?

  • 112
    Black Lion
    October 23rd, 2009 09:29

    Sue says:
    October 23, 2009 at 8:25 am
    This is a rather interesting article.

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=261363BB-18FE-70B2-A8C3E21BE35E7F17
    What are the candidates hiding?
    ___________________________________________________________________
    From the article…

    • Palin’s college transcripts

    “Palin attended five schools in three states before graduating from the University of Idaho in 1987 with an undergraduate degree in journalism.

    A high school friend who attended three of those schools with Palin told the Los Angeles Times that the future governor got straight As, but a Palin spokeswoman declined to comment when asked by Politico if Palin would release her transcripts. The Times also reported that none of the 12 former Palin professors the newspaper interviewed remembered her.”

    Sue, great point. If we use the standard of proof that the birthers are using regarding President Obama attending Columbia, then did Palin really attend any of the 5 SCHOOLS she did in order for her to graduate from college? And how did she pay for it? I mean according to the article none of her professors remember her. And we have not seen any college yearbook photos. I mean how do we know? Remember we only have her word that she went to those schools and graduated, but she won’t release her transcripts or grades. No relase of medical records. What is she hiding?

    To quote David from above, “My comment was about public information and the purpose of knowing everything we can about our leaders in government, not just blindly accepting their personal narrative as absolute truth.” So why are we questioning her? She is a public figure? She is a leader of her “party”? Why no questions, even when she was running for VP? Alaska is very close to Canada, how do we know she was born in the US? She has never released a BC or any sort of proof?

    David also says the following…

    “If Obama has nothing to hide, then he can and should release his records. If the public asks for it, he should be confident enough with his claims and he should provide it. By keeping all of his records under seal he is only prolonging and increasing the suspicion. It seems that he would rather allow continued conjecture and suspicion than provide evidence that supports his public claims. That is not an act of good faith. It is a calculated risk and apparently an intentional deceit. He wants much of his past to remain unknown. Obviously, there is a reason – and he seems to think it’s a pretty good one. We can only speculate as to what that is. It’s up to him to prove the speculation wrong by offering up verifiable facts that support his claims.”

    Replace Obama with Palin, him with her, his with hers, and he with she. Why refuse to release your e-mail records? Why did you really resign? Was it because you were hiding something? What are you hiding from the American people?

    She how this game of innuendo can get ridiculous? You can question anything if you want to, but sooner or later you will have to take somebody’s word for “it”. Personally I believe Palin. However like the saying goes, “trust but verify”. So without any verification what are we to believe?

  • 113
    jvn
    October 23rd, 2009 09:41

    David -

    Your “common sense” concerns describe your reasoning for not voting for the President when he is up for re-election in 2012.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    The “questions” about his grades, his financial aid, his thesis — all these might be something that would make you not want to vote for him — but they are not disqualifying. And THAT is the discussion we have been having for the past year.

    You and anyone else are free to fill the internet with innuendo and rumors about the President and any other politician you want, and I won’t care. As Harry Truman said “politics a’int beanbag,” and I happen to believe that the President’s political team is more than capable in defending that sort of thing.

    But what raises my ire is the attempt to overturn an election result using bald faced fabrications about the Constitution and SCOTUS rulings, and just plain bull**** about where the President was born.

    By all means, vote your conscience…

  • 114
    misanthropicus
    October 23rd, 2009 09:45

    “Mystery Phantom Haunts Columbia U Hallway, Some Say That Could Be Barack Obama returning There To Get His Degree!” (News Agencies)

    FOR: Sise, Black Lion, Brygenon and other discouraged Obamatons -

    Bad news for you, guys, day-in, day-out. And coming to our subject, so far we had as comic relief in Obama’s Columbia career his TWO (2) thesis (per “Dreams From My Father” —> thesis: “US-Soviet Nuclear Dissarmament Issues In The 80-s”; per “The Audacity Of Hope” —> thesis: “North-South Relationships In The Post Colonial World”), both written when Columbia DIDN”T EVEN HAVE A A THESIS AS GRADUATION REQUIREMENT FOR THE TRACK OBAMA CLAIMS THAT HE WAS ENROLLED IN.

    Now PJM launched the revelation that actually Obama’s Columbia thesas was “Oligarchy Reborn”, a searing critique of the vampirical American middle class, who are fattening themselves by sucking the blood of emaciated American assembly line workers and starving African fruit pickers and porters.

    Yes – and I am impressed. Lenin nods somberly in his coffin, and so does Gus Hall – as far as Bob Avakian (current honcho of the CPUS), he actually is a Chicago figure and it is SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE THAT OBAMA DIDN’T SPEND SOME TIME with him, chatting about the good ol’ days of Goulags, Politburos, Derjinsky, Ceacescu, Pol Pot.

    You Obots, you apparently have a pretty well resources shelf – can you come with final word on which is Obama’s Columbia real thesis: “Oligarch Reborn”, “US-Soviet [...] Issues” or “Noth-South Relationships [...]”

    You can help him greatly, now with his ratings tanking -

  • 115
    siseduermapierda
    October 23rd, 2009 09:49

    David says:
    October 23, 2009 at 4:03 am
    *Questioning Obama’s story about himself, particularly when “irregularities” arise, is entirely different.*

    No it’s not. The burden of proof is on the accuser, in a court of law, in the public square. If you accuse someone of not being who they say they are, it is entirely disingenuous to insist the onus is on them to prove you wrong. Obama tried by posting the scan of his COLB, ya’ll called it a forgery. None of his other records have anything to do with Presidential eligibility. The links here quickly dismissed the notion that he didn’t graduate from Columbia.
    It is exactly the same as if you were accused of something. You would have the benefit of the assumption, the burden would be on those who accuse you. Obama deniers seem to think if they say it often enough, they turn it around or parse it or qualify it for Obama as being something different. It’s not and will never be. Just like Judge Land says, just because you say it’s so, doesn’t make it so. You are wrong. I challenge you to call a constitutional law instructor at your local law school and ask him this question.

  • 116
    Observer
    October 23rd, 2009 09:52

    bystander says:
    October 23, 2009 at 3:43 am
    Observer made up:

    In Obama’s book he says he wants to finish out Malcolm’s dream to unite the people in the name of Islam- OBAMA’s WORDS! Page 86! He also said that he would look for leaders to help him accomplish this new world. OBAMA’s WORDS!

    I’ve lost count of the number of times a birther tells me that Obama said something in his books that turns out to be completely fabricated. Here’s another example. This is the problem with birthers – they accept everything they are told at face value, and never seem to check any sources.

    And the man is carrying out these intentions to the present. But please feel free to correct the source if you doubt her representation. Apparently you’ve missed too many of the man’s speeches yourself, talks, misrepresentations of populations and national histories, of ideological realities, and emphatic notions of his. Perhaps you should stop bean counting and get to the meat of his acts, intentions, choices to this present day, and … yes …. self anointing words to the world (which, btw, they’re not buying because they’re well versed on such schemers from their own histories) and admitted intentions to use the U.S. powers for the benefit of Islam…and already has in the new orders for engagement in Afghanistan. The “problem” with you folks is just that contained within that song “I’m a believer” – “I’m in love … ooooh, I’m a believer, I couldn’t leave (him) if I tried.”

    And more poisonous venom oozing from the White House in those choices of the moment:

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113802

    Forgive the true believers, Lord, they don’t even know that they’re boiling.

  • 117
    qwertyman
    October 23rd, 2009 09:55

    http://www.glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com

    “And this is not about legal evidence – it’s about common sense.”

    My comment was about public information and the purpose of knowing everything we can about our leaders in government, not just blindly accepting their personal narrative as absolute truth.

    Questioning Beck’s story about himself, particularly when accusations of murder arise, is entirely different. I understand that it’s hard for a blind follower to see a difference in the two scenarios, but rest assured that Beck is not being “smeared” by asking for proof of his innocence. The doubts are only compounded when he refuses to release records that verify what he claims he is or has done.

    If Beck has never admitted to killing somebody, and someone asks him to show them evidence to verify that claim, especially when questions have been asked, how is that a smear? If Beck said he was born in the Statue of Liberty on the Fourth of July to descendants of George Washington and Abigail Adams, and someone asked him for the records to verify it, how would that be a smear? The burden of proof is not on the questioner. If the claim is made and it is not a matter of public record, then the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

    The public is not a court. This is not a trial. Providing the records would merely be an act of good faith, a way to gain trust from the People. Positive public opinion and the need for information to make sound judgements [sic] is essential for the success of both a political pundit and the nation as a whole. If we are denied that information, then we cannot make decisions that are in our best interest.

    If Beck has nothing to hide, then he can and should declare his innocence. If the public asks for it, he should be confident enough with his claims and he should state it. By refusing to answer the questions about his past that have come up, Beck is only prolonging and increasing the suspicion. It seems that he would rather allow continued conjecture and suspicion than provide evidence that supports his public claims. That is not an act of good faith. It is a calculated risk and apparently an intentional deceit. He wants much of his past to remain unknown. Obviously, there is a reason – and he seems to think it’s a pretty good one. We can only speculate as to what that is. It’s up to him to prove the speculation wrong by offering up verifiable facts that support his claims.

    As long as this continues, and as long as he seeks to maintain punditry power, the justice system is the least of his worries.

  • 118
    siseduermapierda
    October 23rd, 2009 10:03

    misanthropicus says:
    October 23, 2009 at 9:45 am
    *Which thesis*

    The recollections of the professor who taught the class…..

    “His former professor, Michael Baron, recalled in an interview with NBC News that Obama easily aced the year-long class. Baron described the paper as a “thesis” or “senior thesis” in several interviews, and said that Obama spent a year working on it. Baron recalls that the topic was nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union.”

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1219722.aspx

    Senior thesis, senior paper – they’re not bound and placed in the library of the college like doctoral dissertations. Your imaginations that Obama was the “chosen One” from his birth run away with you and you imagine every person who ever encountered Obama must remember because he would have been surrounded by harp-playing cherubim. You fantasize that his senior thesis was wrapped in gold cloth and place adoringly in a place of honor because it was already known by the “powers that be ” he was destined to be President. Of course, that’s the only way your conspiracy theory can work is if the fix was in from the moment of his birth.

  • 119
    bystander
    October 23rd, 2009 10:04

    Observer – I have no idea what your ramblings mean, if anything. They certainly have little relevance to the eligibility issue. You hate Obama – I get it – so don’t vote for him.

    I responded to you because you made a claim that Obama said something in his book. I read the page, and found he didn’t say what you claimed. More birther lies. If you want to discuss the eligibility issue – bring some facts. If you just want to go an paranoid rants – fine, but don’t expect anyone to dignify the ramblings with a response.

  • 120
    siseduermapierda
    October 23rd, 2009 10:07

    qwertyman says:
    October 23, 2009 at 9:55 am

    *My comment was about public information*

    You’re not asking for public information. You’re asking for private information that is protected by privacy laws no different from the rest of us. It is disingenuous to demand privacy laws be breached because you’re curious. If you don’t like the laws, work with your congressman to change them.

    And no, I don’t think it’s any different when someone accuses Glen Beck of raping and murdering a girl. He has the benefit of assumption. He has no obligation to prove he didn’t rape and murder a girl. No different for Obama, if you don’t think he is who he says he is, Prove It.

  • 121
    qwertyman
    October 23rd, 2009 10:11

    And more poisonous venom oozing from the White House in those choices of the moment:

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113802

    Poisonous venom? This article is about Sunstein saying that maybe we should just abolish the word marriage for governmental purposes, and that any two people could have a civil union. This would provide an equal set of rights for gay and lesbian couples and “preserve the sanctity of marriage.” Go ahead and get married in a church, but the government is going to call you a civil union for tax and benefit purposes.

    Frankly, that sounds like an excellent idea, even when put in the most negative light by WND, a news source whose credibility should be down to 0.

    And Phil, given that we’ve got several people in several different news sources who have “vouched for Obama’s history at Columbia,” maybe you should at least change the title of the article and maybe amend the article so that it’s clear that there are people from Columbia who remember him.

    As it stands now, you don’t explicitly say that you believe Obama didn’t attend Columbia. However, the Bush administration never said that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, or that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat, but the majority of people came to that conclusion from their statements. Your article here and the selectivity of what you’ve put into it seems designed to make people question whether Obama attended or graduated from Columbia in the first place (after all, several readers here have already come to that conclusion), where there have been a plethora of links and news stories about his time there, including an email sent from the president of the university.

    Edit: Sise, I love you, but I was being very sarcastic and satirical there to make a point. Note how my post and the prior post are almost word for word identical. Why won’t Beck answer the questions about the rumors that he raped a murdered a girl? Why won’t Obama answer the rumors that he never attended Columbia?

    I think you’ll find that the answer to both these questions are the same.

  • 122
    Sharon 2
    October 23rd, 2009 10:54

    Bob,

    I have a question for you on the previous thread.

  • 123
    Observer
    October 23rd, 2009 10:58

    qwertyman:

    Poisonous venom? This article is about Sunstein saying that maybe we should just abolish the word marriage for governmental purposes, and that any two people could have a civil union.

    Exactly … poisonous venom. And, btw, which are your choicest organs for removal … oh, possibly before death too? Beyond just venom, but also ghoolish … and I don’t think it’s only meant as a Holloween prank!

    “Then I saw his face … now I’m a believer … I couldn’t leave him if I tried”

  • 124
    Observer
    October 23rd, 2009 11:04

    bystander says:
    October 23, 2009 at 10:04 am
    Observer – I have no idea what your ramblings mean, if anything.

    Of course you don’t. But then the discussion could go no farther if we had to wait for the comprehension-challenged here.

    If you just want to go an paranoid rants – fine, but don’t expect anyone to dignify the ramblings with a response.

    But you just couldn’t resist – eh? Temptationnnn!

  • 125
    misanthropicus
    October 23rd, 2009 11:12

    RE siseduermapierda:
    [...] *Which thesis* [...] The recollections of the professor who taught the class….. [...]

    Heavens, Sise, you sure should try something like slaloming, contortion, or dodging arrows!

    So what’s this thing with Michael Baron’s recollection? He’s just mentioned one of the topics Obama described as his achievements – yet this doesn’t clear at all the obscurity that envelops Obama’s (hypothetical) presence at Columbia.

    Explain why Baron’s reminiscences (US-Soviet Nuclear Issues) trumps Obama’s version (North-South Relationships) and the latest “Oligarchy Reborn” -
    And also how all or any of this clear the doubts about Obama’s presence at Columbia

    PS: “Baron’s reminiscences” – which so much remind Fukino’s adventures in truth telling: “… it [Obama's "BC"] kind of looks like mine, I think.”

  • 126
    David
    October 23rd, 2009 11:52

    Black Lion,

    Agreed. Anyone who is seeking public office and making claims that are not public record ought to be able to provide proof of their claims when questioned. Otherwise, don’t run for public office and don’t make unverifiable claims.

  • 127
    David
    October 23rd, 2009 12:00

    jvn,

    You missed the point. Obama is running on a history that he used to win an election. When asked to provide information about his past based on claims he has made, he has refused to do so. He has his records sealed and will not release them. Sure, that will not encourage many people to vote for him, but it also means the ones who do are voting blindly – they do not know as a matter of fact if his story about himself is true. And those who question him have a right to do so as long as he refuses to release records that verify his version of his life.

    This isn’t about replacing him as president…it’s about discovering the truth. Replacement can only come after all the facts are learned, if at all. It’s more about honesty and transparency – two things he promised to the People – than anything else.

  • 128
    bystander
    October 23rd, 2009 12:07

    It is noted that Observer responded yet again without acknowledging that he was caught out in a lie regarding Obama’s book. Observer is dishonest.

  • 129
    David
    October 23rd, 2009 12:09

    siseduermapierda,

    “No it’s not. The burden of proof is on the accuser, in a court of law, in the public square. If you accuse someone of not being who they say they are, it is entirely disingenuous to insist the onus is on them to prove you wrong.”

    There is no “accusation.” There are questions. The questions are asking for Obama to provide the proof of his claims. Again…the public is not a court. Obama is a public figure – the most important public figure in our government. Questions have arisen and he has refused to answer them by providing evidence that supports his story. Many people want to know why. Is he hiding something?

    We won’t know unless he steps up and answers the questions honestly and transparently. That’s what he ran on as a presidential candidate. Now, when asked to be honest and transparent, he deflects and obfuscates, and when in the courts, his lawyers rely on legal technicalities to prevent any release of records. It appears that he is a hypocrite and a liar.

    For most of us here on this website and elsewhere in the public realm, that would be a trust and honesty issue, not a legal one.

  • 130
    David
    October 23rd, 2009 12:15

    qwertyman,

    Accusing Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a girl is not at all comparable to asking Obama for records that verify his public claims. Your post is basically a non-sequitur.

    Here’s the challenge:

    1. Go on television and accuse Glenn Beck of raping and murdering a girl.

    2. Then, ask Obama to release his college transcripts.

    3. Wait to see who sues you first.

  • 131
    siseduermapierda
    October 23rd, 2009 12:32

    David says:
    October 23, 2009 at 12:00 pm
    * He has his records sealed and will not release them.*
    A lie. His school records, medical records and vital records are protected by the same privacy laws that protect yours and mine. “He sealed his records.” is the most blatantly false Obama denier lie of them all.
    *the ones who do are voting blindly – they do not know as a matter of fact if his story about himself is true.*
    I am still completely confident that the story we know about Barack Obama is true. If you don’t think so,PROVE OTHERWISE. If there was as much untrue about his story as you folks insist, you’d be able to show it without having to have a judge open private records. It would be easily found everywhere he’d been. It’s such a paradox, like all conspiracy theories, you folks have found something fishy about every detail of his life: from his birth, to his education, to his religious life, his sexual preferences, his health, his financial circumstances. You see malfeasance and shenanigans in every aspect of his life for 48 years, and yet you can’t find a shred of evidence that could reasonably make a cause of action, let alone proof. It makes no sense, so much untruth in his 48 year story and yet you have nothing that proves it. Just like with every conspiracy theory, the conspiracy is so big and requires so many people, all of whom must perform exactly perfectly and never tell, it’s just inconceivable. In the case of Obama, it would have taken thousands of people over 48 years to create the story and yet there’s no evidence and no one who’s talked.
    *And those who question him have a right to do so.*
    Question all you want. The problem is insisting you have a right to an answer. You don’t. If you don’t like, work with your Congressman to write laws that require disclosure.

    *This isn’t about replacing him as president*
    Of course it is. That’s all it’s about. Your remedy is in the voting booth. Half a dozen judges have already told you this, most recently Judge Simandle in the Kerchner dismissal.

  • 132
    jvn
    October 23rd, 2009 12:36

    David -

    First off, the President DID NOT seal his records. That is a birther myth. Yes, he has not responded to the birther calls that he show Orly Taitz every document either he or his family have ever known, been mentioned in, touched or created, but that is hardly “sealing” his records, its just resisting stupidity.

    I didn’t vote for him because of the term papers he wrote in College. Columbia and Harvard substantiate that he graduated from their schools, the IL Bar admitted him, and the University of Chicago tells us that he taught there.

    The “records” y’all are asking for are attempts to feed the conspiracy theories. He shouldn’t release them.

    I suspect that you believed George Bush’s “story” that he was once part owner of the Texas Rangers without demanding to see the certified copies of the contracts buying the team with his independently verified signature on them, now didn’t you?

    Again, what apparently concerns you about the Presidnet’s “proof” of his story should cause you to NOT vote for him when he runs again.

    I only hope that Sarah Palin agrees to show you the notes her mother sent to her teacher that time she was out sick from school for five days in 5th grade, otherwise you might not have anybody to vote for.

  • 133
    qwertyman
    October 23rd, 2009 12:39

    There is no “accusation.” There are questions. The questions are asking for Beck to at least issue a denial. Again…the public is not a court. Beck is a public figure – the most important public figure on Fox News. Questions have arisen and he has refused to answer them by providing evidence that supports his story. Many people want to know why. Is he hiding something?

    We won’t know unless he steps up and answers the questions honestly and transparently. That’s what he talks about as a political pundit. Now, when asked to be honest and transparent, he deflects and obfuscates, and when in the courts, his lawyers rely on legal technicalities to prevent any release of records. It appears that he is a hypocrite and a liar. [Yes, Beck has actually filed suit against the website I've linked to, and has yet to issue a denial of the rumors that have arisen.]

    For most of us here on this website and elsewhere in the public realm, that would be a trust and honesty issue, not a legal one.

  • 134
    Sue
    October 23rd, 2009 12:43

    Would somebody please explain to Orly Taitz that everyone with the last name of Obama is Not a relative of President Obama.

  • 135
    David
    October 23rd, 2009 12:48

    siseduermapierda,

    This is where comprehension comes into play – and where it has failed you.

    My initial comment here was about gaining public trust and satisfying the legitimate inquiries of the People, and how it was necessary for both a leader and a citizenry for that to happen. You have continued to ramble on about “proving” the inquiries based on legal policies and standards. Once again…Obama has made the public claims – and those claims are being questioned. He can choose to answer them honestly and openly, or he can refuse. One will gain public trust, the other will lose it.

    Obama’s records are sealed. They are his records. Whether they are sealed by his doing or by default, they are sealed and he can make them available to the public. He has refused to release them. They remain sealed by his actions or inactions.

    All you keep saying is “Prove it, prove it, prove it!” Prove what? Obama has made the claims. He ought to be able to prove them. We cannot prove his claims for him without the documentation that is sealed from the public. Only he can do so.

    Here’s an example to help you understand:

    I have a greater IQ than Albert Einstein had.

    I was in school with Obama at Harvard and he consistently received poor grades because of his skin color.

    My great-grandfather’s brother-in-law was Charlie Chaplin.

    If you don’t get it, perhaps you should stop responding. You’re starting to look quite foolish.

  • 136
    David
    October 23rd, 2009 12:51

    jvn,

    See my last comment to “sise.”

  • 137
    Sue
    October 23rd, 2009 12:59

    What records did Palin make public? Birth certificate-no, health records-no, college transcripts-no.

    Remember the rumors about how Trigg is not her child but her daughter’s child? Do you need proof that Trigg is Palin’s child?

    Personally, I thought that was a pretty stupid rumor, but even if it were true, it would be none of my business and would not have any bearing on her ability to perform her duties as an elected official.

  • 138
    MGB
    October 23rd, 2009 13:02

    David: The simple answer is that he has plenty to hide but his True Believers don’t want to realize the truth of that truth.

    jvn: We have overdiscussed Barbara Nelson’s attempt to help her friend. She had NO first hand knowledge of Obama’s birth. Nor did Dr. West, who was not even practicing at that time, and conveniently (or not) was deceased when Ms. Nelson came up with this story (so nobody could ask HIM what he remembers or ask him to corroborate HER “very nice, wholesome story.” With “story” being the operative word.)

    You might be interested in this post by Phil, if you care to know the truth:

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=3172

    If you’re interested in the truth instead of in further misleading readers of this blog, then you might also want to read all the linked articles and associated comments. Her fabrication has been thoroughly debunked.

    We have discussed this very same issue here, many times, especially when someone once again tries to throw it out as “proof” of somebody “remembering” his birth. However, you guys repeat the original lie (excuse me, embellishment) and not her so very quick retraction.

    Ms. Nelson, upon being questioned, backtracked as fast as her legs could carry her. As did Okubo, upon being questioned about her ridiculous statements.

  • 139
    Anonymous
    October 23rd, 2009 13:10

    James said

    Just to clarify, I came across a responce that no one knew him. Well here’s a posting from the homepage of Columbia. The article says University,the homepage says College. Two completely differant schools. http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct/jan_feb09/alumni_corner

    I checked out your link and found a very nice “roommate” story for Columbia college by a current communications and public relations manager who claims to have known Mr. Obama at Oxy also.
    The site http://www.college.columbia.edu is part of the website of Columbia University in New York.

    from http://www.college.columbia.edu/about

    Columbia College has had the best general education curriculum in the country for more than half a century. … The vitality of any tradition depends upon its constant renewal, and for this reason, among others, Columbia College’s general education is conducted in small seminars. … At Columbia College, students spend a substantial part of their first years in small classes, reading and discussing primary works of literature, philosophy, history, science, and social and political theory, and studying fine arts and music. Through discussion and debate, through writing, and through direct interaction between instructor and student, our core curriculum helps improve each student’s ability to engage in the kinds of analytic, discursive, and imaginative thinking that will prove indispensable in both subsequent education and later life.

    and

    Many opportunities also exist for students to participate in outreach programs that assist less fortunate members of our society.

    Current tuition $37,470 per year no matter what the course load.

    The “roommate” comments that Mr. Obama wanted to become a writer. Has Columbia confirmed the type of degree that Mr. Obama was granted? Perhaps he wasn’t studying poli sci and pre law after all. Maybe he took one course in the subject and maybe it was under the “college” curriculum, not the standard university curriculum. The very small class size cited would fit with the “college” description above. That might explain why other students taking poli sci pre law didn’t know him. Other than its “College” within “The University” status, what else is significant about the College? Was it possibly more “open” and “unstructured” in the early 80′s? Who was on its faculty? Why offer small classes in the same subjects taught to huge classes and not get any more money for this effort? Why allow “College” students to take as many of these small classes as they wish without paying the additional tuition that would be required of students enrolled in the University? Maybe someone who has attended Columbia can answer these questions.

    Wouldn’t spin on his Columbia degree be consistent with other facts that are being slowly revealed through research?

    Kinda like he put together the notes for “Dreams,” but didn’t really write it? (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/09/andersen_claimstwo_sources_for.html)
    Ayers is beginning to claim authorship (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/ayers_admits_writing_dreams_1.html)
    and Jack Cashill and others have found significant similarities between Dreams and other writings by Ayers (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/literary_lion_obama_will_roar.html).

    Kinda like he was the editor of the Harvard Law Review and didn’t put his name on anything that was published in it?

    Kinda like he didn’t publish anything while teaching at the University of Chicago?

    Kinda like he didn’t write any bills in the Illinois Senate and voted present how many times?

    Kinda like Hawaii probably can’t show a long form BC, only multiple documents that “attest” that he was born in Hawaii? Could he have obtained a US passport in the 60′s, 70′s, and 80′s without a long form BC? And there are those rumors about something being white washed in his passport file at the State Department.

    Kinda like its cool to claim a foreign citizenship at birth during the campaign, but to scrub the claim if it may render him ineligible for the Office which he occupies?

    Wasn’t his first job writing a newsletter? Maybe Mr. Obama did want to become a writer, but found that he just couldn’t do it. So he looked for another career, became a community organizer and entered politics.

    So opposition, have at it. Please read the whole post, cite your sources, and don’t pick out out of context “soundbites” to attack in your replies.

    My whisper here will have to suffice in the background of those who shout so frequently, loudly, redundantly, and at length in an attempt to crowd out exploration into areas which some do not want explored.

    PS Palin did release her medical records. I’ll bet that she put herself through school too, because there would have been no one else to help her.

  • 140
    jvn
    October 23rd, 2009 13:14

    David -

    You are entitled to your opinions on how leaders should respond to “questions” about their background. You only get one vote.

    MGB -

    No, Dr. West was not deceased when the President was born. Yes, he was a hospital administrator, and yes, he was an OB/GYN by trade, and yes, Ms. Nelson was told that story by him.

    Certainly you are not indicating that the Buffalo News is lying?

    I’m sure you can link me to Ms. Nelson’s backtracking under questioning, right?

    Kind of ironic for a birther to talk about “misinformation,” isn’t it?

  • 141
    qwertyman
    October 23rd, 2009 13:14

    Obama has made the public claims – and those claims are being questioned. He can choose to answer them honestly and openly, or he can refuse. One will gain public trust, the other will lose it.

    The “claim” upon which this entire blog seems based on is that Obama claims that he was born in Hawaii. This is backed up by newspaper announcements, a birth certificate posted on the internet, multiple statements from the Department of Health and testimonials of several family members. Instead birthers choose to ignore, disregard, declare forged or fraudulent all these things and apparently think that some random Kenyan reporter writing a piece in 2004 had some personal information about Obama which he refuses to divulge in the article itself.

    The claim this post is about is that Obama claims to have attended Columbia College. This is backed by the president of the university, a professor who had him in a class, and at least one former roommate, for starters. Instead you apparently believe all of them are either lying or have been deceived by false records because Obama has claimed that two different papers were theses, and that one classmate says that neither him nor anybody in his circle remembers him.

    Obama’s “claims” are backed by multiple independent sources. All you have to base your questions on is pure speculation. And while that is your right, that doesn’t mean that you’re being reasonable.

  • 142
    MGB
    October 23rd, 2009 13:35

    jvn said, “No, Dr. West was not deceased when the President was born. Yes, he was a hospital administrator, and yes, he was an OB/GYN by trade, and yes, Ms. Nelson was told that story by him.”

    Now, everybody, let’s examine how jvn misleads:

    1. I did NOT say that Dr. West was deceased when Obama was born. But jvn falsely (perhaps deliberately) says that I said that.

    2. I said that Dr. West was not practicing when Obama was born. I did not say that he was a hospital administrator, although that’s what he was, at the time Obama was born. A desk job. NOT a practicing OB so therefore could not have delivered Obama. I did NOT say that he was never an OB/GYN. But he wasn’t a practicing OB/GYN at the time, which is why Ms. Nelson had to backtrack when questioned further, because her nice wholesome story didn’t hold water.

    3. There is NO evidence that Dr. West told Ms. Nelson that story. As I DID say, Dr. West was conveniently deceased WHEN Ms. Nelson told her story; therefore, conveniently, Dr. West could not be questioned by the media to corroborate the “story.”

    No, jvn, I am not saying that the Buffalo newspaper is lying. I’m saying that Ms. Nelson mislead the reporter, who apparently did not fact check her story. Only after its publication did others fact check it and discover that her “facts” do not fit reality.

    I LINKED you to Ms. Nelson’s backtracking. It’s there in the WND story and the links provided by the story. I suggested that if you want to KNOW the truth, you read the story, which obviously you did not. Had you read it and also Phil’s post, then you would KNOW that Ms. Nelson backtracked upon being questioned further. But you don’t want to KNOW the truth because you can’t handle the truth.

  • 143
    Sue
    October 23rd, 2009 13:41

    “This is where comprehension comes into play – and where it has failed you.”

    No, David, this is where your comprehension has failed you.

    Presidential/VP candidates are not required by law to produce any records. There is no rule, law or anything in the Constitution that requires the production of any type of public or private record. Any records they do produce is a courtesy, not a requirement. Note: “LaBolt pointed to lists of hundreds of the firm’s clients that Obama attached to the “mandatory personal financial disclosure statements” he filed for each of his eight years in the Illinois state Senate.”

    Of the 4 political candidates in the 2008 Presidential election,President Obama publicly provided more than any other candidate, according to the article by Politico. If you will notice, a birth certificate is not mentioned in the article.

    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=261363BB-18FE-70B2-A8C3E21BE35E7F17

  • 144
    MGB
    October 23rd, 2009 13:45

    If you notice, Dr. West, when he did practice obstetrics, practiced at the Straub Clinic. Not Queen’s or Kapiolani, which are the two candidates variously given for Obama’s birth place.

    However, Dr. West didn’t practice obstetrics in 1961. Therefore, how could he have known about the birth of that one child?

    And why would a doctor violate doctor/patient confidentiality by gossiping about that birth with a third party, Ms. Nelson? Now there’s character assassination for you. But not to worry. Dr. West can’t sue Ms. Nelson because, like so many others (such as the Lefforges), he’s conveniently dead.

  • 145
    David
    October 23rd, 2009 14:14

    Sue,

    No – comprehension has actually failed in you.

    I made no mention of any legal requirements to produce records. In fact, I specifically stated that I was not making a legal argument on more than one occasion during debate on this thread. Those who insist on making such an inference after repeated assertions by me that they are indeed erroneous are apparently intellectual rejects. But perhaps you merely suffer from a reading problem. After all, you can’t comprehend what I’m writing if you haven’t read what I wrote. Try doing them in succession (read first – then try to comprehend), then get back to me.

  • 146
    David
    October 23rd, 2009 14:26

    qwertyman,

    Have you tried the challenge? Or have you discovered the difference between my point and your fallacious reasoning?

  • 147
    MGB
    October 23rd, 2009 14:32

    I might add that it’s also very suspiciously coincidental that these spurious stories and/or newspaper articles and/or birth announcements show up only SHORTLY AFTER certain would-be corroborating witnesses are so very conveniently dead.

  • 148
    Observer
    October 23rd, 2009 14:34

    siseduermapierda says:
    October 23, 2009 at 12:32 pm
    David says:
    October 23, 2009 at 12:00 pm
    * He has his records sealed and will not release them.*
    A lie. His school records, medical records and vital records are protected by the same privacy laws that protect yours and mine.

    Except that when the exemplified “school records” requested from Occidental the school authorities stated that the request was indeed legitimate and due compliance but therefore had to take the extraordinary measure of calling out the troops, using the sealing lips of the threatening monster law firm with tentacles throughout the fruited plain and with the additional power of political access to highest power in our land – far beyond that little ol “privacy law that protect yours and mine”. Play with semantics all you want but the outcome is one of being “sealed” with non-penetrating concrete as far as the rest of us little ol citizens and our “privacy law protections” go.

  • 149
    Observer
    October 23rd, 2009 14:41

    bystander says:
    October 23, 2009 at 12:07 pm
    It is noted that Observer responded yet again without acknowledging that he was caught out in a lie regarding Obama’s book. Observer is dishonest.

    If you didn’t agree with the source’s interpretation I invited you to be free to let her know. I myself gave reasons for the acceptance of such an interpretation since the man’s own words and actions since have played them out.

  • 150
    Black Lion
    October 23rd, 2009 14:49

    MGB says:
    October 23, 2009 at 1:35 pm
    jvn said, “No, Dr. West was not deceased when the President was born. Yes, he was a hospital administrator, and yes, he was an OB/GYN by trade, and yes, Ms. Nelson was told that story by him.”

    Now, everybody, let’s examine how jvn misleads:

    1. I did NOT say that Dr. West was deceased when Obama was born. But jvn falsely (perhaps deliberately) says that I said that.

    2. I said that Dr. West was not practicing when Obama was born. I did not say that he was a hospital administrator, although that’s what he was, at the time Obama was born. A desk job. NOT a practicing OB so therefore could not have delivered Obama. I did NOT say that he was never an OB/GYN. But he wasn’t a practicing OB/GYN at the time, which is why Ms. Nelson had to backtrack when questioned further, because her nice wholesome story didn’t hold water.

    3. There is NO evidence that Dr. West told Ms. Nelson that story. As I DID say, Dr. West was conveniently deceased WHEN Ms. Nelson told her story; therefore, conveniently, Dr. West could not be questioned by the media to corroborate the “story.”

    No, jvn, I am not saying that the Buffalo newspaper is lying. I’m saying that Ms. Nelson mislead the reporter, who apparently did not fact check her story. Only after its publication did others fact check it and discover that her “facts” do not fit reality.

    I LINKED you to Ms. Nelson’s backtracking. It’s there in the WND story and the links provided by the story. I suggested that if you want to KNOW the truth, you read the story, which obviously you did not. Had you read it and also Phil’s post, then you would KNOW that Ms. Nelson backtracked upon being questioned further. But you don’t want to KNOW the truth because you can’t handle the truth.
    __________________________________________________________________
    MGB, really we only have WND’s claim that Ms. Nelson was wrong or was backtracking. Phil’s post came straight from the WND article. Now if we are to take WND at their word remember, they also at one time authenticated President Obama’s COLB. And remember if Ms. Nelson was proved to be wrong, then why hasn’t the Buffalo news issued a retraction….

    From ConWebWatch.

    A July 12 WorldNetDaily article by Jerome Corsi asserts: “Despite an in-depth search, the name of any physician or medical attendant who might have helped deliver the baby Barack Obama at Honolulu’s Kapi’olani Hospital in 1961 remains shrouded in mystery.”

    There is no way Corsi could have done any kind of “in-depth search.” How do we know? Because we found it at Snopes.

    Snopes cites a Buffalo News article about a woman who was a former teacher at the Hawaii school that Obama attended:

    When Barack Hussein Obama places his hand on the Bible today to take the oath of office as 44th president of the United States, Barbara Nelson of Kenmore will undoubtedly think back to the day he was born. It was Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu.

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

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

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

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

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

    “I remember Dr. West saying ‘Barack Hussein Obama, now that’s a musical name,’” said Nelson, who grew up in Kenmore and went to Hawaii in 1959 to be in Jo-Anne’s wedding party.

    Curiously, Corsi makes no mention whatsoever of Dr. West or Barbara Nelson’s story, which tells us that any “search” Corsi did was obviously not “in-depth.”

    Corsi didn’t even have to do that much of a search for this story — in January, WND’s Bob Unruh wrote about Barbara Nelson. But then, Unruh’s goal was to discredit her.

    Unruh claimed to have spoken with Nelson, who said she never claimed that West delivered Obama: “Being one of the leaders in obstetrics in Hawaii, he could have had physical or informational access to all of the obstetrics [on the islands].”

    But the online version of the Buffalo News article does not indicate any correction has made to it, nor does the version of the article in the Nexis database. If Nelson was as concerned as Unruh portrays her about the newspaper’s purportedly misleading portrayal, surely she would have sought a correction or clarification from the paper. But there’s no indication that she did.

    Corsi already has a long history of derelict journalism when it comes to Obama, and his failure to even mention Rodney West or Barbara Nelson is just another example of how Corsi will ignore facts to pursue his anti-Obama agenda.

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog?start=1248181014

  • 151
    Sue
    October 23rd, 2009 14:52

    David,

    There is no reason a political candidate should release anything just because someone calls him/her a liar. The burden of proof is on you to prove he/she is a liar, not the other way around.

    If political candidates released something everytime someone called them a liar, they would spend their time doing nothing but releasing information to the public.

  • 152
    MGB
    October 23rd, 2009 15:03

    Black Lion: more obfuscation. WND did NOT authenticate the COLB. WND has multiple authors. It does NOT authenticate everything their writers write, anymore than Phil authenticates what you write.

    I repeat: Ms. Nelson has a story. That’s all she has and she DID backtrack as soon as she was questioned. I have no idea WHY Buffalo news didn’t retract. Why don’t you ask them? How do you know that they didn’t retract? We still have allegations but no proof of a correction of the Indonesian birth place story and also the various hospital birth place stories, some of which were “corrected” months after the fact and none of which source their “corrections”.

    The bottom line is that as Phil says, “There is clearly precious little evidence showing substantial bona fides for this President. And for someone who claims to want to operate within the realm of transparency, one could not be any more opaque.”

    As David suggests, why doesn’t he just PROVE what he claims to be true? Even if colleges can’t release the information, HE can. HE won’t. WHY NOT?

    About Ms. Nelson: Don’t you think it’s mighty suspicious and too coincidental that she and Obama just happened to cross paths so many times? Like Zelig or Forrest Gump? Why isn’t Ms. Nelson just a regular person, instead of someone who’s invested in Obama’s success? Why did she wait for Dr. West to die before coming out with this story? (Because he wouldn’t be able to refute it? NAH. That can’t be why.)

    Believe what you want to believe, Black Lion. It’s obvious that you already do.

    How about this?

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/10/excerpts-from-obamas-columbia-thesis-reveals-americas-worst-nightmare-is-in-the-oval-office.html

    Ruh, oh. That is, unless you like having an avowed, long-time Marxist in the WH. Is this why he hides the papers he wrote? Gee, if he revealed these 10 pages, one can only imagine what goodies are contained in the remainder of the paper.

  • 153
    Bob
    October 23rd, 2009 15:14

    the school authorities stated that the request was indeed legitimate and due compliance

    As would any nonparty institution that was served with any kind of facially valid subpeona.

    therefore had to take the extraordinary measure of calling out the troops

    Obama’s lawyers moved to quash the subpeona because, in addition to technical defects, it was not relevant to the litigation at hand (Keyes v. Bowen).

    And the court ruled in favor of Obama; it was wrong for Kreep to have made the initial request.

  • 154
    siseduermapierda
    October 23rd, 2009 16:09

    MGB says:
    October 23, 2009 at 3:03 pm
    *As David suggests, why doesn’t he just PROVE what he claims to be true?*

    The onus is on you to prove he’s not what he claims to be. You’ve been trying to turn it around for a year and a half, so how’s that workin’ for ya? Anyone responding to you? No. You’ve been unable to get what you want with mendacity. There are a certain percentage of Americans, about 20% is my guess, who will never accept or vote for Obama no way no how. With everything going on in this country, there isn’t time to molly-coddle the malcontents. Believe him – don’t believe him. Vote for him – don’t vote for him. Most people don’t care about your silly accusations. I’ll say it again – You seem to find something wrong, suspicious, shenanigans in every single aspect of his life. That’s what destroyed your credibility. If you had focused on one thing – say, where he was born, you might have developed a meaningful following. Instead, you’ve dreamt up flaws in his entire history. You’d have done better at your game if you’d stuck to birthplace instead of branching out into his parentage, his education, his medical history,his religion, his sexuality, his acquaintances, his finances, you even debated whether it meant something if he was circumcised. You have made yourselves appear foolish and fringy, finding something wrong with everything. People can believe one thing might be wrong, but everything? Non-starter. Epic Fail.

  • 155
    Black Lion
    October 23rd, 2009 16:19

    MGB says:
    October 23, 2009 at 3:03 pm
    Black Lion: more obfuscation. WND did NOT authenticate the COLB. WND has multiple authors. It does NOT authenticate everything their writers write, anymore than Phil authenticates what you write.
    _____________________________________________________________
    Really MGB? Then why did they write the following back in August of 2008? In it I believe they do use the phrase “find it to be autehntic”? So unless the definition of the word authenticate has changed, then WND claimed back in August of 2008 to have “authenticated” President Obama’s COLB. See for yourself below…

    “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214

    Of course when WND was caught out there verifying President Obama’s COLB it didn’t look good for them since they were pushing anti-Obama rhetoric so they then added an additional paragraph to their original article redifining what it means to authenticate in order to defend themselves from the claim of supporting Obama.

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/index.blog/1933820/wnd-editors-note-tries-to-walk-back-authentic-birth-certificate-claim/

    So either WND did authenticate it or not…Them adding an “editors note” a year later is proof that they realized what they wrote and tried to back off the claim. Either way the bottom line is that you have to take whatever they write with a grain of salt. They have been caught in many lies and smears of President Obama. My point was to link to WND as a source is problematic at best. They can easily be debunked.

    You are right. There may be no evidence that Dr. West told Ms. Nelson that story, but there is no evidence that he did not either. I am just using the circular argument you like when you try and explain away anything that supports President Obama.

    The bottom line is why should he have to prove anything? We never asked George Bush to prove he went to Yale and U. of Texas. We never asked Bill Clinton to prove he went to Oxford. Just because a small 1% segment of the population wants the President to prove something doesn’t mean he should have to. This was all known last November and over 70 million people were comfortable with pulling the lever to make Obama the 44th President of the US.

    It is like we all want to change the rules now that Obama is President. I seem to recall when the rumors were spreading that Bush was a C student at Yale and people asked to see his academic records, he refused by saying it was none of your business. Were you out there pushing for the records MGB? No you were not. But now that there is a President you dislike, all bets are off. He should have to meet a higher standard. And if some nutjob makes a claim that they can’t prove, instead of telling that person to come back with some proof you say that President Obama shoud “just show us his records” or “just show us some proof”. You want to shift the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. And you try and hide it under the guise of “saying if he has nothing to hide then what is the problem” or “he claims to want transperancy” or other birther crap. It is unfair and most of all contrary to our legal system of a person being presumed innocent. That is why he shouldn’t show a darn thing.

    Secondly linking us to an article by President Obama hater Pamela Geller may be even worse than WND or the John Charlton at the Post and Fail. She provides us with no proof. She just likes to spew hatred for President Obama for sport. She is pathetic. But you are willing to believe her because you both have a common enemy, the President. So just as you want to believe Ms. Geller there are some are just as willing to believe Ms. Nelson and her story. You need to make up your mind. Is the President a Marxist, Socialist, Nazi, or Communist? They are all different and he can’t be all 4. It is amusing how the birthers will throw around those terms without proof like they are supposed to frighten us. It didn’t work last November and it won’t work now.

  • 156
    David
    October 23rd, 2009 16:36

    siseduermapierda,

    Did you not understand my previous examples? Here they are again, in case you forgot:

    I have a greater IQ than Albert Einstein had.

    I was in school with Obama at Harvard and he consistently received poor grades because of his skin color.

    My great-grandfather’s brother-in-law was Charlie Chaplin.

    Perhaps those examples are not good enough for you to comprehend public claims vs. accusations – and where the burden of proof lies. Let me try a different set:

    I graduated from Harvard Law School with a 4.0 GPA and wrote a thesis on enforcement of the Genocide Convention by the International Court of Justice.

    When I applied for a local university in Pennsylvania, I confirmed that I was a foreign-born immigrant here on a student visa.

    I was diagnosed with liver cancer at age 30 and doctors confirmed that it was in full remission without treatment by the age of 31.

    What do those claims have in common with details from Obama’s life story as told by him? And how would we go about confirming them?

  • 157
    qwertyman
    October 23rd, 2009 16:45

    I graduated from Harvard Law School with a 4.0 GPA and wrote a thesis on enforcement of the Genocide Convention by the International Court of Justice.

    When I applied for a local university in Pennsylvania, I confirmed that I was a foreign-born immigrant here on a student visa.

    I was diagnosed with liver cancer at age 30 and doctors confirmed that it was in full remission without treatment by the age of 31.

    What do those claims have in common with details from Obama’s life story as told by him? And how would we go about confirming them?

    Did you miss the parts where a former professor talked about Obama’s time at Columbia, and the president of the university proudly discussing Obama’s status as an alum, and the former roommate writing about their time together while at Columbia?

    It’s like with your last example – the guy claiming remission is backed by his wife, the head of the clinic he went to and one of the nurses all confirm that he’s in remission without treatment, but you have doubts as to whether this is true because you haven’t seen x-rays or MRIs for yourself.

  • 158
    siseduermapierda
    October 23rd, 2009 16:46

    David says:
    October 23, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    David, you’re getting nowhere. Obama has the benefit of assumption he is who he claims to be until someone proves otherwise. Look how easily and quickly a preponderance of statements and articles were found that prove to a reasonable person that Obama graduated from Columbia. And yet you folks can’t find one piece of real evidence to prove even one of your allegations against him. You ruined your credibility by having too long a list of things you think aren’t true. You should have stuck to the only meaningful one: where he was born. Finding something fishy in everything has simply diluted your argument to where you look silly.

  • 159
    David
    October 23rd, 2009 16:54

    qwertyman,

    You’re too focused on this one issue. None of my comments have singled out his Columbia attendance as being false. I am not disputing that. All I have asked for is something to verify his life story according to him – to shed light on his past. Apparently, that’s too controversial.

    The most powerful person in the world and the leader of our federal government shouldn’t be so secretive about his past if he has nothing to worry about. Besides, he has already been elected – nothing is going to change that. Are things like college transcripts or birth certificates really that private or personal to a man who is living his life in the global spotlight?

  • 160
    siseduermapierda
    October 23rd, 2009 17:03

    David says:
    October 23, 2009 at 4:54 pm
    “All I have asked for is something to verify his life story according to him – to shed light on his past.”

    Two words for you David: Search Google. There is more information available about Barack Obama than any President in history. Look how many articles, statements were found in just minutes supporting his attendance and graduation from Columbia. That was only one issue. His life story, with the verification by the people who were there, is easily verifiable. Funny thing though. You have to look. It’s why you folks never bothered to look because if you look you can no longer insist you don’t know anything about Obama.

  • 161
    David
    October 23rd, 2009 17:04

    siseduermapierda,

    “Obama has the benefit of assumption he is who he claims to be until someone proves otherwise.”

    Sure he does. We can all assume he is who he claims to be. But without anything to verify his claims, it is only an assumption. That goes for anyone who claims anything without providing corroborating evidence. We can only assume that it is in fact true.

    “You ruined your credibility by having too long a list of things you think aren’t true.”

    What do I think is not true? I have very little first-hand evidence to verify anything about Obama’s past, so what I think is true or not true is only speculation. That’s why questions need to be asked and his claims ought to be verified. I have no “list” – I’m only asking for more transparency and honesty…something he promised to all citizens.

    “Finding something fishy in everything has simply diluted your argument to where you look silly.”

    Finding a conspiracy-theorist in everyone who asks for proof of one’s claims – especially as the most prominent public figure in the world – makes you look dim-witted and, quite ironically, arrogant.

  • 162
    Observer
    October 23rd, 2009 17:09

    Bob says:
    October 23, 2009 at 3:14 pm
    the school authorities stated that the request was indeed legitimate and due compliance

    As would any nonparty institution that was served with any kind of facially valid subpeona.

    So why didn’t they simply comply then?

    therefore had to take the extraordinary measure of calling out the troops

    Obama’s lawyers moved to quash the subpeona because, in addition to technical defects, it was not relevant to the litigation at hand (Keyes v. Bowen).

    You missed a few steps in there. There WERE no “privacy laws” (your original offering) that would have prevented the original request for records from the school to have been complied with. They went beyond that – far beyond. Those lil ol “privacy laws” that, why, you know, just everybody enjoys, didn’t do the trick as you disingenuously implied.

    Sheesh, you had to travel all the way to outer Mongolia and still pretend somehow you were still at home in bed. Your guy is for all purposes “sealed” tighter than a tick, using filthy lucre ta boot for all the extra layers of impenetrable sealing from the eyes of the public and you’re trying to sell it to everybody like he’s done nothing beyond what is basically offered to Joe average citizen. What a joke … and another obvious one in the order of attempting again to clothe that same naked emperor who thinks he just looks “mawvelous”. But then again, “(you’re) a believer; (you) couldn’t leave (him) if you tried”.

  • 163
    siseduermapierda
    October 23rd, 2009 17:17

    David says:
    October 23, 2009 at 5:04 pm
    *arrogant*

    Yes, you are arrogant to insist over and over and over again that President Obama has an obligation to prove who he is to your personal satisfaction. After seeing the kinds of things you people have said and written about his father and mother, why do you expect him to give you the time of day? If you don’t think he is who he says he is, prove it.

  • 164
    misanthropicus
    October 23rd, 2009 17:17

    RE David RE siseduermapierda -

    [...] All you keep saying is “Prove it, prove it, prove it!” Prove what? Obama has made the claims. He ought to be able to prove them. We cannot prove his claims for him without the documentation that is sealed from the public. Only he can do so. [...]

    David, hope your examples aiming to squeeze from Sise a form or other of rationality will work – although I doubt it.

    Sise, like all other Obamabots acts according to a mechanical scheme of argumentation – also, in adition to the robotic “Prove it. Prove it. Prove it” you mentioned, bellow is another reasoning pattern Sise and his ilk use, pattern this time extracted from a Ionesco absurdist play:

    “Cats have whisks. Socrates has whisks. Therefore Socrates is a cat,” – Sise’s uniform conclusion of his demonstrations being: “Obama is a legitimate president”.

  • 165
    SanDiegoSam
    October 23rd, 2009 17:26

    So… returning this thread to the article from the current thread jacking, the comments prove that the answer to the question asked in the post’s title is:

    Yes, there are a bunch of people that can vouch for the President’s history. Including at Columbia.

    Great. We’ve had progress.

    Next question?

  • 166
    qwertyman
    October 23rd, 2009 17:31

    You’re too focused on this one issue. None of my comments have singled out his Columbia attendance as being false. I am not disputing that. All I have asked for is something to verify his life story according to him – to shed light on his past. Apparently, that’s too controversial.

    Well in this post here Phil implies that nobody can verify Obama’s attendance at Columbia. This is clearly false as shown by multiple people very quickly.

    You also neglected to point out the part where I talked about how you choose to disregard, ignore, declare fraudulent, look for any rhetorical holes and obfuscate about Obama’s birth certificate, birth announcements, statements from the Dept of Health and other family members. Multiple independent sources, both contemporary and who backs it up, isrecent, have shown that Obama was born in Honolulu in August 1961.

    Obama’s life story is out there, you simply choose to believe that everything Obama has ever said about his personal history, and any third party confirmation is a lie.

  • 167
    siseduermapierda
    October 23rd, 2009 17:54

    misanthropicus says:
    October 23, 2009 at 5:17 pm

    Another toddler heard from…If you are so sure Obama isn’t who he says he is, in every aspect of his life it appears… Prove It! You’ve had a year and a half to find one single shred of evidence the myriad of things you say are false about his life story isn’t true. And yet the internet is full of interviews and statements and articles about people who were there. There in Hawaii. There at Occidental College, Columbia, Harvard and Chicago. Your argument is so weak you have to insist his high school yearbook pictures are photoshopped. A year and a half. No evidence, just weak_a$$_sh!t like “that basketball picture is photoshopped”. Just like a toddler, loud and persistent, but after a year and half you’ve got nothin. How could that be when it’s all phony? Someone would have had to have slipped up. You made the lie too big. You should have just stuck to “not born in Hawaii”. Epic Fail.

  • 168
    misanthropicus
    October 23rd, 2009 18:47

    RE: siseduermapierda RE misanthropicus:

    [...] You made the lie too big. You should have just stuck to “not born in Hawaii”. Epic Fail. [...]

    Not very smart to revive the Hawaii COLB issue, Sise – I convincingly pressed you in a corned regarding that, I challenged you again, and you preferred to run on the fire escape.

    But I’ll give you again the chance to come with an answer that might add a touch of honorability to your act – since you volontarily evoked your bad experience with me in the Fukino matter, and since you still keep referring to Fukino’s pronouncements as evidence for Obama’s presidential legitimacy, then:

    … can you, heavens! provide the declaration issued by Fukino (or other Hawaii authority) that SQUARELY DECLARES THAT THE DOCUMENT ON WHICH THEY BASE THEIR STATEMENT THAT BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII (place) (time & date) IS A VALID HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND NOT A COLB OR ANY OTHER FORM OF ULTERIOR EVIDENCE?

    Come, do it, Sise, you can do it – after all you’re one of those who’s been waiting for himself -

    Do it Sise – but avoid the construction “Cats have whisks. Socrates has whisks. Therefore Socrates is a cat. Therefore Obama is a legitimate president,” -

    Come Sise, your resplendent intelligence is needed more than ever -

  • 169
    Bob
    October 23rd, 2009 19:08

    So why didn’t they simply comply then?

    The court quashed the subpoena.

    There WERE no “privacy laws” (your original offering) that would have prevented the original request for records from the school to have been complied with.

    Federal privacy laws protect educational records. Which is why Kreep had to resort to a subpoena to attempt to get what normally otherwise couldn’t be gotten.

    Those lil ol “privacy laws” that, why, you know, just everybody enjoys, didn’t do the trick as you disingenuously implied.

    Obama successfully convinced the judge the records weren’t relevant to Keyes v. Bowen. End of story.

    Your guy is for all purposes “sealed” tighter than a tick, using filthy lucre ta boot for all the extra layers of impenetrable sealing from the eyes of the public and you’re trying to sell it to everybody like he’s done nothing beyond what is basically offered to Joe average citizen.

    Obama does enjoy the same privacy rights as everyone else; all he did in Keyes v. Bowen was quash a fishing expedition.

  • 170
    Bob
    October 23rd, 2009 19:11

    provide the declaration issued by Fukino (or other Hawaii authority) that SQUARELY DECLARES THAT THE DOCUMENT ON WHICH THEY BASE THEIR STATEMENT THAT BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII (place) (time & date) IS A VALID HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND NOT A COLB OR ANY OTHER FORM OF ULTERIOR EVIDENCE?

    In Hawaii, vital records consist of birth, marriage, divorce, and death certificates. That’s it.

    We know it wasn’t a marriage, divorce, or death certificate.

    If you doubt Obama was born in Hawaii, feel free to check the publicly accessible index data.

  • 171
    siseduermapierda
    October 23rd, 2009 19:20

    misanthropicus says:
    October 23, 2009 at 6:47 pm
    *I convincingly pressed you in a corned regarding that, I challenged you again, and you preferred to run on the fire escape.*

    toddler words from a toddler mind. Choosing not to accept a direct answer is not my problem. Grow up.

    Hawaii has released the index data. The only vital events recorded in Hawaii are births, deaths, marriages. Fukino said she looked at the vital records and can say Obama was born in Hawaii. Obama is alive so there would be no death record in Hawaii. He was married in Chicago so there would be no marriage record in Hawaii. There IS a vital record for Barack H Obama II so it could only be a birth record. And the only births that are vital records as far as Hawaii is concerned are Hawaiian births.

    If you went to the state offices in Hawaii, you could see the index data yourself. I challenge you to go look. Or put a request on Craig’s list for someone to go look, take a phone pic and send to you. Offer to pay $20 over PayPal. There’ll be some kid who would go do it for you. Of course if you did, you couldn’t squawk anymore.

  • 172
    ch
    October 23rd, 2009 19:26

    Dear siseduermapierda

    Obama is innocent until proven guilty and not qualified until proven qualified. You, sir, are no longer in charge of “recruitment” because of your failure to procure proper documents and verify applicant claims, and for going even further, by trying to make such reasonable verification seem irrelevant.

    You may, however, peel potatoes.

    God bless America.

  • 173
    siseduermapierda
    October 23rd, 2009 19:37

    ch says:
    October 23, 2009 at 7:26 pm

    Dear Che,

    You got it backwards. Assumed innocent until proven not. Assumed eligible until proven not. Everybody gets the benefit of assumption, like I’m gonna give you the benefit of assuming if you’d taken a minute to read your post before you hit submit, you would have recognized it was illogical.

    Now go peel me a grape.

  • 174
    misanthropicus
    October 23rd, 2009 20:29

    RE siseduermapierda RE misanthropicus;

    1) [...] Choosing not to accept a direct answer is not my problem.[...]
    * YOU AVOID TO COME WITH A DIRECT ANSWER, SISE – I gave you the opportunity to show that you are not just a silly Energizer toy banging a tin drum and repeating ad nauseam “Obama is a legitime president – Obama is a legitimate president -”

    And you’re back at it:
    1) [...] Hawaii has released the index data. [...]
    * The Index Data has no probatory value whatsoever – what we need to see is the ORIGINAR DOCUMENT ON WHICH THE INDEX DATA IS BASED –

    2) [...] The only vital events recorded in Hawaii are births, deaths, marriages. [...]
    * Now that’s intelligent – can you show us what other events than births, death & marriages are elswehere considered VITAL DATA?

    3) [...] Fukino said she looked at the vital records and can say Obama was born in Hawaii. [...]
    * So you again collapsed in square one. “Fukino said” – “Shoulda, coulda, woulda,” this is how you introduce something as evidence –

    “Fukino said…” – Sise, you who keep asking everybody: “Prove it! Prove it!” I ask you again, to point to me the declaration issued by Fukino (or other Hawaii authority) that SQUARELY DECLARES THAT THE DOCUMENT ON WHICH THEY BASE THEIR STATEMENT THAT BARACK OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII (place) (time & date) IS A VALID HAWAII BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND NOT A COLB OR ANY OTHER FORM OF ULTERIOR EVIDENCE?

    And don’t give me again this Index Data crap -
    Come, do it, Sise, wiggle out from this, prove it – otherwise it is obvious that you acknowledge that Obama WASN’T BORN IN HAWAII.

    Do it, buddy – or you’ve became a birther in the mean time? Heh-heh-heh!

  • 175
    Sue
    October 23rd, 2009 21:15

    http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html
    Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

  • 176
    Observer
    October 23rd, 2009 21:41

    So why didn’t they simply comply then?

    The court quashed the subpoena.

    The school had no need to go any further than to comply with the request since they stated it was a legitimate request. Since it was legitimate, why fight it? Oh, forgot … nothing should be considered “sealed” by the “transparent one”….his “promise”.

  • 177
    misanthropicus
    October 23rd, 2009 21:48

    RE siseduermapierda:

    … and more from Sise’s lively mind:

    [...] Dear Che [...] Assumed eligible until proven not. [...]

    Sise, here you got a few other assumptions that sure will bolster your defense of Obama’s legitimacy as president:
    … Assumed that one can fly this liner until proven not -
    Assumed that one can do this surgery until proven not -
    Assumed that one can run this corporation until proven not -
    Assumed that Sise is mildly, kind of… gosh, let’s allow for intelligent – ’till he proved himself a fool -

  • 178
    David
    October 23rd, 2009 21:59

    siseduermapierda,

    “Two words for you David: Search Google. There is more information available about Barack Obama than any President in history.”

    Wow…you’ve discovered the almighty “Search Google” fallacy of logical argumentation! You know, the argument that everything you read on the internet is true – if the information agrees with your point of view, of course. I think we can call this fallacious argument, the “Appeal to Google” fallacy.

    Now, the only problem is determining which information is suitable enough for you and which information is correct as a matter of fact. I don’t think using the “Appeal to Google” fallacy can sort out that mess. I prefer the original documentation method.

  • 179
    Geoff
    October 23rd, 2009 22:08

    Observer wrote at 9:41 pm, regarding the subpoena on Occidental:

    The school had no need to go any further than to comply with the request since they stated it was a legitimate request. Since it was legitimate, why fight it? Oh, forgot … nothing should be considered “sealed” by the “transparent one”….his “promise”.

    You’ve got no idea how these things work. Here’s the deal. I could sue you in federal court, for whatever. I could then get blank subpoena forms from the court, presigned and everything, and send them out to every educational institution you attended asking for your records. Or to your doctors. It’s a federal court subpoena! It’s validly issued! As far as the school or the physician knows, it’s a legitimate request! They might have to notify you, but then they can go ahead — it’s a legitimate request!

    Of course, you may feel you have certain privacy interests such that you don’t want these records released even though the subpoenas are legitimate.

  • 180
    ramjet767
    October 23rd, 2009 22:56

    New poll released. 30% of Americans do not believe Obama was born in the USA.

    http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34338/obama_was_not_born_in_us_republicans_say

    RJ

  • 181
    ch
    October 23rd, 2009 23:27

    siseduermapierda,

    I wrote several of the officials in Hawaii, asking them how they were defining “natural born citizen” since they claimed Obama was such. I gave them the various choices from two citizen parents born in US on down to no citizen parent and born in US. Even 1 citizen parent, born abroad. The whole gamut.

    They did not respond. Zilch. Silence.

    So they can talk all they want…talk is cheap. They do not seem to be able to stand behind their own comments. So how valid is anything they say.

    You say those who question Obama have to prove him to be other than he is. He already proved it himself, accepting lawsuits against “Barry Soetoro.” Which means he lied on his Illinois bar application…which means nothing can be believed that he says. If he had said, nobody here by that name….then he would have shown he never had that name. But HE ACCEPTED THE LAWSUITS, THUS ACKNOWLEDGING PUBLICLY HE WAS KNOWN AS BARRY SOETORO. Case closed.

    Namecalling people “toddlers” is the first sign of losing a debate on facts, so only demeaning comments are used, in a desparate attempt to bludgeon the opposing view. You need to learn to defend your “president” with facts, not namecalling. Toddlers? Are you perhaps projecting?

    Wonder why Hawaii will not respond with their definition of “natural born citizen.” Wonder why Obama cannot show a form with a hospital on it and has to have government officials make statements, as if he had something to hide. Wonder who he is, where he is from, why he is hiding normal information!

    Yes, we all wonder. Well, not you, of course, but many of us with common sense and real birth certificates!

  • 182
    bystander
    October 24th, 2009 02:46

    David said:

    Wow…you’ve discovered the almighty “Search Google” fallacy of logical argumentation! You know, the argument that everything you read on the internet is true – if the information agrees with your point of view, of course. I think we can call this fallacious argument, the “Appeal to Google” fallacy.

    Now, the only problem is determining which information is suitable enough for you and which information is correct as a matter of fact. I don’t think using the “Appeal to Google” fallacy can sort out that mess. I prefer the original documentation method.

    David – what is the point of this? You claim all you want is to know more about Obama’s life story. It is pointed out to you that the information is all there in various forms on the net – but you might have to spend a while sifting fact from silly birther rumour. You are unwilling to do that – and say you want original documentation. Copies of the original documents are produced – you claim they are fakes. The custodians of those documents make statements verifying the information – you claim they are lying. And not just with the COLB, but with the SSN, the IL Bar documents – everything Obama has produced has been discarded by birthers.

    Your position is absurd. You are never going to hold these documents in your hands, so there does not appear to be any way to satisfy your scepticism. There is zero point in Obama going any further to humour you. Reasonable people are convinced, conspiracy theorist will never be.

    You also dig yourself a hole with your appeal to google fallacy shtick. Isn’t that where all your conspiracy theories come from? So if we are to discard everything we find through google – can we all go home now?

  • 183
    siseduermapierda
    October 24th, 2009 07:48

    ch says:
    October 23, 2009 at 11:27 pm
    Wonder why Hawaii will not respond with their definition of “natural born citizen.” Wonder why Obama cannot show a form with a hospital on it and has to have government officials make statements*
    Because they have no obligation to ensure you are absolutely satisfied. Toddler mentality: “it’s about making me happy”

    *Yes, we all wonder. Well, not you, of course, but many of us with common sense and real birth certificates*
    “Real” birth certificates being the kind that were issued 50 years ago? Aren’t you at all embarrassed at your ignorance?

  • 184
    Sue
    October 24th, 2009 07:52

    Here is an interesting article.

    http://www.practicalhacks.com/2008/06/23/what-is-john-mccain-hiding-googling-childhood-photos-mccain-vs-obama-smackdown/

  • 185
    siseduermapierda
    October 24th, 2009 07:55

    David says:
    October 23, 2009 at 9:59 pm
    *I prefer the original documentation method.*

    Please tell us what original documentation you used to assure yourself past Presidents were eligible. What original documentation about anything, not just Obama, do you expect to be able personally examine in your lifetime? If you are unable to logically sort through information available to you through the internet, television and newspapers and make a rational distinction if it’s reliable, you face bigger intellectual challenges than whether Obama is eligible.

  • 186
    misanthropicus
    October 24th, 2009 08:49

    RE ramjet:

    [...] New poll released. 30% of Americans do not believe Obama was born in the USA. [...]
    http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/34338/obama_was_not_born_in_us_republicans_say

    Hope you don’t mind if I add here a conclusion:
    “… 30% of Americans do not believe Obama was born in the USA.” – which means that 30% of Americans think that Obama is FRAUDULENTLY OCCUPYING US PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE.

    Best regards -

  • 187
    misanthropicus
    October 24th, 2009 09:00

    RE siseduermapierda RE ch:

    1) [...] Because they have no obligation to ensure you are absolutely satisfied. Toddler mentality: “it’s about making me happy” [...]
    * Sise, you’re a pathetic loser. Sise, you champion of rationality (when applies), who keeps demanding proof or evidence for any statement you don’t like, you suddenly abandon your position and start injecting terms like “toddler” in the discussion – are you that cornered, buddy?

    2) [...] “Real” birth certificates being the kind that were issued 50 years ago? Aren’t you at all embarrassed at your ignorance? [...]
    * Irrational, childish, incompetent, frustrated and infantile defiance – welcome to the new Sise when Obama’s being proved as a charlatan looms over him -

    Love it. Keep wiggling, dude – cursing the growing tide will not stop it -

  • 188
    Observer
    October 24th, 2009 09:41

    Geoff says:
    October 23, 2009 at 10:08 pm
    Observer wrote at 9:41 pm, regarding the subpoena on Occidental:

    The school had no need to go any further than to comply with the request since they stated it was a legitimate request. Since it was legitimate, why fight it? Oh, forgot … nothing should be considered “sealed” by the “transparent one”….his “promise”.

    You’ve got no idea how these things work. Here’s the deal. I could sue you in federal court, for whatever. I could then get blank subpoena forms from the court, presigned and everything, and send them out to every educational institution you attended asking for your records. Or to your doctors. It’s a federal court subpoena! It’s validly issued! As far as the school or the physician knows, it’s a legitimate request! They might have to notify you, but then they can go ahead — it’s a legitimate request!

    Of course, you may feel you have certain privacy interests such that you don’t want these records released even though the subpoenas are legitimate.

    Um, yes I do know “how these things work”. The issue here has been the actual continuing belief that Obama isn’t trying to hide anything – he is Mr. Transparent – nothing “sealed” from the public …. everybody has the same simple redress within common privacy laws. And yet threats of strongest possible sanctions are made by monumental law firm with political clout at highest level over a simple legitimate request for college records to which the college’s own attorneys said they would have to comply with … unless … the big guns went into action which they did. So the “transparency” remains extremely clouded – chained up and locked from all those “inquiring minds who want to know”. A straw man of some illicitly acquired subpoena doesn’t play here.

  • 189
    Observer
    October 24th, 2009 09:49

    More attempts to fulfill Malcolm’s dream:

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.96323f483e0be9f6a793eaa215ad708a.211&show_article=1

    You do have to wonder why all those oil rich nations upon whom we ourselves have become dependent can’t reach out to their own – and why such U.S. presidential generosity can’t be directed to help (rather than the purposeful policies that hurt) boost our own small businesses in our own time of need. Must be another motive .. ya think??

  • 190
    Sue
    October 24th, 2009 09:52

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/taitz-obama-born-2619362-citizen-state
    excerpt
    “Historically, people born in the United States are presumed to be a natural-born citizens, said Ronald Rotunda, a constitutional law professor at Chapman School of Law. That would include someone who, as Obama represents himself, was born on U.S. soil to an American mother, regardless of the father’s nationality.”

    However, the Constitution is not explicit in defining the term, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue.”

    There are Supreme Court decisions, one example being WONG KIM ARK., that has defined by the Court, natural born citizen.

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

    Why anyone would take the word of these “self appointed birther Constitutional lawyers and experts” over real Constitutional experts and lawyers has amazed me. There are only two types of citizens in the U.S.A. Natural born=native born=citizen at birth or naturalized.

    Gov. Bobby Jindal is a natural born citizen and is eligible to be President of U.S.A.

    Regarding Taitz lawsuit before Judge Carter.

    http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/09/legal-expert-obama-birth-suit-likely-dismissed/23333/
    excerpts
    “Legal expert: Obama birth suit likely to be dismissed
    October 9th, 2009, 3:30 pm · 83 Comments · posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter
    While talking today to constitutional law expert John Eastman, dean of the Chapman School of Law, I asked him about the Santa Ana lawsuit challenging Barack Obama’s legitimacy as president based on his place of birth.

    Eastman, a conservative, said he had insufficient information to know if the claims regarding Obama’s birthplace might be true. But he said that the constitution says such a determination, at this point, can only be made by Congress – not by a court. That’s the basis of a motion to dismiss the case, which was argued Monday and which Judge David O. Carter is expected to rule on in the next week or so.

    “It’s called the political-question doctrine,” Eastman said. “The regulation of qualifications are assigned to Congress.””

    more, link at top.

  • 191
    misanthropicus
    October 24th, 2009 10:31

    RE Sue, Black Lion, Sise & other Obamatons -

    You Obamatons, you’re constantly trying to move the discussion about Obama’s fraudulence on tangent, evasive tracks.
    Nyet, it doesn’t work, and the subject of Phil’s present article was Obama’s confidential, if not mysterious tenure & academic work at Columbia U, issue which is of legitimate interest for any responsible US citizen – particularly now, when the Afghanistan situation reveals Obama’s crass incompetence.

    So, back to Phil’s article about Obama’s mystery presence at Columbia U -
    Nothing, clear, nothing known – yet, since the Deliberative One can’t keep his mouth shut, he has revealed in his autobiographies regarding his (hypothetical) Columbia U tenure that his graduation work there was (SIC!) TWO thesis:

    1) per “Dreams From My Father” —> thesis: “US-Soviet Nuclear Dissarmament Issues In The 80-s”;
    2) per “The Audacity Of Hope” —> thesis: “North-South Relationships In The Post Colonial World”),
    … remarkable pieces of thinking, yet for some reasons both efforts are inaccessible for public scrutiny.

    Anyway, compelling ideed, this academic double load – yet the school has also confirmed that at the time of Obama’s (alleged) attending Columbia, the track he was (again, allegedly) enrolled in DIDN”T EVEN HAVE A A THESIS AS GRADUATION REQUIREMENT!

    So, gang of Obamatons, stop obfuscating and clarify this bizzare element from Obama’s mysterious carreer – a simple matter, it doesn’t require mighty constitutional or other jurisprudence competence.

    Come, Obamatons – talk about this and prove that I am engaged in slader, lies about Obama, show everybody the truth about Obama’s brilliant activity at Columbia.

    Do it -

  • 192
    Observer
    October 24th, 2009 10:47

    See the latest re: Judge Carter (possibly not dismissing case): Somewhat still unverified, but …

    http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
    Leave

  • 193
    Observer
    October 24th, 2009 10:55

    Did I at least get your blood pressure up??? Ha! Anyone scrambling to “verify” the “news”?

  • 194
    siseduermapierda
    October 24th, 2009 11:10

    Observer says:
    October 24, 2009 at 10:47 am
    See the latest re: Judge Carter (possibly not dismissing case): Somewhat still unverified, but …

    Rick Roll! The “unverified” is your mistake. Obots know enough people with Pacer set to notify of any new court filings. We’d have already read it if Judge Carter had filed a decision last night.

  • 195
    bystander
    October 24th, 2009 11:12

    No – debunked hours ago, like all birther lies.

  • 196
    misanthropicus
    October 24th, 2009 11:15

    RE Observer RE ObamaFile Re Judge Carter/Barnett vs. Obama.

    [...] In a move that has the Plantiffs “amazingly overjoyed,” Judge David O. Carter has turned down the Government’s motion for Dismissal in the case of Barnett vs. Obama. [...]

    Thanks Observer, great to have people around to point to the compass’ needle – great news.

    Best -

  • 197
    siseduermapierda
    October 24th, 2009 11:21

    misanthropicus says:
    October 24, 2009 at 11:15 am
    “Great news”

    You obviously didn’t follow the links from obamafile to nativeborncitizen to the news story did you? Spend 2 minutes and follow the links, great story!

  • 198
    Sue
    October 24th, 2009 11:22

    “See the latest re: Judge Carter (possibly not dismissing case): Somewhat still unverified, but …

    http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm
    Leave”

    False, bogus, incorrect, not factual. ROTFL Bullpoop!

  • 199
    misanthropicus
    October 24th, 2009 11:53

    RE siseduermapierda:

    [...] misanthropicus says: You obviously didn’t follow the links from obamafile to nativeborncitizen [...]

    Sise, I’m trying to keep up with the news. But ’till this and any other story regarding Obama’ ilegitimacy becomes final, let’s get to the point of the present topic – Obama’s mystery past at Columbia U…

    Can you clear this matter which I keep bringing to you attention?
    Obama claimed:
    1) per “Dreams From My Father” —> thesis: “US-Soviet Nuclear Dissarmament Issues In The 80-s”;
    2) per “The Audacity Of Hope” —> thesis: “North-South Relationships In The Post Colonial World”),
    … both efforts are inaccessible for public scrutiny.

    The school has also confirmed that at the time of Obama’s (alleged) attending Columbia, the track he was (again, allegedly) enrolled in DIDN”T EVEN HAVE A A THESIS AS GRADUATION REQUIREMENT!

    So, can you clarify this bizzare element from Obama’s mysterious carreer – a simple matter, it doesn’t require mighty constitutional or other jurisprudence competence.

    Come, Obamatons – prove that I am engaged in slader, lies about Obama, show everybody the truth about Obama’s brilliant activity at Columbia.

    Do it, Sise -

  • 200
    Geoff
    October 24th, 2009 11:56

    Observer said:

    Um, yes I do know “how these things work”. The issue here has been the actual continuing belief that Obama isn’t trying to hide anything – he is Mr. Transparent – nothing “sealed” from the public …. everybody has the same simple redress within common privacy laws. And yet threats of strongest possible sanctions are made by monumental law firm with political clout at highest level over a simple legitimate request for college records to which the college’s own attorneys said they would have to comply with … unless … the big guns went into action which they did.

    No, you clearly don’t. You throw out words like “strongest possible sanctions” and “political clout” as if they had anything to do with the quashing of the subpoena, but they don’t.

    You’re right about one thing — a recipient of a subpoena does have to comply with a validly issued subpoena served upon it unless otherwise ordered by a court. So yes, Occidental had to comply unless the court said otherwise. Just like your doctor would have to comply if I sent a valid subpoena asking for your medical records. That doesn’t mean the requests made in the subpoena are appropriate or allowed under law, but it’s up to the party in the lawsuit to make that argument, not the recipient of the subpoena.

    Obama’s attorneys filed a perfectly standard motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that it was among other things irrelevant. And the court agreed, saying:

    The Court further finds that the two categories of documents petitioners seek are vague, overbroad, and are of no relevance to this Litigation. Petitioners demand access to all of President Obama’s “academic and housing records.” However, the relevance of such records is not established. The issues raised in the First Amended Petition concern the duties, if any, of the respondents to demand proof of natural born citizenship of a candidate for President. Petitioners have not shown that any of the documents sought could assist in answering this question.

    Not only that, but the subpoena was rejected because the attorneys failed to follow the simple dictates of the law requiring that the party in the lawsuit be given five days notice before serving a subpoena on a third party. Why that requirement? So parties can object to unreasonable fishing expeditions like the subpoena here.

    Here, no “big guns” were required; a first-year law student could have won the motion to quash. The president isn’t required to disclose information irrelevant to anything just because you want him to.

  • 201
    qwertyman
    October 24th, 2009 12:02

    Re: “Carter refuses to dismiss case”

    How many times are birthers going to fall for every single hoax, rumor, forgery and lie about Obama that anybody writes? There’s an easy way to see whether Carter has issued an order: check PACER, it’s a publicly available tracking system for cases in the federal courts. Whoever wrote this first story is either telling a lie or is divulging confidential information.

    As for:

    can you clarify this bizzare element from Obama’s mysterious carreer – a simple matter, it doesn’t require mighty constitutional or other jurisprudence competence.

    I already wrote that it’s possible that those were two papers that Obama wrote on that took some serious research – the professor for one of them (the link is already in the comments, guess you missed that source of verification!) said that Obama spent a year writing it. Perhaps they were research papers that Obama has called theses to show the readers that those were things he’s thought seriously about. Perhaps he’s engaged in a bit of puffery.

    But it takes a serious twist in logic and rationality to take that information and turn it into “Obama didn’t attend Columbia at all,” especially when a former professor of his there, a former roommate and the current president of the university all vouch for his having been there.

    Unfortunately Phil was just plain dishonest in his choice of the title of his post, and his apparent refusal to edit this post shows a distinct lack of intellectual honesty.

  • 202
    David
    October 24th, 2009 12:05

    bystander,

    Yet another intellectually defunct reader unable to take a few seconds to understand my original comment here.

    “David – what is the point of this? You claim all you want is to know more about Obama’s life story.”

    Yes, that is true. And the point is that Obama, since the day he began campaigning for president, has done practically nothing to answer questions about his past – unless it was a story that was merely repeated in some form from one of his two books. Every time a relationship with an “unsavory” character was discovered, he denied it or played it down. Every time a request is made to see some sort of documents to verify his story, the request is denied. The man of great transparency, the man who transcends politics, has allowed next to nobody to verify most of his life narrative.

    “It is pointed out to you that the information is all there in various forms on the net – but you might have to spend a while sifting fact from silly birther rumour.”

    I have actually spent countless hours on the internet searching Obama’s background and writing about it. The funny thing is, most of what I found only led to more questions about the people he surrounded himself with – particularly in Chicago. But most of the positive stories about Obama’s history are based on the stories from his books. Sometimes we’ll see a person who claims to have been his friend at some point or went to school with him somewhere, but then we later find out they were lying or embellishing their story. Other times, it appears that the story from Obama is fake. Without anything to confirm these accounts – except for a random person claiming to have been there – we don’t really have much to go on. You may take every single person at their word, but like I said, I like to see the concrete evidence when seeking out things like “facts” and “truth.”

    “Copies of the original documents are produced – you claim they are fakes. The custodians of those documents make statements verifying the information – you claim they are lying.”

    Really? Where have I made such statements?

    “Your position is absurd. You are never going to hold these documents in your hands, so there does not appear to be any way to satisfy your scepticism.”

    I don’t need to hold them in my hands. And asking a president to prove what he claims about himself is not “absurd.” And no, this isn’t just because it’s Obama. I would like to see any president’s records and learn about their past relationships. I would like to know if they would be able to pass an FBI background check or receive top secret clearance. I would like to know if they were a D student in economics, law, or civics. Hiding behind privacy laws to keep those things from the public just doesn’t cut it when you want to become the “leader of the free world.”

    “There is zero point in Obama going any further to humour you. Reasonable people are convinced, conspiracy theorist will never be.”

    Reasonable people? How are they reasonable? They accept what a man says about himself because they agree with his message? And they are convinced of what, exactly? That he’s honest and transparent? Does it make me a conspiracy theorist to ask questions about issues that have yet to be definitively resolved? Or does that just reflect the type of ridicule you need to engage in so that I can seemingly be easily dismissed by the likes of you and your brethren?

    “You also dig yourself a hole with your appeal to google fallacy shtick. Isn’t that where all your conspiracy theories come from?”

    “Shtick”? I was serious. And which of my “conspiracy theories” are you referring to?

    Here’s an idea: Go back to my original comment to this article, at least try to get your little brain going, and perhaps you’ll be able to comprehend what I wrote.

  • 203
    Sue
    October 24th, 2009 12:37

    David,

    “Sometimes we’ll see a person who claims to have been his friend at some point or went to school with him somewhere, but then we later find out they were lying or embellishing their story. Other times, it appears that the story from Obama is fake.”

    Please provide links to evidence/examples/proof of your statement above.

  • 204
    misanthropicus
    October 24th, 2009 13:17

    RE qwertyman RE misanthropicus:

    [...] can you clarify this bizzare element from Obama’s mysterious carreer – a simple matter, it doesn’t require mighty constitutional or other jurisprudence competence. [...]

    qwertyman, your answer to the above question is again a pathetic obfuscation, and here’s why:

    1) My question is how one can claim that he wrote TWO GRADUATION PAPERS, on vastly different topics -
    So, which is the real Obama thesis then – A, B, none of them?

    2) Then I asked why neither of papers are available for public scrutiny, legitimate request for reviewing a presidential candidate’s political philosophy -
    Why? No answer for this – can you oblige?

    3) Then my question was how Obama can claim that he wrote whatever he wrote as graduation thesis, when during the period he claims he attended Columbia U, the school HAD NO THESIS AS GRADUATION REQUIREMENT FOR THAT PARTICULAR TRACK?
    How’s that? No answer for this, either – can you oblige?

    4) Then you say “[...] it takes a serious twist in logic [...] and turn it into “Obama didn’t attend Columbia at all,” [...] all vouch for his having been there.
    Neither Phil nor I ever claimed that Obama DIDN’T ATTEND Columbia – a) Phil said that he simply does not know that -
    b) I don’t know that, I called Obama’s attendance there being “Hypothetical or “mysterious” – and my exploring his academic Columbia background has placed me, and many others, in a usual, holographic Obamatopia – can you explain how the mystery that envelops Obama’s Columbia achievements gives more credence to Obama’s integrity and truthfulness in regards of his (auto)bigraphy? Give it a shot –
    ————————
    Now a bit on method:
    You said: [...] the link is already in the comments, guess you missed that source of verification! [...]

    I did – since Phil doesn’t use a comments numbering system, it’s easy to overlook a reply that comes from someone you don’t expect to do so, like as it happened in that case.
    Maybe you want to do so in the future – I always use as a reply starter the commenter’s name then I quote a few words from the issue I address.
    ——————-
    Now back to business – can you reply to my questions 1, 2, 3 and 4b?

    Best regards -

  • 205
    NewEnglandPatriot
    October 24th, 2009 13:22

    I don’t believe Obama ever attended Columbia. I think he was in New York for some other reason. He might even have been a drug dealer. I wouldn’t be surprised if that turned out to be the case.

    Where is his diploma? Why doesn’t he display it proudly? What was his GPA, and who were his professors?

    It is maddening that none of these supposed people were ever sought out or interviewed. That’s because they probably don’t exist!

  • 206
    bystander
    October 24th, 2009 13:25

    OK David – you don’t seem to be able to debate without being obnoxious and insulting. I will waste no further time on you.

  • 207
    jvn
    October 24th, 2009 13:39

    Not for nothing David, but, once again, your comments, your beliefs about the President lend themselves to political opposition.

    The entire history of the Presidency of the United States is filled with “stories” of Presidents, stories that are myths cultivated to achieve office and/or to build a “legacy.”

    I suppose that you will attempt to deny that – but it is true of EVERY President – including Barack Obama. Politics on a national scale requires a wide circle of “associations” that, when looked at under bright lights, is not quite as wholesome as some would like.

    For you to expect that President Obama would be free from any of that is naive.

    I suspect that you will not vote for him in 2012. I think many will.

  • 208
    bob strauss
    October 24th, 2009 14:29

    Story at Citizen Wells and Obama File, Judge Carter denied DOJ motion to dismiss. Still trying to confirm story.

  • 209
    siseduermapierda
    October 24th, 2009 15:00

    bob strauss says:
    October 24, 2009 at 2:29 pm
    Story at Citizen Wells and Obama File, Judge Carter denied DOJ motion to dismiss. Still trying to confirm story.

    It’s a joke bob. If you follow the links to the news story it’s a rick roll.

  • 210
    Sue
    October 24th, 2009 15:01

    “Story at Citizen Wells and Obama File, Judge Carter denied DOJ motion to dismiss. Still trying to confirm story.”

    Stop trying. It is a hoax.

  • 211
    siseduermapierda
    October 24th, 2009 15:07

    David says:
    October 24, 2009 at 12:05 pm
    *Yet another intellectually defunct reader unable to take a few seconds to understand my original comment here. *

    considering you’ve posted the same points at least 27 times and insisted at least 10 posters don’t understand, perhaps you should take a moment of self-reflection and realize you aren’t making any sense. You are tiresome. You’ll never get to hold in your hands original documents regarding Barack Obama. Just a question – are you a Christian? Do you believe Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago and died on the cross? Why do you believe that when in order to believe you have to take other people’s word it really happened. You’ve never held an original document that tells you Jesus really lived, why do you believe? And yet, you won’t believe what people with the authority and knowledge to do so tell you about Obama when it’s so much less dramatic leap of faith.

  • 212
    misanthropicus
    October 24th, 2009 16:11

    RE siseduermapierda RE David:

    [...] *Yet another intellectually defunct reader unable to take a few seconds to understand my original comment here. * [...]

    Sise, for someone who is nothing but vociferous obfuscator who invariably avoids well-reasoned challenges by going to absurd, circuitous self-quoting “therefore Obama is a legitimate president” time and again, it is hilarious to find in David’s remark something to reproach –

    Still, courtesy to misanthropicus, redemption is at hand, and you can dispell the halo of dishonesty and cowardice enveloping your performance – so, answer the question I posed to you (and you’ve been dodging for long), regarding Obama’s Columbia U remarable double thesis -

    It is re-posted just bellow for qwertyman – do it buddy, since we’re talking Obama, we all love to see some integrity around

    Do it, Sise -

  • 213
    misanthropicus
    October 24th, 2009 16:16

    Re Sise:

    Sise, I just watched on Breitbart TV how a Scietology dude walked out from the Nightline interview – great show

    And since in your answer to David you used Christianity as an analogy, can you explain why all Scientology heads are fervent Obama supporters?
    Obama’s a blast, huh?

    Or maybe it’s because charlatans love charlatans -

    Your take, Sise, regarding to the Scientologists’ support for Obama?

  • 214
    qwertyman
    October 24th, 2009 16:35

    I did – since Phil doesn’t use a comments numbering system, it’s easy to overlook a reply that comes from someone you don’t expect to do so, like as it happened in that case.

    Well, guess you have a stunning lack of either attention span or reading comprehension, because sise posted this link, AND YOU GAVE A DIRECT RESPONSE TO IT:

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1219722.aspx

    So we turned for answers to the former professor who graded the now-elusive paper. His former professor, Michael Baron, recalled in an interview with NBC News that Obama easily aced the year-long class. Baron described the paper as a “thesis” or “senior thesis” in several interviews, and said that Obama spent a year working on it. Baron recalls that the topic was nuclear negotiations with the Soviet Union.

    “My recollection is that the paper was an analysis of the evolution of the arms reduction negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States,” Baron said in an e-mail. “At that time, a hot topic in foreign policy circles was finding a way in which each country could safely reduce the large arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at the other … For U.S. policy makers in both political parties, the aim was not disarmament, but achieving deep reductions in the Soviet nuclear arsenal and keeping a substantial and permanent American advantage. As I remember it, the paper was about those negotiations, their tactics and chances for success. Barack got an A.”

    Baron said that, even if he could find a copy of the paper, it would likely disappoint Obama’s critics. “The course was not a polemical course, it was a course in decision making and how decisions got made,” he said. “None of the papers in the class were controversial.”

    Phil says that nobody at Columbia can vouch for Obama’s time at the College. This is false on its face. This has been pointed out several times – this former professor, a former roommate and the president of Columbia have all said that Obama is an alum of the undergraduate school. However, Phil still leaves unedited a post stating that nobody at Columbia can recall Obama’s attendance, when there are two eyewitnesses, and the president stating as much in a letter to the university. To have uncertainty whether Obama actually attended takes either intellectual dishonesty, a total lack of trust of everybody, or an inability to comprehend links that have been posted here multiple times.

    I answered question 1 in the last post – you seem caught up on the word thesis when it’s the professor in the quote above states that it was a year long paper. Obama calls it a thesis Dreams From my Father book to distinguish it from some minor paper that he spent a couple weeks on – the paper on nuclear disarmament was something he spent a year writing.

    Also, I have to ask you to cite the page of Audacity from which you’re getting this second thesis on North-South Relationships. I just glanced through the book with the help of Google Books and a library hard copy and didn’t find any mention of this. Do you have a page number or anything? Also, a google search for the title of the thesis you claim leads almost exclusively to hits of your comments on blog posts. See here:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=a4S&q=%E2%80%9CNorth-South+Relationships%E2%80%9D+obama+thesis&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

    It seems that you are the only person on the entire internet making this claim. I don’t think you’re lying, just point me to the page you’re looking at when you say Obama claimed a second thesis.

    2. Why is this paper not available? Maybe it’s been lost – do you have every paper you wrote in college? I certainly don’t. There are some good papers that I wrote in college that have been lost over the years, and I would be very surprised if they were kept in some permanent file by the school I went to.

    3. This is essentially a restatement of question 1, which I answered last time – the most likely answer is that Obama called this a thesis paper because it was a paper for a class he took in order to graduate. I majored in international relations as an undergrad, and while there was no explicit thesis requirement, there was a requirement to take classes that would have writing components to it. It’s also possible that Obama is exaggerating, turning a paper that he wrote in the course of a year-long class (according to the professor that taught the class) into a thesis paper. In addition, I haven’t been able to find this second thesis you say he claimed in “Audacity of Hope.”

    4b. You are operating from the primary and fundamental assumption that nothing Obama says is the truth. You think that even his claim of attending Columbia, even when backed by the president of the university, a former roommate of his and a professor with whom he took a class, is dubious. You are either assuming that none of them are being completely honest, or that you approach the world in such a way that you know absolutely nothing that you do not have direct first-hand proof of.

  • 215
    misanthropicus
    October 24th, 2009 17:10

    RE Sise & qwertyman;

    Guys, I get out of my way trying to help you put a touch of integrity on your Obama act:

    Ridicule corrodes anything. And the enforced obscurity over Obama’s past is handsomely misfiring – and exactly like his Monty Python Noble prize, Obama’s academic performance and history has became laughing stock all over the place -

    As you might already know, Obama’s third (3rd!) Columbia thesis has suddenly appeared, it’s on Internet all over the place, its title being “Aristocracy Reborn”, paper allegedly written after an admiring teacher begged him to do so for an adoring class –
    The story was disclosed Joe Klein from Time Magazine, who even was allowed to read its first ten pages -

    Yet the story is actually a hoax carried by Jumping In Pools site, by one Brian Lancaster -

    I read it last night with much pleasure, seeing in it exactly what’s happening all other Obamafolds: Obama has became the object of ridicule and scorn – and Obama’s academic performance is now the stuff of parodies and object of satire contests -

    No good, my friends Obamatons, no good – but now you have the opportunity to put some gloss on Obama’s act by coming with a better explanation for Obama’s multiple Columbia U thesis than Jumping In Pools -

    Do it Sise, do it qwertman – amuse us -

  • 216
    Sue
    October 24th, 2009 17:24

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=4003
    Dirty Little Lowlife Lucas Smith Turns Against Dr. Orly Taitz

  • 217
    qwertyman
    October 24th, 2009 17:29

    Do it Sise, do it qwertman – amuse us -

    You mean a head of government in a democratic country is used as an object of satire? This is truly unheard of.

    But again, this is another example of the utter gullibility of those who hate Obama. They are willing to believe and shout about anything that makes Obama look bad, no matter how many times they’ve been mislead with blatant lies – this satirical thesis, Carter’s alleged refusal to dismiss today, travel ban to Pakistan. It goes on and on.

    By the way, did you happen to find the page of “Audacity of Hope” on which the “North-South Relationships” thesis you talk about is mentioned? As the google link I posted last time shows, you are the only person on the internet talking about this thesis, a search through the book by looking through the mentions of college in the index, as well as through Google Books has revealed nothing. Again, just point me to what you’re referring to and then I could make a response to the point you’re making.

  • 218
    Pat Smith
    October 24th, 2009 17:59

    RE: Siseduermapierda

    I have run into people like Siseduermapierda in Political Chat Rooms. My guess is people like Sise can only try for a Platform through some online base. They always cut/paste Links, namecall,use profanity and never engage in any meaningful Debate. They are lifeless creatures that can only spew their mantra, but, are incapable of Debate outside of what is spoon fed them by their Handlers. They live for the attention of any Poster be it negative or positive. Best way to handle them are to IGNORE them.

    When you engage these people you encourage their feeble participation on this Board.

  • 219
    Sue
    October 24th, 2009 18:43

    It appears the courts are becoming aware of Taitz/Lincoln3′s tactics.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/21563378/DOC-19-Lincoln-v-Northwest-00430-RESPONSE-of-Wells-Fargo-to-Motion-18-to-Substitute-Attorney

    “Doc 18 is Orly’s application to be substitute counsel (or whatever one may call this).

    Doc 19 is Wells Fargo Objection. Exhibit A is a copy of the 43 page Order of Judge Land.

    At 2-3:

    Plaintiff now files a Motion for Continuance of the hearing currently set for October 27,
    2009, and asks for two additional items of relief: (a) an additional extension of time to October 30, 2009 in which to file a reply memorandum; and (b) an “at least temporary” waiver of the requirement that she obtain local counsel to be admitted pro hac vice consistent with the Court’s Local Rules.

    Wells Fargo objects to Plaintiffs request for a continuance on the basis that Plaintiff has already obtained a significant delay in the time ordinarily allowed to seek a temporary restraining order, and that any further delay will only result in unwarranted costs and expenses incurred by Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo additionally objects to any request that Plaintiff s proposed counsel be excused from the Local Rule’s requirement of obtaining local counsel for admission pro hac vice on the basis that any such waiver is also likely to increase the costs of defense of this frivolous motion and action.

    At 4-5

    WELLS FARGO OBJECTS TO ANY WAIVER OF LOCAL RULES FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION

    The admission of a lawyer pro hac vice is governed by the Court’s Local Rules, and it is the rare case where a litigant would ordinarily inject itself into the Court’s consideration of a request to modify the application of those Local Rules. Given the history of Ms. Taitz in appearing pro hac vice in other actions, however, Wells Fargo must object to any waiver of this Court’s Local Rules requirement that she obtain local counsel as a condition of pro hac vice admission.

    The Court’s Local Rule on pro hac vice admission, by requiring local counsel, serves several admirable purposes. Not the least of these is a local contact for service, but also a local contact who is familiar with filing procedures, Local Rules, and protocol. All of these things serve to allow the efficient administration of a case, and accordingly minimize the cost of litigation. The participation of local counsel also tends to moderate the behavior of those who would otherwise feel little concern for the consequences of frivolous claims or conduct if they knew they would not be soon appearing again in a local venue. When the Court is satisfied that a counsel admitted pro hac vice is capable of practicing without such local advice and counsel, the rule requiring appearance by local counsel at all hearings can certainly be waived.

    Ms. Taitz has a troubled history of pro hac vice appearances. She was recently sanctioned by Judge Clay D. Land of the Middle District of Georgia (Columbus Division) and fined $20,000 for her conduct in a case where she was admitted pro hac vice and received a waiver of the local counsel requirement. A true and correct copy of this decision is attached to the Affidavit of Kenneth C. Howell Regarding Motion for Continuance, filed concurrently herewith.

    Judge Land specifically rued the waiver of local counsel requirement, noting that it “was a mistake as counsel abused her pro hac vice privileges.” See Affidavit of Kenneth C. Howell Regarding Motion for Continuance, Exhibit A at p. 7-8. Ms. Taitz’s abuse of her pro hac vice privileges in the case before Judge Land in Georgia foreshadow her expected abuse in this action given the meritless claims advanced by Plaintiff. This is particularly true with respect to the present Motion for a TRO given that the relief requested is moot, and given that Plaintiff is unable to meet the standards for granting a TRO.

    Any granting of a waiver of the Local Rules’ requirements of local counsel is likely to have the direct effect on Wells Fargo of a substantial increase in the cost of defense of this action, and will result in additional delay in the resolution of this action. Given that Plaintiff’s prospective counsel is already unable to attend to this long-scheduled hearing, it is reasonable to expect that her involvement in “other high-profile litigation” will cause additional delays – and additional cost to Wells Fargo — throughout the course of this litigation.”

  • 220
    Black Lion
    October 24th, 2009 18:53

    qwertyman says:
    October 24, 2009 at 5:29 pm
    Do it Sise, do it qwertman – amuse us -
    You mean a head of government in a democratic country is used as an object of satire? This is truly unheard of.

    But again, this is another example of the utter gullibility of those who hate Obama. They are willing to believe and shout about anything that makes Obama look bad, no matter how many times they’ve been mislead with blatant lies – this satirical thesis, Carter’s alleged refusal to dismiss today, travel ban to Pakistan. It goes on and on.

    By the way, did you happen to find the page of “Audacity of Hope” on which the “North-South Relationships” thesis you talk about is mentioned? As the google link I posted last time shows, you are the only person on the internet talking about this thesis, a search through the book by looking through the mentions of college in the index, as well as through Google Books has revealed nothing. Again, just point me to what you’re referring to and then I could make a response to the point you’re making.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Agreed. The funny part about this so called quote from a third thesis is that the leader of the GOP, Rush Limbaugh believed it. So did some other conservatives. Anything that is negative towards the President is automatically to be pushed by people on the right, whether or not it can be proven. Limbaugh was pushing it on his show yesterday and even when it was proved to him that it was a hoax, he still says that it is probably what Obama thinks…

    http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2009/10/23#0025

    What is even funnier is that we have never seen the so called proof that the President stated different thesis’ in his books…no matter what the smear the people that hate Obama are willing to believe it without any proof…But anything that supports the President, like Obama’s roommate or a professor that remembers him at Columbia, it is automatically questioned and dismissed…

  • 221
    misanthropicus
    October 24th, 2009 19:21

    RE qwertyman & Black Lion:

    1) Yo, losers! Yes, Rush and lots of others (left and right) fell for the Jumping In Pools hoax – nevertheless, the existence of that satirical take on Obama’s merits shows, as I said, that his pretentions have became object of ridicule -

    2) Now getting to the thesis mystery – but first, an intriguing, if not hedging-designed description of Obama’s relationship with his alma mater from Columbia Wiki page: “[...] Obama maintains a somewhat distant relationship to Columbia today. While he has turned down invitations to official Columbia events and appeared to deemphasize his Columbia years in the course of his campaign [...]‘
    It looks for me that he doesn’t to be connected with that institution – I’m wondering why.

    Anyway, bellow under the respective teasers you will find the links to those two folds of Obama academic achievements, and both description nothing but add to the mystery surrounding Obama’s tenure at Columbia:

    Black Lion, Sise and Qwertyman, amuse us with your wiggling & comments – give the growing ridicule that surrounds Obama’s personality sharper contours:
    ————-*—————
    “Obama & The Case of Missing Thesis/ “The dog ate my homework?”
    [...]
    The New York Times story, on Obama’s early New York years, mentioned in passing that the presidential contender had majored in political science at Columbia and had spent his time “writing his thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament.”
    Journalists began hounding Columbia University for copies of the musty document. Conservative bloggers began wondering if the young Obama had written a no-nukes screed that he might come to regret. And David Bossie, the former congressional investigator and “right-wing hit man,” as one newspaper described him, took out classified newspaper ads in Columbia University’s newspaper and the Chicago Tribune in March searching for the term paper.
    [...]
    Columbia University can’t help solve the mystery, either. The university says that it never had a copy of the paper in its archives, and doesn’t today. A spokesman said that no student technically could have written a thesis in 1983, since the university didn’t even have a thesis requirement for undergraduates then.
    “At the time Barack Obama was a student, the political science department had no mechanism by which undergraduate political science majors in Columbia College could receive recognition for writing an independent thesis,” said university spokesman Robert Hornsby. “The department’s procedures for students to write theses were created in the 1990s.” [...]
    entire story @:
    http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1219454.aspx
    ———————*—————–
    …and now the North-South relationships thesis:
    [...] Sources first differed on whether he wrote his senior thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament[5] or the North-South debate on trade and the “new international economic order”[6]. Later, it emerged that he had not really written an official thesis at all: students were not required to do so at the time, and what was considered his “thesis” was really a long seminar paper. Obama wrote his for Prof. Baron’s American Foreign Policy class. A search has been launched[7] for a copy of the paper, which was confirmed to have been on the topic of Soviet disarmament. Baron, Obama’s de facto “thesis” advisor, is now retired to Florida, and claims to have lost his copy of the paper in a move some time ago [...]

    More on this @ http://www.wikicu.com/Barack_Obama

    Bye-bye – have fun -

  • 222
    Constantine
    October 24th, 2009 21:12

    As you may have heard, I called up to tell Apuzzo and Kerchner that they are going to get stone-walled. It’s pretty sad; they’ve given a valiant effort and the only thing to do at this point is double down. I was laughing hysterically to myself when I saw a) that the case was dismissed and b) HOW it was dismissed.

    The judge basically just summarized each side’s arguments and bitch slapped Apuzzo and Kerchner at the end, abruptly saying that they don’t have standing. Wow, that’s surprising. You think any judge is going to go rogue, and ruin or put into question his career, any case regarding a current president? Sadly, as I’ve said, the 4th arm has to work here and it has to produce more than what is out there (questions and more questions, with good but circumstantial shady evidence) so that people can’t possibly ignore what is going on. What does that mean? Hawaii is the place where all the energy should go. The media, when enough juice is involved, will pick the story up. Why? At the current rate they’ll cut the cord with Obama’s impotence and lack of decisiveness, and “get theirs.”

    I find it pathetic that Kerchner keeps asking for more and more money. If Apuzzo is doing it pro bono, what is so costly? I don’t expect that they quit with the case, but the fact remains that higher courts will smack them down embarrassingly. They are smart guys with the best case and they still get a pitiful 11 page acceptance of a motion to dismiss, literally not addressing over 90% of their points.

    Kerchner should be aiding or putting MORE pressure on the institutions that HAVE the info that breaks the case open — the Hawaii DoH. Not wasting more money on ads in the Washington Times.

    Ultimately, this looks like it has to go through the states. If you get continued impotence and failures from the administration, a switch in the 2010 elections, AND irrefutably shady information about vital statistics from Hawaii, you will get action at the state level (on what determines qualification under article 2), which WILL at least get a Supreme Court hearing for the 2012 election.

    Wasting time and money on appeals without MORE CONCLUSIVE evidence, sadly is self destructive and lacks direction. So much time and energy has been spent here I don’t expect them to listen to what I’m putting across here, but the fact is that what I’m saying is HOW IT IS. Period.

  • 223
    Phil
    October 24th, 2009 22:10

    Sue,

    David,

    There is no reason a political candidate should release anything just because someone calls him/her a liar. The burden of proof is on you to prove he/she is a liar, not the other way around.

    If political candidates released something everytime someone called them a liar, they would spend their time doing nothing but releasing information to the public.

    At the end of the day, since the presidency is not a constitutional right to behold, but rather an office to which one aspires, and since there are quite clearly issues of eligibility for this singular office, at some point, somehow, some way, said individual must prove their eligibility.

    And, of course, this is what the eligibility discussion has been all about: When does this happen? To what degree must one prove oneself eligible? Who is responsible that such vetting occurs? (at this point, all rhetorical questions)

    Burden of proof works great in the Judiciary. However, when it comes to political matters, I’m not so sure the exact same rule applies.

    -Phil

  • 224
    qwertyman
    October 25th, 2009 01:04

    misanthropicus,

    On what page of The Audacity of Hope does Obama say that he wrote a thesis about North-South Relationships in the Post Colonial World? You’ve made this claim several times here in the comment. I thumbed through the book, searched through google books and ran a general google search. You are the only person on the entire internet who claims that Obama wrote this in his book. Where did he say this? I’ve asked you twice and you’ve refused to answer. I don’t want to think that this is something you made up, but this is the last time I give you the benefit of the doubt. On what page of Audacity of Hope does Obama talk about a thesis regarding North-South relationships?

    Other than that, the point you keep bringing up about the thesis is answered in your own link – what Obama called a thesis was really a long seminar paper. His professor remembers the paper, says he gave Obama a good grade and recalls it not being controversial.

    The president of the university states Obama graduated in ’83. Do you think he’s lying? If so, why?

    It takes a huge leap of faith to go from Obama hasn’t given much back to the university in recent years to then say that that raises doubts about whether he attended in the first place.

  • 225
    bystander
    October 25th, 2009 03:03

    Pat Smith says:
    October 24, 2009 at 5:59 pm

    When you engage these people you encourage their feeble participation on this Board.

    Good grief – we wouldn’t want discussion on a political forum , would we? I’ve got a clue for you Pat – if it weren’t for Sise and a few others, Phil’s blog would be utterly dead. That’s why he allows opposing views. Look at Orly’s blog – world shattering birther news everyday, and what, 2 or 3 comments? A few screeching birthers that can barely keep their lies straight? A worldwide laughing stock, who’s deluded ratings are debunked in minutes by Obots. But she doesn’t allow any dissent, so she continues to embarrass herself by repeating the nonsense, until she gets fined by a Judge.

    In my opinion, now would be the time to abandon Phil to his delusions and let this desperate, misleading blog die it’s natural death. It has run it’s course, every avenue investigated has become a cul de sac – a dead end. The birthers are now reduced to arguing that Obama is a bad, bad man because he hasn’t given enough back to Columbia (except he didn’t go there)! Oh boy – what a sad desperate bunch you are.

  • 226
    Bry
    October 25th, 2009 06:31

    According to Phil,

    At the end of the day, since the presidency is not a constitutional right to behold, but rather an office to which one aspires, and since there are quite clearly issues of eligibility for this singular office, at some point, somehow, some way, said individual must prove their eligibility.

    So the question becomes: how do we get, say, President Eisenhower to do that? The weird thing is this blog’s obsession with our 44′th president, the one who actually did prove he’s a natural-born citizen.

    And, of course, this is what the eligibility discussion has been all about: When does this happen? To what degree must one prove oneself eligible? Who is responsible that such vetting occurs? (at this point, all rhetorical questions)

    Rhetorical questions?, No, answered questions. Phil, you reported the Court’s the decision on Kerchner v. Obama; have you considered reading it? In particular, the final note (marked ’5′, on page 11) answers some of your questions.

    Burden of proof works great in the Judiciary. However, when it comes to political matters, I’m not so sure the exact same rule applies.

    No problem — look to the ‘political’ branch that makes the call. Actually, all three branches (plus the so-called “fourth branch”) have been telling you how it is. Want answers to your questions? They’re right in front of you.

  • 227
    siseduermapierda
    October 25th, 2009 08:20

    Pat Smith says:
    October 24, 2009 at 5:59 pm
    *Siseduermapierda*

    Deriding my use of links to sources shows your ignorance. Apparently you never wrote a paper that required footnotes. You don’t understand the practice of citing sources to support your position. Perhaps it’s your participation that’s feeble. Bystander has a very good point.

  • 228
    Sue
    October 25th, 2009 09:23

    Phil,

    There are only three requirements in the Constitution to be eligible to be POTUS. Do you agree?

    1. natural born citizen
    2. reside in U.S. 14 years
    3. age 35 years

  • 229
    jvn
    October 25th, 2009 11:10

    Sue -

    Don’t confuse Phil with the actual issue! He wants his admittedly political questions to stand as “proof” that the President isn’t “qualified” to be President.

    But, as you state, there are only those three Constitutional qualifications, and the President has already been certified to have met them, so what’s left?

    Yellow dog journalism, that’s what. Create rumors, make up stories, hype people who don’t like the President, etc.

    It’s nothing new in America, it has been going on since the time of George Washington. The internet is a somewhat new way of spreading the BS, but the attacks aren’t anything new.

    The real trouble for the GOP is that their leadership seems to have embraced this rhetoric, and they have been rewarded by having only one in 5 Americans identifying themselves as Republican – the lowest number since perhaps Lincoln’s time. Yet there are some who have the pipe dream that this party who do not represent 80% of Americans will somehow sweep back into control of Congress in 2010! That, despite the fact that neither the fund raising nor polling numbers indicate any political earthquake. They forget that the 75,000 people who attended their march on Washington only get 75,000 votes!

    The biggest lesson to learn from all of this is to be wary of what you read on the internet. You need to look at many sources, and you need to see what the motivation of the people who are writing it is.

    The birthers have exactly what they had a year ago – nothing! They have their hatred and obsession with the President, and they have the pain of their losing the election. While it’s too bad that they can’t put that energy into something constructive, it’s alos better that they waste it on nonsense instead of working to elect Republicans!

  • 230
    misanthropicus
    October 25th, 2009 11:15

    RE qwertyman (& obamatons) Re misanthropicus:

    [...] On what page of The Audacity of Hope does Obama say that he wrote a thesis about North-South Relationships in the Post Colonial World? [...]

    Qwertyman, as you have seen from my quotations and the two links in my post bellow, I proved that Obama’s academic past at Columbia is shrouded in mystery, Michael Baron’s claim that he lost the thesis topping everything -

    Now, I agree that you have a point in challenging my assertions from the angle of a technical improperty because…

    … Yes, I didn’t update/ conform my notes regarding this Obama thesis issue and I mistakenly attributted as referrence source the “US-Soviet Nuclear etc.” to the “Dreams From”, and the “North-South etc.” to “The Audacity” – which is not correct, and I admit it (and I updated my note as well).

    However, my misquotation (which again, I admit), doesn’t undermine a iota the validity of my, and so many other people’s position regarding the issue we debate here, i.e. OBAMA’S OBSCURE TENURE AND ACHIEVEMENTS AT COLUMBIA, and my assertion regarding the themes/topics which researchers uniformly entertain as possibly tackled by mister Obama while at Columbia (US-Soviet Nuclear issues and North-South relationships in the post-colonial age) is valid.

    The two links I provided soundly illustrate this curious situation:

    A) the NYT via NBC: “Obama & The Case of Missing Thesis/ “The dog ate my homework?”
    [...]
    The New York Times story, on Obama’s early New York years, mentioned in passing that the presidential contender had majored in political science at Columbia and had spent his time “writing his thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament.” [...] Columbia University can’t help solve the mystery, either. The university says that it never had a copy of the paper in its archives, and doesn’t today. A spokesman said that no student technically could have written a thesis in 1983, since the university didn’t even have a thesis requirement for undergraduates then. [...]
    http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1219454.aspx

    B) the Columbia U Wiki page:
    [...] Sources first differed on whether he wrote his senior thesis on Soviet nuclear disarmament[5] or the North-South debate on trade and the “new international economic order”[6]. Later, it emerged that he had not really written an official thesis at all: students were not required to do so at the time, and what was considered his “thesis” was really a long seminar paper. Obama wrote his for Prof. Baron’s American Foreign Policy class. A search has been launched[7] for a copy of the paper, which was confirmed to have been on the topic of Soviet disarmament. Baron, Obama’s de facto “thesis” advisor, is now retired to Florida, and claims to have lost his copy of the paper in a move some time ago [...]
    (http://www.wikicu.com/Barack_Obama)
    ————————–*——————-

    So, Qwertman, I again apologize and admit that I misquoted in this issue – yet, as far the substance of our debate, the provided links illustrate that:
    1) nobody knows anything about Obama which is a worrisome situation, and
    2) that despite Baron’s claim (which cannot be verified anyway), the hypothetical academic efforts Obama engaged in while at Columbia (US-Soviet Nuclear issues and North-South relationships) are those that I mentioned before (again, my faulty attribution acknowledged).

    Now, to close this little chapter in Obama’s labyrinthine biography, my impression is that Obama DID attend Columbia, yet what he did was probably a merciful summer session for foreign students, or some extension classes, “bon pour Orient” (as the French used to say), to build some familiarity with the ways of the world – and there, remarked, then propped up by the Ayres-like crew of Columbia teachers, he was pressed into a fast/ no demands track, then into a undemanding “anticipative degree” not unlike his recent Nobel Prize.

    All universities have fast/no demands track places for some selected people (generally foreign notabilities offspring), and Obama was probably shoe-horned in such a thing.
    This also would explain the fact the Obama is virtually unknown in the school and also his antipathy for Columbia – if someone blows the cover, his “years of immersion in study” would turn out as a having the weight of Benazir Bhutto’s academic acomplishments at Harvard (and not only hers), wouldn’t it?

    Qwertyman, I don’t expect you to pass the opportunity to huff & puff over my misquotation – yet, even with my faulty attribution in the game, as relenvancy to this discussion I still grade my contribution as a %80.

    Best regards –

    in the post-colonial age.

  • 231
    JeffM
    October 25th, 2009 11:32

    Sue said:

    Phil,

    There are only three requirements in the Constitution to be eligible to be POTUS. Do you agree?

    1. natural born citizen
    2. reside in U.S. 14 years
    3. age 35 years

    You are missing one:

    Must currently be a citizen of the United States.

  • 232
    siseduermapierda
    October 25th, 2009 11:41

    JeffM says:
    October 25, 2009 at 11:32 am
    *You are missing one:

    Must currently be a citizen of the United States.*

    You know Jeff, I’m looking at Article II, Sec 1, clause 5 right now, and it doesn’t say that. Sue is right.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

    ( Note to Pat Smith, the link is there to support my assertion.)

  • 233
    siseduermapierda
    October 25th, 2009 11:50

    misanthropicus says:
    October 25, 2009 at 11:15 am
    * my impression is that Obama DID attend Columbia yet what he did was probably a merciful summer session for foreign students, or some extension classes….”

    You should stick to the facts, your impression is clearly wrong. Barack Obama is graduate of Columbia University. The statement by the University President serves as verification.
    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/08/11/obama.html

    (Pat Smith – the statement at the link proves my assertion.)

  • 234
    siseduermapierda
    October 25th, 2009 12:00

    jvn says:
    October 25, 2009 at 11:10 am
    *Yellow dog journalism, that’s what. Create rumors, make up stories, hype people who don’t like the President, etc.*

    They were so badly and publicly burned by the “obama thesis discovered by blogger and it slams the Constitution” punk, maybe they’ll dial it back a little. They spread the hoax like wildfire and with complete glee and giddiness, but the fact they were punk’d is on the front page of papers across the country. It just illustrates they can’t even remember their own BS ( Ooo, Pat Smith, abbreviation for a swear word!) that his thesis was either nuclear disarmament or north-south relations, and someone needs to confirm which it was and product a copy. They bought the idea that a thesis titled “Aristocracy Revisited” was found, that had nothing to do with nuclear disarmament or north-south relations. They either have no sense of discernment or whatever they have is completely clouded by their hatred of Obama. jumpinginpools blog has accomplished this before. Hint to righties: when you read things at jumpinginpools that seem to good to be true, check for the “snark” tag at the end. It was right there.

  • 235
    JeffM
    October 25th, 2009 12:36

    jvn said:

    Don’t confuse Phil with the actual issue! He wants his admittedly political questions to stand as “proof” that the President isn’t “qualified” to be President.

    We don’t need proof of anything. We know the answer because the Constitution already provides it. Pay attention because this is important.

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 (March 26, 1790) clearly states:

    …the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States…

    Now you’re saying “what does the Naturalization Act of 1790 have anything to do with the Constitution?”

    The answer is simple:

    1. The Act was signed into law by the first President of the United States, George Washington. If you recall Washington worked with John Jay to get the “Natural-born” clause added to Article II, so he would never pass legislature that didn’t meet his definition.

    2. It’s easy to see from the phrase above that the father confers citizenship. Although this phrase in the law applies to overseas birth, it clearly states fathers conferred citizenship back in 1790.

    3. The term “resident” in the Act of 1790 meant “resident alien”. Because Obama Sr. was a non-resident alien, he could not confer any U.S. citizenship to Soetoro because he had no authority or permission to do so.

    4. There has been no immigration law since 1787 that has attempted to refine or alter the definition of Natural-born citizenship. Therefore the concept of natural-born citizenship as it was written in 1787 applies, and only the Act of 1790 tried to refine it (that section was repealed in the Naturalization Act of 1795).

    5. Most of the framers of the Constitution were also part of the first Congress that passed this bill. They would have known that the father conferred citizenship.

    Lastly, the transfer of citizenship from Father to Son was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court decision on WEEDIN v. CHIN BOW back in (1927):

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=274&invol=657

    No proof is needed. We already have it. All we need is an honest judge to see it this way and make a Constitutional decision instead of a political one.

  • 236
    Sue
    October 25th, 2009 12:38

    misanthropicus,

    “Now, to close this little chapter in Obama’s labyrinthine biography, my impression is that Obama DID attend Columbia, yet what he did was probably a merciful summer session for foreign students, or some extension classes, “bon pour Orient” (as the French used to say), to build some familiarity with the ways of the world –”

    “My impression” = my opinion = may or may not be fact based.

    “what he did was probably a merciful summer session for foreign students,”

    Do you have any credible evidence to back up your statement above other than just “your impression?”

  • 237
    JeffM
    October 25th, 2009 13:13

    Sue,

    Who cares whether he attended college at all? The question at hand is what the situation was on August 4, 1961.

    Here are the facts:

    1. Father was Kenyan
    2. Father was a non-resident alien, i.e. foreign student
    3. Naturalization Act of 1790 clearly states non-resident aliens can’t confer citizenship/natural-born citizenship as the Constitution intended
    4. This act was written by the framers and signed by first President 3 years after the Constitution was ratified

    All this silly COLB does is proves Soetoro was born to a non-resident alien Kenyan father in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. That’s it. Case closed. We don’t need to know anything about his life between August 5, 1961 and January 20, 2009 because it doesn’t matter.

    Either you are for the Constitution or against it. Apparently all you people trying to make excuses for a usurper are against it. You don’t ever want to see the courts make a decision on this because you clearly don’t want the Constitution to protect you any longer.

    What a shame.

  • 238
    bob strauss
    October 25th, 2009 13:31

    JeffM, Clearly stated and right on point, thank you for spelling out what we all feel about Obama’s usurping the Presidency.

    Breaking the rules to get elected is fraud. Obama knew he wasn’t qualified. The conspiracy to usurp the Presidency began long before the election, long before Obama obtained the protections in the Constitution afforded the office of President. The fraud continues and the cover up goes all the way to Hawaii.

  • 239
    misanthropicus
    October 25th, 2009 13:38

    RE Sue & Sise:

    [...] You should stick to the facts, your impression is clearly wrong. Barack Obama is graduate of Columbia University. The statement by the University President serves as verification. [...]

    Heh-heh-heh! Agan twisting words – hen let’s review the fact, obfuscators -

    1) The present thread is about an article which enlarges upon the fact the fact that Obama’s presence at Columbia was pretty mysterious, since there are no records available to attest that, no diploma/degree to attest that, and that there is only a minuscule (and debatable) amount of testimonies regarding his undocumented presence there -
    2) I fully agreed with this article, and I concurred, by offering as additional “proofs of mystery” the story of Obama’s holographical, double graduation thesis, thesis which anyway wasn’t/weren’t a requirement for graduation at the time when he claims that was enrolled there -
    3) upon challenging, I produced two serious sources/links backing my description of his bizzare academic achievents at Columbia, i.e. NY Times via NBC. then the Columbia Wiki page supporting, both my description: as topic, as efforts unrequired by school, and ALSO, as most Obama evidence, unavailable –
    4) so, by providing evidence for my description, I substantiated my promise, and also the issue which I brought in discussion has further bolstered Phil’s article describing the stubborn obscurity surrounding Obama’ (hypothetical) tenure at Columbia -
    Eat it -

    I understand that for any Obamaton this successful demonstration of Obama’s fraudulence during these times when he’s slipping dramatically in polls and his chronic incompetence (if not seditious policies) has became glaring is a source of pain and anger –
    But that’s for you, Obamatons – for any normal people, my demostration is satisfactory and the additional light it shines upon this charlatan is welcome -
    Bye -

    PS: Sise & Sue, you both jumped on my final observation from my previous post “my impression is that …”
    That observation doesn’t belong to the issue I successfully demonstrated here, I never touched before Obama’s degree issue.
    But since you foolishly brought it in discussion, now eat this too: a degree can be obtained or fast-tracked in many manners, so until we can scrutinize the paper trail justifying his diploma, that “degree” has the weight of Obama’s Nobel Prize – giggling starter.
    Losers -

  • 240
    siseduermapierda
    October 25th, 2009 14:20

    misanthropicus says:
    October 25, 2009 at 1:38 pm
    “fast track degrees”

    Your inability to look at what we know and understand in a rational way is hilarious. Obama attended Occidental College from 1979 to 1981. He went on his famous trip to Indonesia, Pakistan and points beyond the summer of 1981. He entered Columbia in the fall of 1981 and was given his BA in spring 1983. Let’s do some higher math here – 1979 to 1983 – well, by golly miserablejokus, that’s 4 years! Wow! What a fast track! You’re a jokicus.

    By the way, point us to where in the Constitution, US Code or US jurisprudence we can find the requirement for the President to present his undergraduate paper trail and where it says miserablejokicus needs to be personally satisfied before the President is legitimate.

  • 241
    brygenon
    October 25th, 2009 14:37

    Sue says:

    There are only three requirements in the Constitution to be eligible to be POTUS. Do you agree?

    1. natural born citizen
    2. reside in U.S. 14 years
    3. age 35 years

    Well, technically, there’s also:

    4. Cannot have previously served two terms as POTUS.

    I think the chances are good that Obama will be found to be Constitutionally ineligible, but it’ll be #4 that gets him.

  • 242
    misanthropicus
    October 25th, 2009 14:51

    Re siseduermapierda RE misanthropicus:

    [...] “fast track degrees” [...] Obama attended Occidental College from 1979 to 1981. He went on his famous trip to Indonesia, Pakistan and points beyond the summer of 1981. He entered Columbia in the fall of 1981 and was given his BA in spring 1983. [...]

    sise, I don’t know how many feet you have, but you sure are good at sticking them in your mouth – and your inane challenges cannot but add to Phil’ take on Obama’s fraudulence and mystery tenure at Columbia:

    1) [...] attended [...] 1979… 1981… 1983….
    Now be good sport: show me Obama’s records of attendance at Occidental and Columbia, matriculation, financial and otherwise – that will settle the matter, wouldn’t it?

    2) Now the Pakistan trip – thanks, man! We sure want to know more about that – show me on what kind of passport did Obama enter Pakistan. Was that Indonesian? US?
    Mighty interested – looking forward -

    Heh – what a loser -

  • 243
    misanthropicus
    October 25th, 2009 14:56

    TO: everybody
    RE: Obama’s undermining America -

    Just out for press: – today is the 26th. anniversary of the Beirut bombing that killed 126 Marines -
    Yet in Obama’s communique, he completely exonerates the terrorists, doesn’t even mention those who did that –

    Hussein the 1st., Grand Calif Of North America – anyone doubting it?

  • 244
    Bob
    October 25th, 2009 15:10

    3. Naturalization Act of 1790 clearly states non-resident aliens can’t confer citizenship/natural-born citizenship as the Constitution intended

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 was superceded by the Naturalization Act of 1795 and the 14th Amendment.

  • 245
    Sue
    October 25th, 2009 15:54

    JeffM,

    President Obama has never tried to hide the fact that his father was Kenyan and his mother a U.S. citizen. Everyone is well aware of this fact; Republicans, Democrats, etc.

    Now, if this had any bearing whatsoever on President Obama’s eligibility to be POTUS, don’t you think H. Clinton or J. McCain would have jumped on this with both feet? Or Congress and SCOTUS? Or the media? They have not, before the election or after.

    Your “theory” that natural born citizen must have 2 citizen parents is just that; a “theory and a BS theory.” That “theory” was started and has been promoted by individuals who claim to be “constitutional experts or constitutional lawyers”; yet, when examine their credentials, you clearly see that this is not the case at all.

    Born in America = natural born citizen = native born citizen = citizen at birth. It does not matter if both your parents were born on Mars if YOU were born in U.S.A.; YOU are a natural born citizen and eligible to be POTUS.

  • 246
    MGB
    October 25th, 2009 16:23

    David, I have to hand it to you. Having successfully backed certain persons into a corner, one bugs off (yet again) and another (jvn) resorts to a truly novel and most decidedly immature defense: All presidents make up stories (myths) about themselves, so it’s perfectly okay for Obama to do the same. If you object to that ridiculous argument, no doubt you’ll be told that you’re a racist since you probably haven’t complained about a “white” president fabricating his life story.

  • 247
    MGB
    October 25th, 2009 16:36

    bystander said, “In my opinion, now would be the time to abandon Phil to his delusions and let this desperate, misleading blog die it’s natural death.”

    sise said, “Bystander has a very good point.”

    I say, don’t let the door hit you in the rear on your way out.

  • 248
    MGB
    October 25th, 2009 16:41

    The biggest hoaxer of all is Obama.

  • 249
    siseduermapierda
    October 25th, 2009 16:49

    brygenon says:
    October 25, 2009 at 2:37 pm
    *I think the chances are good that Obama will be found to be Constitutionally ineligible, but it’ll be #4 that gets him.*

    Exactly! Eventually Obama will be found ineligible under the 22nd amendment!

  • 250
    misanthropicus
    October 25th, 2009 17:03

    “Can Anyone Vouch for Obama’s History? What About His Columbia Records?/ Submitted by Phil on Sat, Oct 24″

    “It is already known that nobody has stepped forward to vouch for witnessing or being connected to Mr. Obama’s birth as alleged to have been in some Hawaiian hospital. And now it appears that nobody seems to while some individuals associated with Columbia University seem to remember their fellow classmate at Columbia University (see the mixed and varied commentary associated with this posting), nobody appears to be able to vouch for his records. [...]

    * Yes, completely true. Obama’s situation is a major Potemkiniade, “The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Truman Show” -

    Obama is a scamster and all his past is enveloped by a shroud of mystery. And all the facts about him, no matter how much his supporters (and less and less successfully) try to hide, converge in the final image of an illegitimate US president, brought to power by “fortunate accidents” and malfeasance.

    Obama’s mystery academic career at Columbia is a good illustration of the obscure, anti-American forces that have carved a niche for him.
    Yet The Obama Show is increasingly damaged by revelations about Obama’s fraudulence, and the truth about Obama’s holographic activities at Columbia is very telling – the requested links pointing to Obama’s fraudulence are bellow, they come from very credible institutions, NYT via NBC, then Columbia U Wiki page -

    There simply can’t be a better proof of how painfully affected by those revelations are the Obamatons on this site other than their complete avoidance of the subject –

    Can Anyone Vouch for Obama’s History? What About His Columbia Records? – no, definitely not the collection of buffoon trolling this site -

    Links to amplify your heart problems bellow, buffoons –

    http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1219454.aspx
    http://www.wikicu.com/Barack_Obama

    Bye-bye – Obama is a false president – impeachment looms – have heartburns – heh-heh-heh -

    PS: I can hardly wait for Tuesday’s Rassmunssen. My bet is that Bamby will be down at least %5 more – his postponing the Afghanistan decision until after the 3 November will show, time and again who this creep is -

    More heartburns for you – heh-heh-heh -
    superb, unique,

  • 251
    bob strauss
    October 25th, 2009 17:05

    Obama has beem hiding his British citizenship right in front of everybody since day one. Saying Obama’s heritage didn’t decend from his father, but through his mother is totally false. The Obots know this but they believe if they keep repeating the same false stories over and over the people will begin to believe Obama’s father had no bearing what so ever in Barry’s Citizenship.

    They admit Obama as Kenyan, they admit Obama as British, but when it comes to Obama being ineligible to be President, they say he is a natural born citizen of the United States. It’s no wonder people want to see his papers. Based alone on what is known, Obama doesn’t qualify for the job. Obot’s all acknowledge his Kenyan fathers citizenship when it is convenient, see Obama’s first book, but when it is pointed out that his fathers citizenship is what disqualifies Obama from being President obots all chime in and say he derives his citizenship from his mother, who was too young at the time to pass on citizenship to anyone.

    Some heritage, proud to be Kenyan when it is Convenient, when visiting Kenya and writing books, then switch to being an American when needed, to declare yourself a natural born American and run for President of the USA. What a phony!

  • 252
    Sue
    October 25th, 2009 17:25

    MGB,

    “All presidents make up stories (myths) about themselves,”

    I would not say they “make up stories (myths) about themselves but they do however try to present themselves as better than what they actually are. Here is one example.

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/elec04.prez.bush.texas.records/

    If you will note, former President Bush did not release these records until 2004.

  • 253
    siseduermapierda
    October 25th, 2009 18:14

    bob strauss says:
    October 25, 2009 at 5:05 pm
    *Saying Obama’s heritage didn’t decend from his father, but through his mother is totally false. *

    It is silly to insist an 18th century notion of “descent” from the father has anything to do with Barack’s citizenship. I would love to see one of these cases advance just to see the smackdown you’d get for trying to argue either parent’s citizenship is relevant at all when Barack was born in Hawaii.

  • 254
    misanthropicus
    October 25th, 2009 19:04

    Re Bystander & Sise:

    bystander: “now would be the time to abandon Phil to his delusions and let this desperate, misleading blog die it’s natural death.”
    sise: “Bystander has a very good point.”

    Heh-heh-heh! You are such a couple of clowns – was that Laurel & Hardy, or Kramden & Norton? Or the Stooges?
    Leave, baby, leave – heh-heh-heh -
    And since you were talking about natural death – here’s your RIP, and this comes from your HuffPo itself -

    Huffpo had a melancholy piece yesterday, kind of “Where are the snows of yester year?” about the complete decline of Obama’s Internet operation – of which you stupid trolls are part and parcel.
    And now, an addition to that piece: Obama’s Internet operation wasn’t at any time that great – it was just a hypertrophied Michelin man, swollen by a complicite media, and now the dummy is fizzling to death -

    And secondly, part of the cause of this Obama trolling operation’s death is the quality of the people who joined The One’s cyber scheme – dreck & lint like you, Sise, bystander, and all other Obama clowns -
    You simply can’t argument, all what you do is to robotically parse and jam and draw people in circuitous argumentations which, in the end do not yield any benefit for you anyway -

    Eppur si muove – yes, Obama is a false president.
    And he’s doing miserably, and probably will be marched out from the office before the end of term –

    You said that you’ll leave and return to your ACORN offices – good riddance, but I’m pretty sure that I’ll see you again lurking around -
    ————————–

    And now for Phil:
    You’re doing great, Phil – there simply isn’t a better confirmation of this than these dolts fuming and threatening that will never come back -

    Loved it -

  • 255
    Tim
    October 25th, 2009 19:47

    siseduermapierda said:
    “I would love to see one of these cases advance just to see the smackdown you’d get for trying to argue either parent’s citizenship is relevant at all when Barack was born in Hawaii.”

    If Kim Jong-il’s son was born in Hawaii – and his parent(s) citizenship was irrelevant then we would have a serious problem – if his son decides to run for POTUS or is the POTUS due to popular vote.

    If Kim Jong-il desides to impregnate a US woman and Kim Jong-il’s son was born in Hawaii – also if his parent(s) citizensihp was irrevevant then we would have a serious problem – if his son decides to run for POTUS or is the POTUS due to to popular vote.

    Because I am not a lawyer – I need the US Court’s help to determine “what the Founders of the Constitution really intended/wanted” – final/true definition of “natural born US Citizen, which person(s)to verify POTUS canditates elgibilty, and when is this done.

    Finally if there is ever a problem with elgibilty who can bring suit, where is this done, the actual steps that must be taken so we don’t have to go through this BS again.

    Having North Korean troops inside the United States in Civilian clothing under the disguise of Tourist is a very very scary thought because Kim Jong-il’ son is POTUS.

  • 256
    bob strauss
    October 25th, 2009 20:21

    sise, Your idea of a President and mine are vastly different, I prefer that mine be qualified for office. I also appreciate the heritage of the American families, that for generations have fought in wars to protect and defend the Constitution their country and their families from enemy’s both foreign and domestic.

    When these generations of American natural born citizens take a look at Obama it is plain for them to see that his father was foreign born. That fact alone means Obama isn’t qualified. Our country is built upon generations of citizens, all Americans are one big family willing to show their birth certificates to prove to one another that we are all proud citizens of the greatest country on earth.
    That was until Obama began his fraud in concert with Nancy Pelosi and the DNC.

    Phil you are the greatest I don’t think the Obots could find a forum better than this one.

  • 257
    siseduermapierda
    October 25th, 2009 20:36

    bob strauss says:
    October 25, 2009 at 8:21 pm
    “I also appreciate the heritage of the American families, that for generations have fought in wars to protect and defend the Constitution their country and their families from enemy’s both foreign and domestic.”

    You know I just can’t seem to find that in Article II Sec 1 Clause 5. Natural born citizen, age 35, 14 years resident. Nope, nothing about needing to be from a family that fought in wars. You can have your romantic views of who should be President, but your views end where you try to use those views to discriminate againsts someone who is legally eligible. But thanks for being honest. Google “barack obama childhood pictures” and come back and try to tell me he wasn’t an All-American boy.

  • 258
    dunstvangeet
    October 25th, 2009 22:20

    Bob Strass, Hate to tell you this.

    Barack Obama’s Grandfather (Stanley Armour Dunham) fought in World War II.

    And in fact, Obama’s 6th Great-Grandfather (John Stroup) fought in the American Revolutionary War.

    But don’t let facts get in your way of what you already believe.

  • 259
    Pat Smith
    October 25th, 2009 22:39

    Oh………and don’t forget that Obama said his Uncle Liberated Auschwitz.

    Wait…then Obama realized his mother was an only child….oops.

    “I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps,” Obama said, slowly and methodically. “And the story in my family is that when he came home, he just went into the attic, and he didn’t leave the house for six months. Alright? Now, obviously something had affected him deeply, but at the time, there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain.”

  • 260
    dunstvangeet
    October 25th, 2009 23:04

    You mean his Great-Uncle (Ralph Waldo Emerson Dunham, Jr.) who was part of D-Day?

    I don’t know about you, but I used to refer to my Great-Uncle as Uncle Bill, before he died. Nah, that’s too simple…

    And of course, he didn’t liberate Auchwitz, however, his unit did liberate Buchenwald.

    So, what’s your point?

  • 261
    dunstvangeet
    October 25th, 2009 23:17

    I was wrong. It was his Great-Uncle Charles Payne who liberated Buchenwald.

    Ralph Waldo Emerson Dunham, Jr. went over to Europe on D-Day +4

  • 262
    bob strauss
    October 25th, 2009 23:57

    Dunst,Where does Obama’s foreign citizen father fit into your war stories.

    sise,I have googled Obama’s photos to find most if not all are photoshopped frauds. Birth certificate photoshopped, year book photos, family photos, newspaper birth announcements, you name it, all photoshopped fakes, just like the entire story surrounding his phony American citizenship, fake.

  • 263
    bob strauss
    October 26th, 2009 00:04

    Dunst, You will note also, the relatives who were patriotic and fought in wars all came from the mothers American side of the family, not from the Kenyan, foreign citizen, side of the family.

  • 264
    candace
    October 26th, 2009 00:29

    thanks for keeping the discussion open! We have been hoodwinked.

  • 265
    Jon Carlson
    October 26th, 2009 02:16

    Bushes Natural Born Status Questioned
    http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/CensusAlienPresidents1.htm

  • 266
    dunstvangeet
    October 26th, 2009 02:43

    So, Bob. What you’re saying is that you only respect the contributions of families if they come from the father’s side of the family? Or are you saying that you only respect the contributions of these people if their descendants don’t have sex with foreigners?

    It’s ridiculous that you think that the grandson of a WWII Veteran, who’s a direct descendant of someone who fought in the American Revolution, cannot be the President of the United States.

  • 267
    siseduermapierda
    October 26th, 2009 07:26

    bob strauss says:
    October 25, 2009 at 11:57 pm
    *I have googled Obama’s photos to find most if not all are photoshopped frauds. Birth certificate photoshopped, year book photos, family photos, newspaper birth announcements, you name it, all photoshopped fakes, *

    If you think everything is faked, you are in the throes of a conspiracy theory. Really, ask yourself, how can it all be fake bob? How could anyone pull that off? You should have just stuck to the “not born in Hawaii” meme. Because “it’s all fake”, makes you look like a loon.

    If you think this is fake,
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/070323obama-early-photogallery,0,5458360.photogallery
    or this
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/070323obama-early-photogallery,0,5458360.photogallery
    or this
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/070323obama-early-photogallery,0,5458360.photogallery

    you’ve got real problems bob.

  • 268
    siseduermapierda
    October 26th, 2009 07:30

    bob strauss says:
    October 26, 2009 at 12:04 am
    *Dunst, You will note also, the relatives who were patriotic and fought in wars all came from the mothers American side of the family, not from the Kenyan, foreign citizen, side of the family.*

    bob strauss unmasked!

  • 269
    syc1959
    October 26th, 2009 09:59

    Children DO follow their fathers.

    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…

    Now, here is Barak’s own words: “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.

    So Barak followed his father, had all the rights, THE BRITISH rights, that were bestowed by his father.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    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.

    Barak’s father was NOT a US citizen, therefore as defined above, even if born in the US, the United States was not his country, his allegiance was to the British crown, the jurisdiction was British Law as admitted by Barak…the British Nationality Act of 1948

  • 270
    syc1959
    October 26th, 2009 10:09

    For those who STILL have trouble believing that status ‘at birth’ is the law of the land –

    Here is the specific language from Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 675 (1927), quoting the 9th Circuit:

    ‘The transmission of right of citizenship is not at the death of the ancestor, but at the birth of the child, and it seems to us more natural to infer that the conditions of the descent contained in the limiting proviso, so far as the father is concerned, must be perfected and have been performed at that time.

  • 271
    Pat Smith
    October 26th, 2009 10:24

    Michelle Obama to the IOC, ” Sports were a gift I shared with my dad — especially the Olympic Games.

    Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad’s lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis, and …”
    ————————————————————

    Mrs. Obama was 20 years old when Carl Lewis first competed in the Olympics. Can you all say “Kinky” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    _________________________________________________________________

    Just like BO’s “Uncle” that Liberated Auschwitz. But only if Obama’s “uncle” served in the Red Army of Joseph Stalin, which liberated Auschwitz Jan. 27, 1945.
    ——————————————————————

    Not only does BO NOT have an Uncle, he also does not know who Liberated Auschwitz?

  • 272
    bob strauss
    October 26th, 2009 10:29

    sise, My problem is the same problem our country is facing, the fact that we have a usurper claiming to be President.

    The sons of Kenyan citizens don’t qualify for the office of President.

    Can you see my logic in this reasoning?

  • 273
    sue
    October 26th, 2009 10:42

    “Pat Smith says:
    October 26, 2009 at 10:24 am
    Michelle Obama to the IOC, ” Sports were a gift I shared with my dad — especially the Olympic Games.

    Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad’s lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis, and …””

    Would you please cite your source?

  • 274
    Pat Smith
    October 26th, 2009 10:46

    Sue,

    Sure…no problem, even though you could have Googled it yourself.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/10/chicago-olympics-michelle-obama.html

    http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/10/michelle-obama-and-carl-lewis.html

  • 275
    misanthropicus
    October 26th, 2009 11:03

    RE bob strauss:

    [...] sise, My problem is the same problem our country is facing, the fact that we have a usurper claiming to be President. [...]

    Yes, bob, you are right – an usurper, and an actively anti-American one – and here’s another proof about dba Obama’s disloyalty:

    He is purposefully delaying help to our troops in Afghanistan who are badly cornered there in order to satisfy all anti-American groups’ interests – dba Obama’s calculation here being that this cynical manoevre will bring him some wind in the sails for the Nov 3rd. elections (which are anyway lost for Dems).

    Completely shameless Obama is, and only antipathy for all things American does he have (poor Dunhams, such an undeserved punishment for so good people!) and all political choices Obama did so far show that America’s legitimate interests are to be discarded in the favor of our adversaries -

    Certainly America is a country made of immigrants, yet of immigrants who have assimmilated, and now reap the benefits of a great civilization.
    And the constitutional requirement of “natural born” comes exactly from the founders’ fears that one day, a foreign adventurer just belched on the shore from a ship, an adventurer strictly pursuing his interests (or being manipulated by other forces), might somehow reach the presidential power then act against the legitimate interests and rights of the locals – as it happened many times in history, in Europe and elsewhere (remember: “Heavens knows, my son, by what crooked and tortutous ways I reached this crown!”)

    No nation in the world would accept a foreign born national to be its head of state – all citizens, from Russia to Chile, from Iceland to Japan or Poland to China would suspect a person like Obama of disloyalty.

    The allogen theory has been painfully confirmed by history – the disasters that Hitler brought upon Germany and Stalin upon Russia are a good warning that someone like Obama, who deeply resents America, must not be allowed in the office.

  • 276
    misanthropicus
    October 26th, 2009 11:14

    RE Pat Smith & Sue:

    [...] Michelle Obama to the IOC, ” Sports were a gift I shared with my dad — especially the Olympic Games. Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad’s lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis, and …”” [...]

    The usual Obamacrap. As anything that comes from Obama Two, Michelle’s poignant reminiscence is probably an opportunistic lie – and it marvellously fits Barry’s “cosmic” lie of last August, when talking to some Nasa figures in the White House:

    “I remember the day, when sitting on my grandad’s shoulders on the beach in Oahu I watched in awe the return of the Apollo capsule in the waters of the Pacific Ocean” (approx.) – my, now that touching!

    The problem is, that when Apollo splashed in the water near Hawaii, little Barry was far away, in Djakarta, asiduously learning the Koran in the Franziskus school –

    Funny thing – apparently the Obamas extract lying inspiration from the same book -

    Two liars – redeemed now, as they might hasten to add, because now they can be proud of this country -

  • 277
    qwertyman
    October 26th, 2009 11:21

    Here is the specific language from Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 675 (1927), quoting the 9th Circuit:

    ‘The transmission of right of citizenship is not at the death of the ancestor, but at the birth of the child, and it seems to us more natural to infer that the conditions of the descent contained in the limiting proviso, so far as the father is concerned, must be perfected and have been performed at that time.

    This is a horrible misreading of the case using an out-of-context quote.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=okFtdjfp9FgC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=weedin+v+chin+bow&source=bl&ots=q87d5AkvdR&sig=3BtlqKAAqhiClc6BadYo6k2Bx9o&hl=en&ei=YLblSpTXOsrclAeb3qnoCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=weedin%20v%20chin%20bow&f=false

    Chin Bow was born in China. Bow’s father was also born in China, but had American citizenship through his father, Bow’s grandfather. Bow’s mother was a Chinese citizen with no American ties. Bow’s father had never been in the United States.

    Because Bow’s father had never resided in the US, Bow was not considered an American citizen himself.

    Claiming that there is no citizenship that could descend through the mother, that citizenship only descends from one’s father is a blatantly misogynistic argument that would fail under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, and you should frankly be ashamed to be making it.

  • 278
    qwertyman
    October 26th, 2009 11:31

    He is purposefully delaying help to our troops in Afghanistan who are badly cornered there in order to satisfy all anti-American groups’ interests – dba Obama’s calculation here being that this cynical manoevre will bring him some wind in the sails for the Nov 3rd. elections (which are anyway lost for Dems).

    First of all, thank you for at least admitting that you were wrong about what Obama had written in Audacity of Hope. You may call is a misquote, but it is still tough to come forth and actually admit that for days you had been making an allegation over and over again, either actively lying or not bothering to check whether what you say is true or not.

    With that in mind, you make another allegation, accusing Obama of treason and not having made a decision in Afghanistan in order to potentially sway two gubernatorial elections. I’m sure that you’ve learned your lesson about making factual allegations that are either lies or made with reckless disregard of actual truth, so I’m sure you could provide some proof beyond your mere speculation that Obama is not making a decision on Afghanistan solely for the purpose of turning two long-shot elections around.

  • 279
    Observer
    October 26th, 2009 11:53

    Is there a significant difference for authenticity of facts displayed between the categories re: them as “accepted by State Registrar” and “filed by Registrar”?

    http://s55.photobucket.com/albums/g160/steveb777/?action=view&current=ObamaCOLBfromPolitifactdotcom_Compa.jpg

    http://s55.photobucket.com/albums/g160/steveb777/?action=view&current=ObamaCOLBfromPolitifactdotcom_Co-1.jpg

    One possibility:

    http://misstickly.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/our-worst-nightmare-confirmed/

    Apparently the date of filing is the date that a document is “RECEIVED” at the DoH office. O’s information was received or “FILED” on Aug. 8, 1961. It was never “ACCEPTED” by the State Registrar…. So then apparently Obama’s COLB is still being “MAINTAINED” awaiting “acceptance” by the Hawaii State Registrar.

    I mean it’s been maintained that the COLB has all the info necessary, no? Well, this is the info provided and therefore can be compared with other “official” information contained on similar COLBS, no?

    So, apparently what has been “accepted” by the anointed public experts has only been “filed” by HI??
    And what has been conveniently “seen” by the spokesperson is only what has been “filed”?? What has been “seen” could provide the necessary facts interpreted by spokesperson for statement made …. but can only be based in reality when it is “accepted”!! And that may depend on more than hearsay provided.

  • 280
    dunstvangeet
    October 26th, 2009 11:59

    syc1959. You really should talk about what U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark says about allegiance. That case says that Obama’s allegiance was directly to the United States.

    And the fact that he was also a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies has absolutely no bearing on his citizenship status in the United States.

  • 281
    siseduermapierda
    October 26th, 2009 11:59

    bob strauss says:
    October 26, 2009 at 10:29 am
    *Can you see my logic in this reasoning?*

    Nope. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. That makes him a citizen at birth, a natural born citizen. The citizenship of his father has no bearing on his citizenship. The law of who are citizens is the 14th amendment and specified in US Code 8, Sec 1401. It was upheld in the decision of Wong Kim Ark. You might dream dreams of disqualifying Obama with LeoD’s two citizen parent theory. But existing US law doesn’t support his theory. He knows it, that’s why he folded. But not until he managed to brainwash those who were easily fooled into believing his 1-1/2 year theory is “how it’s always been.” If two citizen parents were true, you’d have constitutional experts crawling out of the wordwork to disqualify Obama.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html#

  • 282
    qwertyman
    October 26th, 2009 12:01

    So, apparently what has been “accepted” by the anointed public experts has only been “filed” by HI??
    And what has been conveniently “seen” by the spokesperson is only what has been “filed”?? What has been “seen” could provide the necessary facts interpreted by spokesperson for statement made …. but can only be based in reality when it is “accepted”!! And that may depend on more than hearsay provided.

    “Filed” is common language on the COLB.

    http://www.obamacrimes.com/Michele-front.jpg

    From a birther site no less.

  • 283
    siseduermapierda
    October 26th, 2009 12:04

    syc1959 says:
    October 26, 2009 at 9:59 am
    *Children DO follow their fathers.*

    Where do you people get these foolish ideas? Utter ignorance.
    Here is the US Code that defines who are citizens of the US at birth, or natural born citizens. Read it. There’s nothing there about fathers when the child is born in the US.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html#

  • 284
    misanthropicus
    October 26th, 2009 13:41

    RE qwertyman:

    [...] thank you for at least admitting that you were wrong about what Obama had written in Audacity of Hope. You may call is a misquote, but it is still tough to come forth and actually admit that for days you had been making an allegation over and over again, either actively lying or not bothering to check whether what you say is true or not. [...]

    Qwertyman, Halloween is here but don’t morph in a Siserda type of doctor Moreau’s monster. Stay with the issue and don’t change them when cornered – so here’s a reminder of this discussion’s elements and evolution:

    1) the topic of the thread is Phil’s article about Obama fraudulence: “Can Anyone Vouch for Obama’s History? What About His Columbia Records?/ Submitted by Phil on Sat, Oct 24″

    “It is already known that nobody has stepped forward to vouch for witnessing or being connected to Mr. Obama’s birth as alleged to have been in some Hawaiian hospital. And now it appears that nobody seems to while some individuals associated with Columbia University seem to remember their fellow classmate at Columbia University (see the mixed and varied commentary associated with this posting), nobody appears to be able to vouch for his records. [...]

    … and here came my intervention:

    2) Yes, completely true. Obama’s situation is a major Potemkiniade, “The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Truman Show” -

    Obama is a scamster and all his past is enveloped by a shroud of mystery. And all the facts about him, no matter how much his supporters (and less and less successfully) try to hide, converge in the final image of an illegitimate US president, brought to power by “fortunate accidents” and malfeasance.

    Obama’s mystery academic career at Columbia is a good illustration of the obscure, anti-American forces that have carved a niche for him.
    Yet The Obama Show is increasingly damaged by revelations about Obama’s fraudulence, and the truth about Obama’s holographic activities at Columbia is very telling – the requested links pointing to Obama’s fraudulence are bellow, they come from very credible institutions, NYT via NBC, then Columbia U Wiki page -”

    http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1219454.aspx
    http://www.wikicu.com/Barack_Obama
    —————–* ——————

    So, while I admitted that my attributions in cause were pointing to a wrong source (actually diluting my accusations, since Obama’s works themselves carry big disclaimers, while the sources I missed first time to mention are of authority – NYT via NBC and Columbia Wiki Page), and I apologized for not having updated my notes, the substance of my initial statement was/is perfectly satisfied by my corrected/ update referrences -

    By the way, did you checked them?
    Funny thing, I heard no one coming with a rebuttal of the information in those sources (NYT vs. NBC, and Columbia Wiki page), information that clearly shows that Obama is a scamster, that his tenure at Columbia was mysterious, and that his academic work there is inexistent -

    Again, any impartial observer, after being notified of my initial mis-attribution, then reviewing the matter and the proper sources would be satisfied by the point I made regarding Obama’s fraudulent tenure at Columbia U – fraudulent tenure which certainly announced Obama’s further evolution to the current position of anti-American usurper in the White House.

    I reposted the links – maybe you want to examine them -

  • 285
    misanthropicus
    October 26th, 2009 13:45

    Siserda -
    I see you back – how’s that?
    Last night you solemnly promised to retire under your humid rock and never ever return here – and now, you’re again creeping around, leaving threads of poisonous mucus everywhere.
    Yes, you can -

  • 286
    misanthropicus
    October 26th, 2009 13:57

    Re Siserda & the Latvia meteorite -

    Just watched the Latvia meteorite story and I suddenly relized this:
    The ones who take Siserda’s legal theories about Obama’s legitimacy seriously, are also the types still wringing hands awaiting for the denuement of the balloon boy story -

    But on the other hand, maybe the Latvia meteorite was actually an UFFO that after dumping Siserda here in the States, crashed in Europe -
    Interesting – Siserda, besides the accomplished legal thinker you unfailingly prove to be, are you a Dianetics head, too?

    Excitedly awaiting -

    Yours -

  • 287
    qwertyman
    October 26th, 2009 14:05

    Funny thing, I heard no one coming with a rebuttal of the information in those sources (NYT vs. NBC, and Columbia Wiki page), information that clearly shows that Obama is a scamster, that his tenure at Columbia was mysterious, and that his academic work there is inexistent -

    Again, any impartial observer, after being notified of my initial mis-attribution, then reviewing the matter and the proper sources would be satisfied by the point I made regarding Obama’s fraudulent tenure at Columbia U – fraudulent tenure which certainly announced Obama’s further evolution to the current position of anti-American usurper in the White House.

    You were the one who brought up this apparent knowledge that you have that Obama is deliberately delaying any action on Afghanistan to sway to gubernatorial elections. Sooner or later I hope you will learn to not make factual claims without making sure that they’re factual.

    As for the multiple papers, I have responded to you about this several times already. You apparently either have been unable or unwilling to comprehend it, or lack attention span.

    What seems most likely is that those are both papers that Obama wrote while in college of some length, though there was no thesis requirement at the time. One of the professors has spoken to the press about it – you apparently think he might be lying for some reason.

    A perfectly reasonable explanation is that Obama wrote both papers and described them as theses in order to show to the reader of the NYT piece or Dreams from my Father that this was something that he had given considerable thought to.

    You take this verbal distinction between term paper and thesis and somehow cite that as evidence that Obama didn’t go to Columbia, or was a fraud there. That’s a HUGE leap in logic, completely unsupported by the facts, which includes the president of the university vouching for Obama as an alum, a former roommate and a former professor under whom Obama wrote the nuclear disarmament paper.

    Again, I would like an answer as to how you know that Obama is basing military strategy solely on what will best help two gubernatorial candidates. If not, maybe being called out a second time on making a factually dishonest assertion or lie may make you at least think before you post next time.

  • 288
    bob strauss
    October 26th, 2009 14:44

    qwertyman, There you go again citing Obama’s “COLB” as if it were a real document. See Dr Polarik’s report on the “COLB”. It is a forgery, there is no COLB. No proof of citizenship whatsoever.

  • 289
    qwertyman
    October 26th, 2009 15:08

    qwertyman, There you go again citing Obama’s “COLB” as if it were a real document. See Dr Polarik’s report on the “COLB”. It is a forgery, there is no COLB. No proof of citizenship whatsoever.

    Dr. Polarik? Who’s that?

    Wait, do you mean Ron Polland?

    http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/07/meet-ronald-jay-polland.html

    Orly also disclosed that Polarik = Polland in her case against Phil Berg. Note that Polland has no expertise in forensics. Also, his analysis sucks:

    http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/210-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis.html

    http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

    Also, you guys can’t keep your stories straight. Earlier there was the post about how the COLB said filed instead of accepted. That would mean that the COLB is genuine and there’s something fishy on the original in the archives. You’re saying that the COLB is fishy and what would be in the archives would be legitimate. Orly and Phil Berg accuse each other of being plants for Obama. The sheer paranoia and distrust of everything you guys have is sad.

  • 290
    sue
    October 26th, 2009 15:13

    bob strauss,

    Newsflash Bob. The COLB exists and is authentic. If you will recall, Mr. Bauer, in Hollister v. Soetoro footnoted the online (FactCheck) COLB in the MTD. Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that by signing a filing, the signer certifies that “The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.” Suffice it to say, if they (Bauer) assert that the online COLB demonstrates that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, they have actual, admissible evidence to back it up.

  • 291
    SanDiegoSam
    October 26th, 2009 15:41

    Bob Strauss:

    There you go again citing Obama’s “COLB” as if it were a real document. See Dr Polarik’s report on the “COLB”. It is a forgery, there is no COLB. No proof of citizenship whatsoever.

    There you go again citing “Dr Polarik” as if it were a real person. See Loren’s report on “Dr Polarik”. He is a forgery, there is no Dr Polarik. No proof of a forged COLB whatsoever.

    :D

  • 292
    SanDiegoSam
    October 26th, 2009 15:48

    Qwertyman:

    “Filed” is common language on the COLB.

    “Filed” is also the legal requirement for proof of citizenship by birth, per the US State Department regulations on the issue.

    7 FAM 1119 PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH IN THE UNITED STATES
    (TL:CON-64; 11-30-95)

    a. To establish a claim to U.S. citizenship by birth in the United States:

    A person born in the United States in a place where official records of birth were kept at the time of his birth shall submit with the application for a passport a birth certificate under the seal of the official custodian of records. [22 CFR 51.43.]

    b. The birth certificate must:

    (1) Show the applicant’s full name, and date and place of birth;
    (2) Have a filing date within 1 year of the birth; and
    (3) Bear the signature of the official custodian of birth records and the raised, impressed, or multicolored seal of the issuing office.

    Note: It specifies a “filing” date, not an “acceptance” date.

  • 293
    siseduermapierda
    October 26th, 2009 16:03

    bob strauss says:
    October 26, 2009 at 2:44 pm
    *See Dr Polarik’s report on the “COLB”. *

    bob, were you away from the eligibility story all summer? Polarik was summarily outed and debunked. He’s no document expert. See qwerty’s links to Loren’s story about finding Ron Polland. The birthers have dumped Polarik. There’s no one left saying the COLB is a forgery. Remember when LeoD asked Hawaii for index data, Hawaii said they have no index data for Maya Soetoro. That means there is no Maya Soetoro COLB from which a Barack Obama COLB could have been forged. the “COLB is a forgery” myth is destroyed. The index data showed there is a birth record for Barack Obama. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. You notice LeoD folded and went back to whatever he was doing.

  • 294
    syc1959
    October 26th, 2009 16:10

    Wrong,
    There’s no one left saying the COLB is a forgery.

    I think you’d better review my analysis and proof that the Obama COLB is a forgery.

    I have NOT retracted one statement concerning the COLB. Nor have I been debunked. I have the evidence from the State of Hawaii, concerning the FTS [Fight the Smears] and FactCheck, documents being different and a total forgery.

    Try as the obot’s might, my facts have stood up.
    And they will in court, when the time comes.

  • 295
    Eve
    October 26th, 2009 16:17

    siseduermapierda if you honestly think that Leo D capitulated and we’ve heard the last from him you’re dead wrong. You’ve been seriously asleep at the wheel too if you think for a min he was arguing that Obama was born outside of Hawaii. It’s ALWAYS been his contention that he was born in Hawaii, and that his status as an NBC is and has always been affected by the fact that his father was a British/Kenyan national at the time of his birth. Even Obama admits that he had dual citizenship at his birth. That’s something that even the most idiotic among the obots can’t deny. It’s from their own messiah’s mouth. Like it or not Donofrio shifted to the Birth certificate so the real issue (Obama’s dual citizenship at birth) could rise to the forefront. People who continue to make it about a piece of paper instead of the real issue, a valid legal question on if someone with dual citizenship at birth is legally considered a natural born citizen are missing the point. Apparently the rule of law has been completely and utterly abandoned here.

  • 296
    MGB
    October 26th, 2009 16:18

    Sue: Don’t be ridiculous. They signed the filing and asserted only that there is an assertion within a footnote that refers to a claim by Factcheck that the COLB is authentic. True.

    But they don’t say that THEY assert that they agree with Factcheck THAT the COLB is authentic. Got it?

    This is akin to the Hawaiian DoH saying that they have seen that they have Obama’s original bc on file. Not that they have SEEN the original bc. Only that they have seen to it that it’s on file.

    Of course, in a similar vein, later on the DoH said that they have seen documents that verify he was born in Hawaii and is a NBC. You see, they have seen documents and the documents assert that he was born in Hawaii and (using whatever interpretation they use) is a NBC.

    However, THEY themselves don’t make that assertion. The documents, whatever they are, do.

    They always leave weasel room in every statement. More obfuscation by Sue and Obama’s lawyers.

    Gee, the defendant in that case is named “Soetoro”. Who’s that, anyway? And why or how did Soetoro respond without admitting that he IS Soetoro. Isn’t that a signed assertion, too? What a conundrum.

  • 297
    misanthropicus
    October 26th, 2009 16:30

    RE qwertyman:

    Let’s do thing in their chronological order – these are your words:

    1) As for the multiple papers [...] A perfectly reasonable explanation is that Obama wrote both papers and described them as theses in order to show to the reader of the NYT piece or Dreams from my Father that this was something that he had given considerable thought to.
    You take this verbal distinction between term paper and thesis and somehow cite that as evidence that Obama didn’t go to Columbia, or was a fraud there. That’s a HUGE leap in logic, completely unsupported by the facts, which includes the president of the university vouching for Obama as an alum, a former roommate and a former professor under whom Obama wrote the nuclear disarmament [...]

    Qwertyma, the issue we are discussing here is Obama’s fraudulence and his mystery academic activity at Columbia – and I fully justified via two serious links my assertion that Obama’s career at Columbia is a fraud that well heralds his further life achievements.
    Any normal being (liberals aside, of course) if queried about Obama’s character and “transparency” then shown the content of those referrences would laugh, and pass buying a vacuum cleaner from him.
    And from now on, since you stick to your contorted explanation regarding Obama’s Columbia presence, I’ll do you a favor and I’ll provide you with some appropiate motto-s for your other posts:
    “It wasn’t a rape-rape” -
    “A fourteen years old is a woman nowdays” -
    “It depends on what do you mean by IS”, and
    “Shouda-coulda-woulda” -
    And this should suffice – if you prefere to wallow in hypocrisy, that’s your choice -

    Now regarding the second, Afghanistan issue:
    [...] Again, I would like an answer as to how you know that Obama is basing military strategy solely on what will best help two gubernatorial candidates. If not, maybe being called out a second time on making a factually dishonest assertion or lie may make you at least think before you post next time. [...]

    Qwertyman, bellow you’ll find a link with a Saturday O’Reilly/ Carl Rove interview in which Carl Rove describes Obama’s shameful electoral calculations which make him delay support for our embattled troops in Afhanistan, Obama’s avoidance of seeing McChrystal, and Emmanuel’s lies regarding the timing of this gooey game performed by the democrat party brass -

    Since you protest, against all evidence and logic, that I was right regarding Obama’s Columbia fraud, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear from you that Carl Rove is not a proper source in the Afghanistan matter, etc. etc…

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/23/rove_on_obamas_afghanistan_troop_decision.html

    regards -

  • 298
    siseduermapierda
    October 26th, 2009 16:39

    Eve says:
    October 26, 2009 at 4:17 pm
    * seriously asleep at the wheel too if you think for a min he was arguing that Obama was born outside of Hawaii.*

    Certainly you don’t think for a minute that whole escapade was to prove Obama was born in Hawaii? Leo doesn’t need to prove Obama was born in Hawaii, he could simply stipulate it and move on to his dual citizenship argument. Whatever that bit of foolishness with the index data was about, it was completely unnecessary in order for Leo to move ahead. Instead he got into a p!ssing contest with Hawaii and lost. Kerchner argued dual citizenship and was dismissed. Orly is arguing dual citizenship as an issue in Keyes. If Orly gets dismissed by Judge Carter, Leo isn’t going to file anything about dual citizenship. It will be the last we hear from Leo, from Jet Schizo, well, that’s another story.

  • 299
    siseduermapierda
    October 26th, 2009 16:42

    syc1959 says:
    October 26, 2009 at 4:10 pm
    *Wrong,
    There’s no one left saying the COLB is a forgery.*

    Oh, OK, there’s you. And you’ve got nothing.

  • 300
    syc1959
    October 26th, 2009 17:01

    siseduermapierda says;

    (Oh, OK, there’s you. And you’ve got nothing.)

    You have no idea, what IS coming.

  • 301
    qwertyman
    October 26th, 2009 17:02

    Qwertyma, the issue we are discussing here is Obama’s fraudulence and his mystery academic activity at Columbia – and I fully justified via two serious links my assertion that Obama’s career at Columbia is a fraud that well heralds his further life achievements.
    Any normal being (liberals aside, of course) if queried about Obama’s character and “transparency” then shown the content of those referrences would laugh, and pass buying a vacuum cleaner from him.
    And from now on, since you stick to your contorted explanation regarding Obama’s Columbia presence, I’ll do you a favor and I’ll provide you with some appropiate motto-s for your other posts:
    “It wasn’t a rape-rape” -
    “A fourteen years old is a woman nowdays” -
    “It depends on what do you mean by IS”, and

    I’ve given you my hypothesis of what the “two thesis mystery” is about. You refuse to accept it. Fine. You apparently think the President of Columbia University, the professor for whom Obama wrote one of those papers, and a former roommate are all lying. It’s paranoia, pure and simple.

    If anybody is making a contortion of a conclusion, it’s you. You’re taking this fact and leaping to the conclusion of Obama was a fraud in college/didn’t even attend/didn’t graduate. You can continue to engage in ad hom attacks on me personally and comparing me with rapists all you like, but that doesn’t make your argument the slightest bit stronger, nor does it make your conclusion the slightest bit rational.

    I wouldn’t be surprised to hear from you that Carl Rove is not a proper source in the Afghanistan matter

    First of all, it’s Karl Rove. Secondly, yes, Karl Rove is not a proper source. He is basing his conclusion on exactly the same amount of information that you are – it’s pure speculation. His entire job is to make Democrats look as bad as possible. He’s been an extremely dirty political operative his entire career (McCain’s black daughter push polling, outing a CIA agent, Swift Boats), and after watching the clip for which he provides no basis for his conclusion, I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    Just because the right wing echo chamber is saying something over and over doesn’t make it true.

  • 302
    misanthropicus
    October 26th, 2009 18:14

    RE qwertyman:

    There he goes again:
    [...] I’ve given you my hypothesis of what the “two thesis mystery” is about. You refuse to accept it. Fine.
    I gave you two solid sources that substantiate my prior claim of fraudulence, and you keep offering your “hypothesis” as having the same weight – that’s not fine.

    [...] You apparently think the President of Columbia University,
    the professor for whom Obama wrote one of those papers, and a former roommate are all lying.
    The Columbia president’s statement is remarkably similar to Fukino’s – all what it says is a very general thing that doesn’t satisfy the purposes of this discussion, i.e. we cannot glean from it whether Obama was given an “anticipative” degree, a “Bhutto” type of degree, or a fast-forward degree. At best it says that Obama was around Columbia sometimes, and his statement should not be conveyed as being an official credentialization of Obama’s career there – for that we need to see Obama’s paper trail at Columbia, which is, surprise! surprise! completely locked.

    Now, as far as Baron’s statement, that comes with “the dog ate my homework” burden – I lost the paper, can you belive that? Oh, no! Gretchen, someone stole Obama’s papers again!
    As far as “a former” roomate, I’m realy impresed with this. Why only one? Was that person in the same extension class? Etc. etc. –
    The same stubborn fog –

    [...] It’s paranoia, pure and simple. [...]
    The fact that I might be paranoid doesn’t mean that I AM NOT RIGHT IN THIS MATTER – as far “as pure and simple”, when it comes to Obama, anything and everything loses purity and straighfordwardness.

    [...] You can continue to engage in ad hom attacks on me personally and comparing me with rapists all you like [...]
    My quoting Woopy Goldberg (in Re Polansky), Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton is not an ad hominem attack.
    As I said, their words are good motto-s for the moral relativism exercices in which you and all other Obamatons engage in when defending the indefensible – Obama’s fraudulent career.

    [...] yes, Karl Rove is not a proper source. He is basing his conclusion on exactly the same amount of information that you are – it’s pure speculation. His entire job is to make Democrats look as bad as possible. [...] and after watching the clip for which he provides no basis for his conclusion, I’m not giving him the benefit of the doubt. [...]
    Well, you are entitled to hold on this position, and quote Carville or Emmanuel any time – but you cannot say that my quoting Rove is invalid –

    Best regards -

  • 303
    sue
    October 26th, 2009 18:25

    Bob,

    Read this rule very carefully.

    “Rule 11(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that by signing a filing, the signer certifies that “The factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.”

    The signer, which is Bauer “certifies that the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation of discovery.”

    Which means that Bauer “certifies” that he can produce the underlying document to the online COLB which Bauer “specifically identified” when he made the footnote to the online COLB in the MTD. The underlying document is the certified COLB obtained from the Hawaii DOH.

    Unlike “birther lawyers”, real, competent and ethical lawyers consider signing their name to their pleadings serious and are able to back up their pleadings with credible, admissible evidence to the court.

    Bauer very clearly told the court that “he can produce the certified COLB should he be ordered by the court to do so.”

  • 304
    Observer
    October 26th, 2009 19:09

    “Filed” is common language on the COLB.

    http://www.obamacrimes.com/Michele-front.jpg

    Small or not so small discrepancy where all examples given here re: “filed” are by “registrar” and all examples given re: “accepted” are by “State registrar”? There apparently is a local registrar who files things and an official State registrar who does more than just view what is on file. Now is there a COLB for O that has been officially “accepted by State registrar”? If people want to say that they “saw” what was “on file” and then insinuate a certain extrapolation from that … well, perhaps others might just ask for more “paperwork” than what is “on file” for the certifiably “acceptable by State Registrar” proof.

  • 305
    brygenon
    October 26th, 2009 19:11

    syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda says;

    (Oh, OK, there’s you. And you’ve got nothing.)

    You have no idea, what IS coming.

    You have your conspiracy theory — that much is true — but the stuff you merely imagine isn’t really a counter to Siseduermapierda’s observation that “you’ve got nothing”. Sise’ mean here in reality.

    If you want to know who has the clues on what’s coming, you might look at how various participants have done so far. Team-obot has a stunning accuracy rate; the eligibility deniers, well, also stunning but in the wrong direction. Kerchner v. Obama, noted in the article, followed the familiar pattern: We obots chalk up another hit; you guys make yet more excuses.

    Remember reading here of the oh-my-god moment just around the corner? Well, that’s one long corner isn’t it? Not that we haven’t seen seen OMG moments — they just played on the other side. When Lindsey Graham calls you “crazy”, that’s an OMG moment, and when our host calls Graham a RINO (Republican in name only) that’s even better. When Ann Coulter likens you to the last “remaining klanners in America”, that’s OMG stuff. Legal arguments intended to oust President Obama instead draw thousands of dollars in sanctions. OMG!

    The only serious open question is how much failure and defeat birthers need to heap upon themselves. I’ve been writing that since last year, and it’s been validated over and over and over.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfTHQUYvwBM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP_DMTbfbdE
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/11914286356.pdf
    http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.28.0.pdf
    http://ia311029.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.17.0.pdf

  • 306
    misanthropicus
    October 26th, 2009 19:20

    RE Qwertyman -

    In addition to the link in which Karl Rove enlarges upon Obama’s gross & cruel delaying the Afghanistan deployment in order to squeeze some electoral advantages from the MoveOn.org lot, I posted here another one, which describes poor Gibbs’ attempts to clear Emmanuel from the hallo of lies which so much characterizes Obama’s White House (and obviously, his prior carreer) – and don’t tell me that Time is a shrill conservative outlet:

    http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/10/26/gibbs-existence-of-afghan-review-not-the-

    issue/#http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/23/rove_on_obamas_afghanistan_troop_decision.html

    regards -

  • 307
    Observer
    October 26th, 2009 19:23

    Which means that Bauer “certifies” that he can produce the underlying document to the online COLB which Bauer “specifically identified” when he made the footnote to the online COLB in the MTD. The underlying document is the certified COLB obtained from the Hawaii DOH.

    So, IOW, the document backing up the “filed by Registrar” COLB flashing about on various friendly websites would be another “filed by Registrar” COLB on file which could lack the legal veracity of an “accepted by State Registrar” one and yet still give a certain, if not disingenuous, back up to an attorney who is playing only with a “filed by Registrar” exhibit.

  • 308
    misanthropicus
    October 26th, 2009 19:24

    RE sue:

    Bob [...] “or, if specifically identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation of discovery.” [...]

    … will likely… reasonable opportunity for further …

    My, Sue – this is how the newspeak describes escape chutes or clauses?

    Impressed -

  • 309
    Phil
    October 26th, 2009 20:54

    Sue,

    Phil,

    There are only three requirements in the Constitution to be eligible to be POTUS. Do you agree?

    1. natural born citizen
    2. reside in U.S. 14 years
    3. age 35 years

    While I would agree that the above certainly states who may be eligible for the presidency, these metrics do not state how nor to what extent they should be measured (how many times have I said this on my blog? Too many to count…).

    -Phil

  • 310
    Phil
    October 26th, 2009 21:02

    JeffM,

    Sue said:

    Phil,

    There are only three requirements in the Constitution to be eligible to be POTUS. Do you agree?

    1. natural born citizen
    2. reside in U.S. 14 years
    3. age 35 years

    You are missing one:

    Must currently be a citizen of the United States.

    Your observation is irrelevant, because if the individual is natural born, then they are, by definition, a citizen of the United States, for the purposes of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

    A sub-question would subsequently be, “What happens if a natural born citizen explicitly revokes their American citizenship?” I don’t know.

    -Phil

  • 311
    Phil
    October 26th, 2009 21:16

    Bry,

    So the question becomes: how do we get, say, President Eisenhower to do that? The weird thing is this blog’s obsession with our 44′th president, the one who actually did prove he’s a natural-born citizen.

    Excellent rhetorical question RE: Eisenhower. Unfortunately, nobody has ever specifically laid out how or to what extent that Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 is to be determined (e.g.: is a birth certificate enough?).

    I am curious, though, how it is that Mr. Obama has “prove[n] he’s a natural-born citizen.” I’ve already remarked that the only thing that’s even remotely publicly viewable is the image of an alleged Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, and yet there is no known receipt of the transaction that makes a “proof of purchase” of this alleged document, nor has any forensically-qualified professional ever physically examined the actual document.

    Further, as far as I know, there is no other direct evidence that would be even remotely admissible in Court to substantiate this President’s bona fides. If you characterize it an “obsession” to question someone who’s background is next to unknown, that’s perfectly fine by me; I’ll be more than happy to live and die by the Constitution. It’s good enough for me.

    No problem — look to the ‘political’ branch that makes the call. Actually, all three branches (plus the so-called “fourth branch”) have been telling you how it is. Want answers to your questions? They’re right in front of you.

    OK, then: who declared that Mr. Obama is qualified to be President? By what authority did they do so? Based upon what evidence did they make such a call?

    I’ll catch you up:

    - The 2008 Joint Session of Congress only certified the Electoral College vote, not the candidate’s eligibility;

    - The SCOTUS Chief Justice administering the oath of office of the President similarly did not vet the candidate; that process merely completed the Legislative process of presidential election.

    - Not a single federal officeholder has been able to substantiate why the President is eligible, even if they know what a natural born citizen is (scarily enough, most of the form letter responses back to concerned citizens either used different verbiage or simply assumed that the President had been previously vetted).

    So, the challenge: I would like for someone to either produce the receipt for the transaction that allegedly procured Mr. Obama’s COLB or I would like for someone to produce a copy of the original documentation regarding this President in order to sufficiently prove, to me, that he is natural born. I have otherwise seen too much other evidence to seriously question who this President is.

    That’s the way I roll.

    -Phil

  • 312
    Phil
    October 26th, 2009 21:19

    brygenon,

    syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda says;

    (Oh, OK, there’s you. And you’ve got nothing.)

    You have no idea, what IS coming.

    You have your conspiracy theory — that much is true — but the stuff you merely imagine isn’t really a counter to Siseduermapierda’s observation that “you’ve got nothing”. Sise’ mean here in reality.

    If you want to know who has the clues on what’s coming, you might look at how various participants have done so far. Team-obot has a stunning accuracy rate; the eligibility deniers, well, also stunning but in the wrong direction. Kerchner v. Obama, noted in the article, followed the familiar pattern: We obots chalk up another hit; you guys make yet more excuses.

    Remember reading here of the oh-my-god moment just around the corner? Well, that’s one long corner isn’t it? Not that we haven’t seen seen OMG moments — they just played on the other side. When Lindsey Graham calls you “crazy”, that’s an OMG moment, and when our host calls Graham a RINO (Republican in name only) that’s even better. When Ann Coulter likens you to the last “remaining klanners in America”, that’s OMG stuff. Legal arguments intended to oust President Obama instead draw thousands of dollars in sanctions. OMG!

    The only serious open question is how much failure and defeat birthers need to heap upon themselves. I’ve been writing that since last year, and it’s been validated over and over and over.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP_DMTbfbdE
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/11914286356.pdf
    http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.28.0.pdf
    http://ia311029.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.17.0.pdf

    Yeah, and?

    -Phil

  • 313
    mimmee
    October 26th, 2009 22:55

    It’s time to get the filth out of the WH the way it’s going for him it won’t be long!

  • 314
    Curiouser and Curiouser
    October 27th, 2009 00:59

    Phil,
    Regarding the COLB at Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
    Where at the bottom of the right corner it says “Date Filed By Registrar”
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    Here are the State of Hawaii Department of Health regulations regarding what “Date Filed By” means and doesn’t mean.(Thanks to Blogger Bob on TerriK’s web site for obtaining it and posting it!)
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/rules/prac_proc.pdf
    Please refer to 11-1-4 and 11-1-28 in particular. Other areas of interest are: 11-1-28 Filing of documents
    §11-1-29 Amendment of documents and dismissal
    §11-1-30 Retention of documents by the department
    §11-1-31 Public access; documents and hearings.
    I think the whole document is worth a read but what it confirms is what other bloggers have noted ie the discrepancy between “Filed by Registrar” and “Accepted by Registrar”.

    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm
    Israelinsider: “Whereas the uncertified Obama document provides the date “filed by registrar”, the certified DeCosta document provides the date “accepted by the registrar.” The difference between filing an application for a Certification of Live Birth and having it accepted may be key here”

    http://misstickly.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/our-worst-nightmare-confirmed/
    TeriK: “President Obama’s online COLB says ‘FILED BY REGISTRAR.’ The information on the President’s COLB represents information he furnished the local registrar in an application to amend his vital record information. He furnished this info likely on a blank certificate or form supplied by the local registrar. Fukino’s statement in October 2008, indicates that an original birth certificate already existed ‘on record in accordance to state policy and procedure.’ The vital records she refers to on July 27, 2009, “verifying” the President is a ‘natural-Born’ American citizen and born in Hawaii are only “maintained on file,” therefore they cannot possibly be “on record with the State Registrar:”

    What these bloggers have so ably pointed out and provided examples of in their investigations is that this document was “Filed by the Registrar” but not necessarily “Accepted by the Registrar”. There seems to be a real demonstrable difference betwween these two designations. This leads to two possibilities. One must ask the obvious; so if the COLB is real why hasn’t it been “Accepted” after all these years? Why would a “Filed by Registrar” COLB be sent out by Obama and his team rather than a COLB that was “Accepted by Registrar” if it existed? In fact, why would this COLB be sent out by Hawaii as “Filed by Registrar”? How could it even exist as “Filed By Registrar” once it status was “Accepted by Registrar” It couldn’t have been sent out as “Filed by Registrar” by the Department of Health if it had been “Accepted By Registrar”.
    Therefore, the COLB is either fraudulent or it never was “Accepted” because it wasn’t complete or was incorrect or didn’t meet the specified criteria to be accepted at the time it was filed.
    Finally, I thought I would provide your readers with the sum total of statements that I could find made by public officials in the United States ie Hawaii who have access to Obama’s birth records.
    First we have Dr.Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Department of Health on Oct. 31, 2008:
    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, 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 Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.(notice she didn’t say that she or Alvin Onaka, the Registrar of Vital Statistics, had actually seen the document but that she had seen it was on record.)
    ”http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

    Following this we again have Dr.Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Department of Health on July 27, 2009:
    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack 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.”(notice she has seen original vital records “plural” and doesn’t specifically mention the birth certificate or COLB and then goes on to use the curious phrase natural-born with a hyphen which isn’t in the Constitution and then uses the qualifier American. Then, we later find out she gets the Hawaii Attorney General’s opinion on this statement prior to it’s release.)
    http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/955/Hawaii-DoH-again-verifies-Obama-born-in-Hawaii.aspx

    It has been stated by many that Hawaii public officials have confirmed the authenticity of the COLB. However, this is totally false. I refer you to a statement by Alvin Onaka; Director of Vital Statistics for the DOH Hawaii: Onaka said he has had many calls asking him to confirm Obama’s birth certificate, but he cannot disclose such information: “Only Obama can consent to that.”
    http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/07/14/news/story07.html

    Here is Janice Okubo the official spokesperson for the DOH Hawaii: Contacted on Wednesday, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo cited Hawaii state privacy laws and guidance from the state attorney general in saying she was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.
    But she said it appeared similar to other Hawaii birth certificates.
    http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/PROJECTS/Obama/Evidence/Chicago%20TRibune%2010-31-08%20Birthplace%20rumors%20go%20nowhere.mht

    The Israeliinsider shares the following regarding whether the DOH confirmed the COLB: “Janice Okubo, in response to an Israeli Insider question on Tuesday, would not confirm nor deny whether she had told a St. Petersburg Times reporter whether she had said the birth certificate was “real”, citing the statutory stipulation that “Hawaii state law (HRS §338-18) prevents disclosure of information contained in vital statistics records except to those people who have a direct and tangible interest in the record as defined by statute.” This would, however, seem to negate the propriety of any disclosure by her of confidential information.”

    Jim Geraghty of The National Review Online, following up on this Israel Insider report, said he had contacted Okubo:
    “I spoke to Ms. Okubo late Wednesday afternoon, and she said she had seen the version of Obama’s certificate of live birth posted on the sites. While her office cannot verify the information on a form without the permission of the certificate holder (Obama), she said “the form is exactly the same” and it has ‘all the components of a birth certificate’ record issued by the state. In other words, she sees no reason to think the version posted on Obama’s web site and Daily Kos is not genuine.”
    “The ‘embossed seal’ in question is, she said, probably on the back of the document provided to Daily Kos, but not visible (as in another certificate posted on Israel Insider for contrast). She thinks the difference in visibility can be attributed to the pressure used when applying the seal.”

    Currently multiple bloggers are pursuing futher information using Hawaii’s UIPA statutes. Hawaii’s Attorney General Mark Bennett has refused to release his legal opinion regarding the advice he gave Dr. Fukino prior to her July 27, 2009 statement. He is claiming attorney client privelege where it does not seem to exist under Hawaii statute. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/hawaii-attorney-general-invokes-attorney-client-privilege-concerning-doh-natural-born-citizen-press-release-of-july-27-2009/
    Well, I expect I won’t convince any diehard, head in the sand Obots that lurk here but for those of you who are engaged in a search for the truth (and there are many) I thought I would present my version of connect the dots. I look forward to your criticism,comments and research.

    That is it folks! The sum total of the authentication Of Barack Obama as a Natural Born (Not a Natural-Born American) citizen.
    Based on this paucity of contradictory evidence and statements we are giving this man control of our country, its military and its nuclear weapons! GOD HELP US ALL!

  • 315
    brygenon
    October 27th, 2009 03:05

    Phil says:

    I am curious, though, how it is that Mr. Obama has “prove[n] he’s a natural-born citizen.”

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

    I’ve already remarked that the only thing that’s even remotely publicly viewable is the image of an alleged Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, and yet there is no known receipt of the transaction that makes a “proof of purchase” of this alleged document, nor has any forensically-qualified professional ever physically examined the actual document.

    See 28 USC 1739 for how state records are proven. Your receipt thing isn’t it, and the Constitution gives Congress, not you, power to prescribe how state records are proven.

    No problem — look to the ‘political’ branch that makes the call. Actually, all three branches (plus the so-called “fourth branch”) have been telling you how it is. Want answers to your questions? They’re right in front of you.

    OK, then: who declared that Mr. Obama is qualified to be President? By what authority did they do so? Based upon what evidence did they make such a call?

    I’ll catch you up:

    - The 2008 Joint Session of Congress only certified the Electoral College vote, not the candidate’s eligibility;

    - The SCOTUS Chief Justice administering the oath of office of the President similarly did not vet the candidate; that process merely completed the Legislative process of presidential election.

    - Not a single federal officeholder has been able to substantiate why the President is eligible, even if they know what a natural born citizen is (scarily enough, most of the form letter responses back to concerned citizens either used different verbiage or simply assumed that the President had been previously vetted).

    So, the challenge: I would like for someone to either produce the receipt for the transaction that allegedly procured Mr. Obama’s COLB or I would like for someone to produce a copy of the original documentation regarding this President in order to sufficiently prove, to me, that he is natural born. I have otherwise seen too much other evidence to seriously question who this President is.

    That’s the way I roll.

    Ah, you missed the premise: “Want answers to your questions?” Senator Jon Kyl, Republican Whip, told us long ago, “Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office.” That’s not a technicality; that’s the merits. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called those who don’t believe President Obama was born in Hawaii “crazy”. You can choose not to believe the Senators, but only Congress can legally remove the President and they are telling you how it is.

  • 316
    Practical Kat
    October 27th, 2009 04:17

    Phil wrote:

    I am curious, though, how it is that Mr. Obama has “prove[n] he’s a natural-born citizen

    He is not required to. The burden was on those who contested his claim to citizenship to come forward with evidence that he was not.. and that had to be done PRIOR to the joint session of Congress in January — in a proper forum. The forum as of January 8, 2009, was Congress.

    That’s the law as applied to Barack Obama and every other candidate. The last legal opportunity to raise the issue was in the form of an objection, raised by a minimum of one Representative and one Senator … and when that wasn’t done, any objections to Obama based on qualifications to hold office were waived.

  • 317
    elspeth
    October 27th, 2009 07:04

    He is not required to. (meaning: prove he’s eligible to hold office; of course, Obama and the Presidency)

    Then why was Obama required to file paperwork stating he was constitutionally eligible in order to get on the ballot?

    Either we have laws, or we don’t. Either we follow the laws, or we don’t.

    My country has grown to greatness because we have laws and we follow them.

    For all of you who do not want to follow the laws, you will be responsible for the fall of the nation. We are the United States, but only if we stay united. It is the laws we have to which we stay united that ensures our country’s success.

    Stop ridiculing those who seek truth and want the laws followed. You act like we’re asking for impossibilities when this matter can be settled so simply. And as long as we have questions, the matter is not settled. Get a grip!

    Full disclosure!

  • 318
    sue
    October 27th, 2009 08:51

    elspeth,
    “Then why was Obama required to file paperwork stating he was constitutionally eligible in order to get on the ballot?”

    President Obama filed the paperwork as required.

    “Either we have laws, or we don’t. Either we follow the laws, or we don’t.”

    I agree and “patriots” want to change those laws and the Constitution to fit their agenda.

    “My country has grown to greatness because we have laws and we follow them.”

    Again, I agree. The judges who have heard these eligibility lawsuits have followed the rules of law based upon the Constitution; yet, “patriots” have called them all sorts of not so nice names and accused them of treason and threatened these judges with phone calls, hate mail, etc. By the way, it is My counry too, not just yours.

    “For all of you who do not want to follow the laws, you will be responsible for the fall of the nation. We are the United States, but only if we stay united. It is the laws we have to which we stay united that ensures our country’s success.”

    Actually, it is the so called “patriots” who do not want to follow the rules of law and the Constitution, or change them to fit their agenda and are threatening secession, revolt, etc., etc., who will be responsible. It has been the “patriots” who have tried to organize a “shadow government”; “citizen grand juries, private attorney generals, citizen’s militias, and rewrite the Constitution to fit their agenda.” These activities are in direct violation of the rules of law and the Constitution. These so called “patriots” have tried to hold this President to a different set of standards than any other President. These so called “patriots” have spread rumors and outright lies regarding this President, his family and relatives, and this administration.

    1. If you want the requirement of documents to be produced by the Presidential candidates, then you need to lobby your Congressperson. At the present time, there are none.

    2. If you want the eligibility of this President questioned, then you need to lobby your Congressperson. However, President Obama was duly certified and sworn into office and is our sitting President.

    3. You need to support a political Presidential candidate/ticket for 2012 to vote President Obama out of office.

    These so called “patriots” have questioned why their elected officials and judicial system have not acted on this issue. Has the thought ever crossed your mind that it is because your elected officials and judges know that President Obama was born in Hawaii, is a natural born citizen and are following the rules of law and the Constitution. A few have pandered to their base to keep their vote but every single Congressperson knows that President Obama was born in Hawaii, is a natural born citizen and is eligible to be President.

    If President Obama were not eligible to be President, every single credible, real Constitutional lawyer and expert would have been all over this issue during the primaries. H. Clinton and J. McCain for starters.

    Go read Judge Land’s recent order(s) in the Rhodes lawsuit as he sums this issue up quite well. While you are at it, read the recent decision by Judge Simandle. In fact, go read every single judge’s decision on this issue. These decisions have been consistent and based upon the rules of law and the Constitution. Instead of questioning the judges understanding of the rules of law and the Constitution, so called “patriots” need to start questioning their and the “birther lawyers and so called “Constitutional experts” understanding of the rules of law and the Constitution.

  • 319
    jvn
    October 27th, 2009 09:21

    Phil -

    It is really quite amusing to see that you are left with “Oh yeah? Prove it!”

    The President is 9 months into his first term, serving undisturbed and unquestioned as President and Commander in Chief. That would appear to be “proof” enough for me.

    But I would like to ask you to explain your theory as to why this “clear disregard for constitutional requirements” has not been raised by any Republican in Congress, by any noted conservative legal scholar, or by any respected conservative jurist?

    Every court that has looked at the issue has denied it. The SCOTUS has had this “two parents must be citizens” argument before it – and denied it even a hearing. Why do YOU think that is?

    I wonder if birther children are demanding that their Mom’s “prove” that they have the authority to send them to their rooms? I am pretty sure they wouldn’t accept COLBs…

  • 320
    sue
    October 27th, 2009 10:20

    Dr. Taitz is providing false information to the press ragarding a trial being scheduled for Sept. 26th. Per the “official transcript” of the Oct. 5th hearing, Judge Carter clearly stated that IF he ruled against the DOJ, he would immediately grant a interloc.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocutory_appeal
    “Interlocutory appeal
    An interlocutory appeal, in the law of civil procedure is an appeal of a ruling by a trial court that is made before the trial itself has concluded. Most jurisdictions generally prohibit such appeals, requiring parties to wait until the trial has concluded before they challenge any of the decisions made by the judge during that trial. However, many jurisdictions make an exception for decisions that are particularly prejudicial to the rights of one of the parties. For example, if a party is asserting some form of immunity from suit, or is claiming that the court completely lacks personal jurisdiction over them, then it is recognized that being forced to wait for the conclusion of the trial would violate their right not to be subjected to a trial at all.”

    Why hasn’t Dr. Taitz published the “official transcript” of the Oct. 5th hearing on her blog?

    Why is Dr. Taitz publishing this false information on her blog and to the press?

  • 321
    sue
    October 27th, 2009 10:57

    Correction to my previous post. The correct date that Dr. Taitz is publishing is January 26th, not Sept.

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=5356
    “Please contact USA today and demand that they provide the readers with info about January 26 trial. If they refuse, report them to FCC, as defrauding the public in connection to elections”

    My apologies for the error.

  • 322
    misanthropicus
    October 27th, 2009 11:27

    Re: the Obamatons on this site:

    There is a growing uneasiness across the country caused by the awareness that we’re assisting at a creeping coup meant to consolidate Obama’s fraudulence and empower him for further actions – creeping coup done with the means employed by the bolsheviks in Russia and nazis in Germany not that long ago.

    The methods and the argumentation of the Obamatons on this site who’ve made a mission of honor to perpetuate Obama’s ilegitimacy confirm thaat – bellow, “Obama Takes Us On Path To Fasscism” enlarges very well upon this fascisation of America:

    http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2009/10/26/commentary/op-eds/doc4ae4b917c18ed241678853.txt

  • 323
    misanthropicus
    October 27th, 2009 11:41

    RE jvn:

    [...] The President is 9 months into his first term, serving undisturbed and unquestioned as President and Commander in Chief. Jvn, that would appear to be “proof” enough for me. [...]
    Undisturbed, yeah – after all he has managed to gather more golf hours in nine months that Bush in 3 years.

    Unquestioned – hardly so. Approval rating, falling spectacularly, Nobel Prize laughter continuin in Europe and elsewhere, next week’s elections conpromised, distrust for him in any quarters except you, ‘botons and Scientologists, no legislative achievement behind, and only suspicion and disrespect ahead – well, if you describe this as “unquestioned”, then you have some perception issues to attend –

    [...] But I would like to ask you to explain your theory as to why this “clear disregard for constitutional requirements” has not been raised by any Republican in Congress, by any noted conservative legal scholar, or by any respected conservative jurist? [...]

    Jvn, you sure can be proud about the Stalinist silencing of the faintest attempt at bringing Obama’s ilegitimacy issue to a closure through legal means – yet, things are looking better and better, and Obama will be brought to justice sooner or later -

    Eppur si muove, buddy! And your very presence & activity here denotes the insecurity sense that has contaminated the liberals vis-a-vis Obama’s ilegitimacy and its denuement -

    Heh-heh-heh! Keep ratiocinating and obfuscating – you need to be warmed-up for the time of the real debate -

    Bye -

    Every court that has looked at the issue has denied it. The SCOTUS has had this “two parents must be citizens” argument before it – and denied it even a hearing. Why do YOU think that is?

    I wonder if birther children are demanding that their Mom’s “prove” that they have the authority to send them to their rooms? I am pretty sure they wouldn’t accept COLBs…

  • 324
    terminu
    October 27th, 2009 12:23

    Obama admitted himself he is not eligible as cosponsor of Senate Resolution 511 which defines a natural born citizen as requiring two US citizen parents.

    I see the bots are transferring the responsibility of interpretation to judges who dismiss their responsibility for interpretation.

    No ruling has ever been put forth.

    I’d say the most recent documentation of NBC is by Barack Obama himself. Oh what poetic psychotic audacity to gift upon another (McCain) NBC-ness whilst not meeting those very standards yourself, knowing the gullible law-breaking idiot gimmestuff-forfree masses and paid bots will pave the way for this criminal.

    You are all enemies of America, this man loathes this country and if you are not complicit openly then stop your own dithering, he’s working to get as many US soldiers killed in Afghanistan as possible. To hell with you.

  • 325
    Observer
    October 27th, 2009 12:24

    Interesting report. There is also an interview where the gentleman sounds like John Q. average citizen. Apparently had security clearance with his work and regularly debriefed by DIA. In interview mentioned that woman in report apparently didn’t like a simple remark by another American re: Russian features and supposed that a little Vodka helped her outspokenness. Also mentioned that early on in campaign he tried to communicate the info with conservative talk radio hosts but heard nothing back.

    ttp://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/the-first-time-i-heard-of-barack-by-tom-fife/

  • 326
    Observer
    October 27th, 2009 12:28

    My last comment didn’t pick up the h in link:

    http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/the-first-time-i-heard-of-barack-by-tom-fife/

  • 327
    jvn
    October 27th, 2009 12:48

    Miss -

    I hesitate to respond to you. My questions were directed to Phil, although I wouldn’t mind rational responses from any source.

    You clearly see things differently than I do. The President’s approval numbers have been really steady now since June, healthcare reform will likely be passed by the end of the year, and the economy is showing signs of recovery. From a political perspective, things are looking pretty darn good for the President.

    Sure, the right wing fringe is irritated, but they hardly matter politically. The Republicans? They only represent about 20% of the voting public, and with the coming increases in Latino voters (in 2010 and 2012) they will fall below that 20%.

    Some right wingnuts take great stock in polls that show that more people think they are “conservative” than do “liberal,” but no one really knows what “conservative” means. I consider myself to be a conservative Democrat, but y’all would probably dispute that.

    You think very little of your representatives in Congress if you believe that they could have been coerced into silence if they really thought the President was ineligible. They weren’t – they just understand that being born in the US = Natural Born Citizen. Despite your protestations, you know that is the truth, don’t you?

  • 328
    jvn
    October 27th, 2009 12:56

    Observer -

    Funny how this woman knew all of this in 1992. The President didn’t even begin his campaign for the state legislature until 1995!

    Yet you believe this, right?

    lol

  • 329
    misanthropicus
    October 27th, 2009 13:10

    RE jvn/Obama’s fiery re-enter – instalment “n”

    [...] The President is [...] unquestioned as President and Commander in Chief. [...]

    “unquestioned” – heh –
    Jnv, read the latest from Washington Post and stop trying to deflect the issues from Obama’s obvious & crass incompetence to Orly’s antics -
    By the way, in what language “jnv” means oistrich?
    Read bellow how Obama’s incompetence has succeeded to transform a successful military operation in Afghanistan in a disaster – then get Siserda and try to defend him.
    Vast & depressing depressing is the Obama wilderness you have to trudge through, you poor believers – but certainly the Manchurian Candidate’s performance is very rewarding for those who inflicted him as … “commander-in-chief” upon us -
    Here, read – then contort –

    “U.S. official resigns over Afghan war/ Foreign Service officer and former Marine captain says he no longer knows why his nation is fighting/Washington Post”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009102603447

  • 330
    Observer
    October 27th, 2009 13:16

    jvn:

    Funny how this woman knew all of this in 1992. The President didn’t even begin his campaign for the state legislature until 1995!

    As related, she was allegedly giving what she apparently was aware of in the grooming plans for the man. Long term plans are made, obviously, beforehand … not on the spot (terrorists being a good example of such) … since even back then her apparent awareness of those plans was also for him becoming President … which also obviously was publicly unknown at that time as well. The O faithful always appear to be behind the curve and they even like and defend the position. I think you conveniently missed the whole point of apparently a Russian Communist being aware of this supposedly coming “revival” of her choice ideology through the planned backing of a chosen candidate. I suppose that the man should have had his high security clearance removed, in your estimation, but not apparently in DIA’s.

  • 331
    David
    October 27th, 2009 13:24

    siseduermapierda (October 24, 2009 at 3:07 pm),

    “Just a question – are you a Christian? Do you believe Jesus Christ lived 2000 years ago and died on the cross? Why do you believe that when in order to believe you have to take other people’s word it really happened. You’ve never held an original document that tells you Jesus really lived, why do you believe? And yet, you won’t believe what people with the authority and knowledge to do so tell you about Obama when it’s so much less dramatic leap of faith.”

    You see…this is where people like you get into trouble with logical argumentation. Your attempt to “prove me wrong” by using non-sequiturs and logical fallacies never works – for obvious reasons. And it’s hard to prove somebody “wrong” when they are merely asking for verification of someone else’s claims.

    But to answer your question…

    No, I am not a Christian. I do not believe in the Biblical story of Jesus – for many of the same reasons I don’t believe in the near-Biblical story of Barack Obama. Other than the stories as told by he and his friends, we don’t really know many “facts” about his life. And reason would indicate that neither of the stories about these two men are realistic. It only requires faith to believe in either person and their life story, because neither can be factually proven – one, because the man and all the witnesses to his life are dead, and the other, because he refuses to release the evidence to support his claims.

    Try another line of reasoning. This one has failed you…AGAIN.

  • 332
    David
    October 27th, 2009 13:32

    bystander (October 24, 2009 at 1:25 pm),

    “OK David – you don’t seem to be able to debate without being obnoxious and insulting. I will waste no further time on you.”

    Aww…so sad. I was really looking forward to you NOT comprehending my comments and engaging in further derision. I rather enjoy “debating” with people who cannot grasp simple concepts, and repeating myself ten times with them still not understanding things like the word “the” or the difference between “legal” and “public” opinions.

    Enjoy all of your extra time that can be spent living in perpetual ignorance.

    (How’s that for “obnoxious and insulting”? Maybe next time you’ll take the time to actually read and comprehend what I write before commenting.)

  • 333
    David
    October 27th, 2009 13:39

    Sue (October 24, 2009 at 12:37 pm),

    “Please provide links to evidence/examples/proof of your statement above.”

    No, Sue. YOU need to provide evidence that my statements are NOT true. Remember…the burden of proof is on the one who disagrees. (Or has that now changed in order to fit your agenda?)

  • 334
    jvn
    October 27th, 2009 13:51

    This quote from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” seems appropriate if directed towards the birthers:

    “What are you going to do, bleed on me?”

    As stated earlier, the President is serving the nation undisturbed by any of this nonsense. It is very likely that the pending dismissal of the Barnett case in California will be the last gasp of these lawsuits.

    You may blather and fume, rend your garments and rip out your hair, but this issue has seen its peak and is headed for the corner reserved for real lunacy.

  • 335
    misanthropicus
    October 27th, 2009 14:43

    Oistrichs & Obamatons – An Intriguing Case of Similar Cognitive Dissonance In Two Unrelated Speciae (clarification for the Obamatons: Oistrichs are avians, while you, Obamatoms are, or at least have been described as mammals).

    Anyway, don’t waste your time splitting the hair over the Barnett case – come to reality and see in what swamps has the One lost his way:

    1) “Obama Disapproval Hits New High” – latest Rassmunssen -http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

    2) … and more sobering things about dba Obama…
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,656501-2,00.html

  • 336
    misanthropicus
    October 27th, 2009 15:43

    More on dba Obama’s fraudulence…

    “Rocco’s Modern Life”/ Power Line/ October 27, 2009 Posted by Scott

    Rocco Landesman is President Obama’s handpicked chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. Last week he gave the keynote address to the 2009 Grantmakers in the Arts Conference. Those of us concerned about the politicization of life and art in the Age of Obama will not be consoled by a reading of Landesman’s speech. The speech bears examination in its entirety, but Landesman’s tribute to Obama is especially worth a look:

    This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln. If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists. [...]

    … more about dba Obama’s achhievents @:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024805.php

  • 337
    SanDiegoSam
    October 27th, 2009 15:44

    David:

    Remember…the burden of proof is on the one who disagrees.

    Gotta tell you. That’s one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. If one “disagrees,” then the other side automatically disagrees also. By definition.

    Duh.

    The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. In which case, it’s all back on you.

    Where it belonged in the first place.

    Nobody has an obligation to “disprove” an assertion that has no evidence in its favor in the first place.

  • 338
    SanDiegoSam
    October 27th, 2009 16:03

    Since misanthropicus want’s to get all taxonomic on us…

    Oistrichs & Obamatons – An Intriguing Case of Similar Cognitive Dissonance In Two Unrelated Speciae (clarification for the Obamatons: Oistrichs are avians, while you, Obamatoms are, or at least have been described as mammals).

    1. The plural of “species” is “species.” There is no such thing as “Speciae.”

    2. Aves and Mammalia are not species. They are classes, within a single phylum: the Chordata.

    3. It’s spelled “Ostriches.” I would not have corrected that if you hadn’t misspelled it the identical way twice, showing that it wasn’t a typo.

    4. Both your behavioral attributions are old wife’s tales. In other words, they are phony. Ostriches do not hide their heads in the sand. And “Obamatons” remain perfect in their string of successes responding to “birther” initiatives in the courts and elsewhere, indicating that they have a much firmer grip on reality than their opponents do.

    5. Neither of those would have been an example of “cognitive dissonance” anyway.

    It is a tour de force of error when you can cram so many mistakes into one convoluted and grammatically challenged sentence. You are to be commended for overachieving.

  • 339
    Practical Kat
    October 27th, 2009 17:41

    Elspeth wrote:

    Then why was Obama required to file paperwork stating he was constitutionally eligible in order to get on the ballot?

    Because that was ALL he was required to do — and he did what was required.

    He is not required to do EXTRA just because you don’t like him.

    Either we have laws, or we don’t. Either we follow the laws, or we don’t.

    That’s right, and they have to be the SAME for everybody. John McCain didn’t have to produce a birth certificate. George W. Bush didn’t have to produce a birth certificate. Ronald Reagan didn’t have to produce a birth certificate (and if he had, his was a lot more questionable, as he apparently was born in 1911, but the birth certificate was created in 1942).

    I’d note that principal — that it has to be “the same for everybody” — i.e., “equal protection” –, is why George W. Bush was seated as President in 2000, despite the fact that Al Gore clearly had the majority of the popular vote. But it came down to the way the vote was counted in Florida — and the US Supreme Court held that the procedure that Florida was using was defective because there were different standards in different counties.

    For all of you who do not want to follow the laws, you will be responsible for the fall of the nation. We are the United States, but only if we stay united.

    You are the one who wants to change to a new set of laws to challenge Barack Obama.

    He did everything legally required at every step of the way.

    The Constitution clearly provides the time and place for any questions concerning his qualifications to be resolved. It’s Congress, and the people in Congress chose not to raise any objections or questions. Probably because knew that it was a frivolous challenge — the Hawaii COLB is an official state document, it has been verified as accurate by Hawaiian officials, so it is an exercise in futility to try to challenge it.

    But there were 42 other men who served as US Presidents before Barack Obama, and not a single one was ever asked to produce their birth certificate to Congress before taking office.

  • 340
    sue
    October 27th, 2009 17:42

    David,

    No, Sue. YOU need to provide evidence that my statements are NOT true. Remember…the burden of proof is on the one who disagrees. (Or has that now changed in order to fit your agenda?”

    Why doesn’t your answer surprise me. Standard answer when someone cannot cite their source to back up their statements.

  • 341
    brygenon
    October 27th, 2009 20:14

    jvn says:

    As stated earlier, the President is serving the nation undisturbed by any of this nonsense. It is very likely that the pending dismissal of the Barnett case in California will be the last gasp of these lawsuits.

    Conspiracy theories generally don’t go out with a last gasp. They conform to “old soldier” cliche: they never die, just fade away.

    Having lost in court, Kerchner and Apuzzo are now dutifully following the pattern now so familiar, playing judge of the judge and promising to appeal. Kerchner is still singing the praises of Apuzzo’s brilliant legal writing; he even thinks the U.S. Attorneys in Barnett v. Obama made a mistake in citing the Kerchner dismissal, because as a result Judge Carter may notice Apuzzo’s superior arguments.

    The original birther suit, Berg v. Obama, is still alive in the mind of Berg. He recently announced that, contrary to his many previous reports, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will not hear oral arguments. That’s a bad sign for the appellant, and particular for an appellant that specifically requested oral arguments.

    On recent Internet radio shows, Gary Kreep announced his intention to file nine new eligibility cases. He gave no specifics on what he’s going to try, and recall that back in December of last year Salon reported Kreep’s pledge to “file suit to challenge each and every one of Obama’s actions as president.”

    I think there are quite a few more gasps of legal failure and defeat left in the eligibility deniers. Moreover, while we cannot know each individual’s deal, the cause as a whole is a gasp of American bigotry, which is a long way from dead but fading away.

  • 342
    Phil
    October 27th, 2009 21:08

    brygenon,

    See 28 USC 1739 for how state records are proven. Your receipt thing isn’t it, and the Constitution gives Congress, not you, power to prescribe how state records are proven.

    Nice. Remember, I think it would be a great thing to get the alleged Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth admitted into Court. Let’s bring it and see what happens.

    Ah, you missed the premise: “Want answers to your questions?” Senator Jon Kyl, Republican Whip, told us long ago, “Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office.” That’s not a technicality; that’s the merits. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called those who don’t believe President Obama was born in Hawaii “crazy”. You can choose not to believe the Senators, but only Congress can legally remove the President and they are telling you how it is.

    Again, nothing new here, my dear opposition commenter. I am fully aware that Sen. Kyl, the second most powerful Republican in the Senate (for whatever that’s worth these days) made such a statement. Of course and necessarily, I am more than free to question upon what basis he made such a claim. After all, any politician can make any claim they wish; that doesn’t necessarily make such a claim true.

    Regarding Sen. Graham, again, he is free to posit his opinion regarding those who question this President’s bona fides as much as he likes; it’s not like this site or others of my ilk are exactly just now receiving such pejoratives as “crazy,” “right-wing extremists,” or the like, as I know you’re quite well aware.

    -Phil

  • 343
    Phil
    October 27th, 2009 21:29

    jvn,

    Phil -

    It is really quite amusing to see that you are left with “Oh yeah? Prove it!”

    I represent that remark!

    The President is 9 months into his first term, serving undisturbed and unquestioned as President and Commander in Chief. That would appear to be “proof” enough for me.

    Good for you.

    But I would like to ask you to explain your theory as to why this “clear disregard for constitutional requirements” has not been raised by any Republican in Congress, by any noted conservative legal scholar, or by any respected conservative jurist?

    Why are you asking me to speak for other individuals? Sorry — I can only speak for myself.

    Further, I don’t believe I’ve ever “said” the phrase, “clear disregard for constitutional requirements.” Remember, as I’ve said from the beginning on my site, I simply don’t know whether or not Mr. Obama is eligible for the presidency. I continue to have this stance because the only “in-hand” evidence that I have seen, thus far, to substantiate this man’s background is an image of an alleged Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, of which only a singular blog, FactCheck.org, has ever alleged had physically in hand. Further, as far as I know, to date, no other individual with qualified forensic credentials has ever actually analyzed the physical document.

    Every court that has looked at the issue has denied it. The SCOTUS has had this “two parents must be citizens” argument before it – and denied it even a hearing. Why do YOU think that is?

    I think I’ve already quite clearly explained my views of this throughout the myriad postings on my blog, so I’m not going to go through and do it again.

    Instead, what I will address is the notion that since the Judiciary has heard certain aspects of the eligibility issue and has decided that legitimate technicalities rule, this does not in any way equate to there being no further legitimate questions as to the President’s background.

    You see, while I agree that it’s sometimes a tough call for the Judiciary to enter into the Legislative realm, I also believe it’s quite the opposite that the Legislative cannot enter the realm of the Judiciary. And part of this is a constant, unabated, undaunted call for questioning the bona fides of a President that a tireless group of individuals — no matter how small in the minority that said group may appear to be — shall continue to push.

    And, of course, that’s what really “gets me” about all of this. Your premise is that someone such as myself should simply “shut up” (to use my terms) and “go away” because the Judiciary refuses to hear an eligibility case. For me, that’s not the way it works.

    Also, that’s not the way that the constitutional republic called America works.

    I wonder if birther children are demanding that their Mom’s “prove” that they have the authority to send them to their rooms? I am pretty sure they wouldn’t accept COLBs…

    By your asking such a question, you show that you clearly do not have any experience in dealing with children of any age. For those of us who are parents, I can certainly assure you that such appeals to authority are made all the time. And of course it has nothing to do with documents; children already know who their mommy and daddy is (assuming that the parents have actually toughed it out to stick around to the point that their kids are aware of both parents existing). But they always — always — push the boundaries.

    -Phil

  • 344
    David
    October 27th, 2009 21:32

    SanDiegoSam,

    “The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. In which case, it’s all back on you.

    “Where it belonged in the first place.”

    Good. I’m glad one of you Obama supporters understands that. Now, why don’t you gather up all of your brethren and tell them exactly what you just wrote to me? The point of my entire series of comments here, and in most of my comments elsewhere concerning Obama’s life story, is that he has not and will not provide evidence for most of his claims.

    Now that you have agreed that the burden of proof falls on the one making the assertions, perhaps you can come to the same conclusion as I have: That Obama is the one responsible for providing the evidence of his claims.

    (Hurry! – do some tap-dancing and walk back your comment as much as possible so as not to expose the blatant hypocrisy.)

  • 345
    Phil
    October 27th, 2009 21:33

    Practical Kat,

    He is not required to. The burden was on those who contested his claim to citizenship to come forward with evidence that he was not.. and that had to be done PRIOR to the joint session of Congress in January — in a proper forum. The forum as of January 8, 2009, was Congress.

    That’s the law as applied to Barack Obama and every other candidate. The last legal opportunity to raise the issue was in the form of an objection, raised by a minimum of one Representative and one Senator … and when that wasn’t done, any objections to Obama based on qualifications to hold office were waived.

    Can you show me the Article/Section/Clause in the Constitution where it is specifically stated that the Joint Session of Congress is the “last legal opportunity” to “raise the issue” of eligibility?

    Furthermore, can you show me the Article/Section/Clause in the Constitution where the lack of objections during such a Joint Session of Congress “waived” any ability for anyone to otherwise object to or question the President’s bona fides?

    -Phil

  • 346
    misanthropicus
    October 27th, 2009 21:44

    RE SamDiegoSam:

    Dear, dear, jumpy you are, you Obamatons – but I understand, besieged by reality how you are it’s difficult to keep things in prospective -

    Still, my dear SanDiegoSam, you should understand that the world is diverse, not populated only with ACORN type like you who can leisurely spend hours and hours at the screen – some people work, SanDiegoSam, generate money which is used by the government to pay you, dear, and when they (those rotten working people!) type/post a message on Internet it’s quite possible they may not have the time to check & correct it -

    Anyway, your corrections were actually very useful for me, since they inspired me to reaserch luminous comrade Obama’s magnificent repository of pronouncements on things – I have to admit that I’m nothin’ compared to him, and here I’ll submit a few of them for your admiring analysis (capitalisations are mine):

    ———- From Luminous Comrade Obama Exhalted Thinkin’ ——-
    * “240,000 jobs lost in October MARKS the 10th consecutive [...].”
    * “I’m sure that in addition to taking a tour of the White House, there is going to be a SUBSTANTIVE conversation between MYSELF and the president,”.
    * “Obama said that President Bush had graciously invited “Michelle and I” to the White House.”
    * “Michelle and MYSELF” (again in the WH, at the Easter Egg ceremony) -
    * “Joe Biden is, I think, one of the finest public servants THAT has served in the country.” (What about WHO?)
    * “a very personal decision for Michelle and I.” (…. perseverare diabolicum, n’est ce pas?)
    * “who was my pastor, and married Michelle and I”

    …. and for closing this little list, let’s listen to Michelle Obama who earnestly announces:
    * “Let me tell you who ME and Barack are…”

    We know, Michelle, we know who you are, you are some Princeton and Harvard summa cum laude graduates, and we hope that you will vanish from the screen as soon as possible – and to SamDiegoSam’s and his ilk’s distress, this will happen rather sooner than later –

    SanDiegoSam, I let you rejoice these pieces of great grammar collected from luminous comrade Obama’s speeches -

    In case you still have problems with my taxonomy, I am most willing to open here (to all Obamatons’ grief) a short series of samples collected from luminous comrade Obama views on geography, astronomy and other sciences – now that’s exciting! Lots of fun, I tell you!

    By the way, do you happen to know how well does Obama speak Swiss? I heard that his Austrian is superb -

    I’ll quote now Krauthammer: “It’s likely that Obama will be remembered in history as president for the fact that he was elected”.

    Heh-heh-heh! SanDiegoSam, you’re a loser!

    PS: Let me know what do you want: Obama on biology? On astronomy? on geography? Oceanography? Do you accept Michelle as side kick, or as character witness?

    You made my day – now, you go and rest. November the 3rd. will be a hard day for you, Obamatons, you need supply yourselves with some serenity –

    Best regards -

  • 347
    MGB
    October 27th, 2009 22:11

    David: Congrats. You left them speechless, again.

    misanthropicus: GWB CONSISTENTLY correctly used “me” within a compound object, unlike Obama, who consistently makes the mistake of using “I” where “me” is required. In addition, if you listen carefully to most members of the elite media, many of whom sneered at GWB as a dunce, they also consistently use “I” where “me” is required as part of a compound object. So much for snobbery.

  • 348
    Practical Kat
    October 27th, 2009 22:32

    Phil asked:

    Can you show me the Article/Section/Clause in the Constitution where it is specifically stated that the Joint Session of Congress is the “last legal opportunity” to “raise the issue” of eligibility?

    20th amendment, Section 3, give Congress the power to determine qualifications of the President:

    “If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

    Article II specifies that the only way to remove a sitting President is by impeachment. Article I gives the House the sole power of impeachment, and the Senate the sole power of trying impeachments.

    The 25th Amendment provides an alternative way to remove a President, in the event of incapacity, which also requires concurrence of 2/3 of both houses of Congress.

    It couldn’t be more clear: the power to seat or unseat a President lies solely with Congress, subject to the Constitutional requirement that Congress must give effect to the electoral college vote if the President-elect is qualified.

    Furthermore, can you show me the Article/Section/Clause in the Constitution where the lack of objections during such a Joint Session of Congress “waived” any ability for anyone to otherwise object to or question the President’s bona fides?

    It’s generally held in law that the failure to object in the appropriate forum for determination of an issue waives the objection. In the case of the Joint Session of Congress, there simply is no subsequent proceeding — Congress has the FINAL WORD on who is selected President, and the exercise that during the joint session — so if anyone in Congress has a valid objection, that is the time when it has to be made.

  • 349
    jvn
    October 27th, 2009 22:36

    Phil -

    So, in the alternative, you are implying that the courts can see that there is an issue, that they might even agree that the President is ineligible, but can’t take the cases because of some technical problems?

    Preposterous. The history of the SCOTUS is filled with cases where they ignored everything about the case save for the constitutional issue they wanted settled.

    By the way, how come you get to sidestep the question of why none of the GOP members of Congress agree with the “two parents as citizens” theory when I am constantly asked why the President doesn’t just release his BC?

    Oh, and I have two grown children and am quite familiar with their resisting authority. Its just that the children of birthers have an unassailable attack given to them by their parents. Birtehr parents have to “prove” it to their kids – no COLBs allowed. Maybe get the doctor under oath?

  • 350
    David
    October 27th, 2009 23:06

    Sue,

    “Why doesn’t your answer surprise me. Standard answer when someone cannot cite their source to back up their statements.”

    Why would my response surprise you? It’s the same answer you provide when others question the facts about Obama. “The burden of proof is on the accuser,” you say. It’s funny that you’re now indignant because I use the same irrational nonsense that you use on a daily basis regarding Obama not having to provide proof of his own claims. You’re accusing me of lying? You’re smearing me? I guess it’s only fair when the smears to travel one way, huh? Obama has to provide next to nothing for you to accept his claims – yet you require concrete evidence from everybody else:

    “Second, Sise doesn’t have to prove or provide anything. YOU have to prove President Obama didn’t graduate from Columbia University. The burden of proof is on you.” – Sue, October 22, 2009 at 10:19 am

    “The burden of proof is on you to prove he/she is a liar, not the other way around.” – Sue, October 23, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    “Please provide links to evidence/examples/proof of your statement above.” – Sue, October 24, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    “Do you have any credible evidence to back up your statement above other than just ‘your impression?’” – Sue, October 25, 2009 at 12:38 pm

    “Would you please cite your source?” – Sue, October 26, 2009 at 10:42 am

    Six days in a row you have asked for proof from others on this one thread, yet you deride your opponents on this issue for asking the same from Obama. At the same time, you tell those same opponents that Obama has to provide NO evidence of his claims – the burden of proof is not on him – even when it’s brought to your attention that it isn’t necessarily a legal matter in question.

    Your arguments are both predictable and pathetically hypocritical. You are quite a sad individual to carry on like this…and to believe that you’re actually being rational.

  • 351
    misanthropicus
    October 27th, 2009 23:41

    Born In The USA? Michelle Beats Biden At Sticking Feet In The Mouth!

    (Or Another Grim Day In The Obamatons’ Lives – Wires Report Robert Bauer Stricken By Appoplexia, SanDiegoSam Arrested When Attempting To Kill Himself In A Toilette In San Isidro – More Later)

    Difficult for you, Obamatons – dba Obama’s sadistic timing of the Afghanistan help for our troops there is defeated by the polls (as it will be on the 3rd AT the polls), and both the NJ and the Virginia governorships will be Republican, the Maine vote will resemble the California Prop 8 one (the excitable Siserda goes through the ceiling now), the polls show dba Obama irrepresibly sinking, Emmanuel is nervously revising his notes while Gillespie stands with a big stick by him, CNN is totally out, the Scientology thing is also out – ugly, awful, bad, bad day for progressives!)

    And exactly now, again the shit hits the fan in RE dba Obama’s ilegitimacy, this time via Michelle’s, perhaps too candid confession -
    Now this is totally hysterical, after tones of legal wrangling, millions in expenses, so much legal muzzling, and so much trolling, to have this big mouth torpedo all these efforts!
    Hey, but for some life is more and more beautiful – bellow is an excerpt from this fresh WND:

    * BORN IN THE USA? Michelle contradicts Obama nativity story *
    Divulges Ann Dunham was ‘very young and very single’ at birth of U.S. president/Posted: October 27, 2009/8:38 pm Eastern/By Aaron Klein/© 2009 WorldNetDaily

    In little noticed remarks, Michelle Obama stated at a public event that her husband’s mother, Ann Dunham, was “very young and very single” when she gave birth to the future U.S. president.
    Her comments further undermine the official story as told by Barack Obama – that Dunham was married to his father, Barack Obama Sr., at the time of birth.
    The remarks were made by Michelle Obama during a July 2008 round table at the University of Missouri. Obama was responding to criticism of her husband’s presidential campaign speeches about fatherhood and faith-based initiatives. [...]
    ————————-*——————-

    … the rest on WND @http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=114259

    Hey, Obamatons, still asking Phil to prove that the planet is round? That things released will invariably fall downward?
    Heh – check with Michelle Obama, she can confirm that -

  • 352
    misanthropicus
    October 27th, 2009 23:50

    Some nice sprinkling on the Obamacake from Krauthammer:

    “Obama is likely to be remembered as president for the fact that he was elected as president”.

  • 353
    Jenni
    October 28th, 2009 02:08

    Phil, I am worried about you…I check back in on you and it seems like this site is a mess. While I never agreed with you politically, I must say you ran one of the better RW sites and I took a lot of information from your site in writing my paper.
    What is going on? Slow updates, all this in-fighting. Where is a nice liberal girl to go for the RW viewpoint? Please don’t make me go to Citizen Wells or one of the really crazy places !!!! Wake up, Phil!!!!
    :-)
    Jenni

  • 354
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 02:22

    Obama twice published admitting against interest that he was BORN BRITISH. Never revoked it, still IS British. Done. Not natural born citizen. Means he’s a USURPER and since he was never constitutionally eligible, he is NOT president by any contractual sense, and he cannot be impeached.

    Can be imprisoned for treason though.

  • 355
    dunstvangeet
    October 28th, 2009 03:16

    terminu a couple of things.

    1. Actually, he was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). He lost that citizenship in 1963, when Kenya became an independent country through the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963. He gained Kenyan Citizenship at that point. He lost his Kenyan Citizenship when he didn’t renounce his American Citizenship.

    There is absolutely no evidence that he is currently a British Citizen, nor has there been since he was 2.

    2. Whether Britian, Kenya, Indonesia, Canada, Ubeckistan, or Translyvania declares him to be a citizen has nothing to do with United States Citizenship Law. The United States laws operate completely independently of any other law. This was blatently laid out in a U.S. Supreme Court case by the name of Perkins v. Elg. Whether or not someone holds dual citizenship has no bearing on whether or not someone is a Natural Born Citizen or not.

  • 356
    sue
    October 28th, 2009 06:29

    David,

    I will give you this, your spin is real good.

    The issue is President Obama’s eligibility. The “birther lawyers,” which you appear to support, sued President Obama. These “birther lawyers” and supporters (you?) have made all sorts of allegations against President Obama and have not provided credible, admissible evidence in a court of law to support your allegations. Many of their allegations have absolutely nothing to do with eligibility.

    Therefore, based upon the above situation, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff’s and supporters of these eligibility lawsuits.

    However, Sis, Bob, Practical Kat, brygenon, quertyman, jvn, SDS, etc., cite sources for their statements, as a rule.

    You, on the other hand, generally, do not.

  • 357
    sue
    October 28th, 2009 07:57

    http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/26/obama-birthplace-lawyer-submits-suspect-document/23981/
    Obama birthplace lawyer submits suspect document
    excerpt
    “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.””

  • 358
    siseduermapierda
    October 28th, 2009 08:00

    “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.”
    Paul Colford, director of media relations for the Associated Press.

    Just like the obots told you weeks ago.

    http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/26/obama-birthplace-lawyer-submits-suspect-document/23981/

  • 359
    siseduermapierda
    October 28th, 2009 08:02

    sue says:
    October 28, 2009 at 7:57 am
    “jinx!” “If you want the facts, ask an obot!”

  • 360
    misanthropicus
    October 28th, 2009 09:28

    Obama’s propensity for lying is DISGUSTING!

    Obama’s fraudulence at Columbia is the subject of this thread, and I must say that the evidence regarding his deeply flawed nature piles up, going beyond Obama’s mystery years at Columbia, beyond the mascarade covering his inexistent academic work there and his mock, “Benazir Bhutto” degree bestowed upon him by a coterie of misty eyed “berkeley-in-the-sixties” stalinist morons -

    DISGUSTING is the term used by Charlie Krauthammer when describing yesterday Obama’s habits during a Fox News round table – and more than that…
    …. disgusting @ http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/10/krauthammer_on_obamas_blamebus.html

    Very fertile field indeed, reviewing dba Obama’s faudulence -

  • 361
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 09:34

    dunstvangeet wrote:
    “terminu a couple of things.
    1. Actually, he was born a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC). He lost that citizenship in 1963…
    There is absolutely no evidence that he is currently a British Citizen, nor has there been since he was 2.
    2. …The United States laws operate completely independently of any other law. This was blatently laid out in a U.S. Supreme Court case by the name of Perkins v. Elg. Whether or not someone holds dual citizenship has no bearing on whether or not someone is a Natural Born Citizen or not.”
    ===========
    See, that’s why it’s called “Natural BORN Citizen”, it’s the state at BIRTH. “PUSH!” BORN. WAAAH. PAMPERS. And no, it’s not vaginal vs. C-section.
    Natural BORN Citizen: It’s immensely simple. Jus soli. Jus sanguinis both parents. Codified since Vattel.
    Nothing afterward matters, that has been ruled on in Craig v. US. You cannot have NBC status “assigned” to you later in life no matter what you do later in life, it’s a birthright to a nation, a state of birth.
    Nor can you have NBC status removed from you, as it was your state at the time of your birth. Whatever citizenships Obama held or lost later are not relevant to his state at BIRTH; in fact Perkins v Elg supports this. Her parents changed citizenships, but she remained forever a NBC.

    He was NEVER a natural born citizen and can never become one no matter what. He even defined NBC HIMSELF in S.R. 511 as requiring two US citizen parents. And he’s right, Minor v. Happersett, US v Wong Kim Ark and multiple other SCOTUS holdings back that definition up along with the jus soli component.

    CRAIG V. US – 10th Circuit Court of Appeals – HELD (08.05.2009): 14th Amendment native born citizens have no Constitutional right to natural born citizen status.
    US V. WONG KIM AKR – No native born child of an alien can be a natural born citizen.
    MINOR V. HAPPERSETT – No 14th amendment definition of US citizen is a natural born citizen. NBC is jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.
    PERKINS V. ELG – She was a natural born citizen… Her citizenship could not be waived by her folks no matter if they changed citizenships later themselves.

    Just as you say US laws function independently of other nation’s laws, so do Great Britain’s. And as per Obama’s admission against interest (twice published) that he was born a British citizen per the British Nationality Act of 1948, unless he officially revoked said citizenship, which he never did, he is STILL a British citizen. Your argument might make more sense to you in reverse; if indeed Obama had US citizenship, would he have lost that by not asserting it somehow? Of course not.

    Further, the naturalization oath requires abjure of all foreign allegiances. The US tolerates dual citizens yet does not officially recognize them. CRA 1866 has never been overturned.

    It’s an obscene precedent that an unconstitutional ineligible usurper be unchallenged. The founders would have NEVER allowed a British national to be in charge of their military. NO US president outside the Article II grandfather clause era has not had two US citizen parents.

  • 362
    misanthropicus
    October 28th, 2009 09:37

    RE Siserda contributions –

    Hey, Sise, I remember you saying that’s over, you won’t ever retun to this – and now, you’re again here, obfuscating, sabotaging, and trying to deflect the discussion from the real issues to dead-ends.

    But then, isn’t Obama presidency the very illustration of a dead end? What can you do other than replicate it?

    Of course Obama is an ilegitimate US president – and this, and the fact that he will be deposed, are the only things for which he will be remembered -

    Siserda, Nov 3rd is just around the corner – have a nice liver crisis -

    Regards -

  • 363
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 09:45

    Edwyn Viera concisely points out that an ineligible usurper nullifies the ENTIRE Constitution, which is merely a contract binding the nation states. Any state may secede, any debt, owing, obligation, treaty, appointment is INVALID if signed by a usurper.

    Think of NBC as a national security measure the founders wrote in to the Constitution, one of double allegiance to America, with no possibility for disloyalty based on allegiance by blood or soil.

    A NBC is a US Citizen, but not all US Citizens are NBC. A NBC has no more rights than a US citizen, but POTUS is not a “right” as there are other discriminatory criteria such as 35 years old or living in the USA for 14 years minimum, involved in the eligibility requirements for POTUS.

    A Congressman can be merely a US citizen, but not POTUS nor VP.

  • 364
    MGB
    October 28th, 2009 09:56

    Maybe the Kenyan reporters knew something that the AP does not. Maybe, being in Kenya, they have better Kenyan sources. Or it may be that the AP knows but prefers not to report certain information. Perhaps the Kenyans are beyond the reach of Axelrod and Emanuel. You know, those guys who meet with news organizations to tell them how and what to report.

  • 365
    misanthropicus
    October 28th, 2009 09:59

    RE terminu:

    [...] Means he’s a USURPER and since he was never constitutionally eligible, he is NOT president by any contractual sense, and he cannot be impeached. Can be imprisoned for treason though. [...]

    Merrily agree with you – however, I am afraid that no matter how well a legal and fully justified action against dba Obama (as an illegitimate president) would fare in the courts, the eventual judgement will be railroaded to the Senate that will let dba Obama back on the street.

    Is this a reason to quit pressing for proving dba Obama an usurper?
    Not at all, because there is a Part II to this affair – it is exactly on proving Obama an usurper (albeit pardoned by Senate) that criminal actions can be filed against him, criminal actions based on the fact that, while FULLY AWARE OF HIS INELIGIBILITY, OBAMA AND HIS ASSOCIATES ENGAGED THEMSELVES IN A VAST, FRAUDULENT fund-rising scheme that netted over $700 millions, bilking unsuspecting, idealistic citizenry!

    Nice – and also, suddenly the net gets wider, since most of Obama’s Chicago partners knew that Obama was/is not constitutionally eligible for the job he was running for, therefore they all, Rahm, Axelrod, Jarret, Plouffe, etc. were involved in a large scam -

    Paging Bernie Madoff, paging Bernie Madoff – Bernie Madoff, you have new cell-mates, you got to figure out how you do with the beds –

    So, proving Obama’s ilegitimacy is the just a first step in the larger enterprise of cleaning the filthy stable that the American politics is -

    Best regards -

  • 366
    siseduermapierda
    October 28th, 2009 10:11

    misanthropicus says:
    October 28, 2009 at 9:37 am
    *Hey, Sise, I remember you saying that’s over, you won’t ever retun to this*

    Heh miserablejokicus, never said that. And you’ve been here talking to yourself. This is the first reply by Anyone to one of your posts in 3 days. But I bet you’re used to that so you didn’t notice.

  • 367
    siseduermapierda
    October 28th, 2009 10:14

    MGB says:
    October 28, 2009 at 9:56 am
    *Maybe the Kenyan reporters knew something that the AP does not.*

    You must have been cracking yourself up when you wrote that. AP’s resources to find things out vs. a local paper. Yeah, Sure, Right. Thanks for my morning laugh, MGB! It’s what they call ‘grasping at straws’.

  • 368
    KJ
    October 28th, 2009 11:48

    Phil,

    I hope that you are working on a post on Kerchner v. Obama to keep this site the one with the most current summary of what is happening in the eligibility cases.

    The Opposition comments must be a burden, but we must not forget that that is their objective.

    KJ

  • 369
    SanDiegoSam
    October 28th, 2009 11:55

    David:

    Good. I’m glad one of you Obama supporters understands that. Now, why don’t you gather up all of your brethren and tell them exactly what you just wrote to me? The point of my entire series of comments here, and in most of my comments elsewhere concerning Obama’s life story, is that he has not and will not provide evidence for most of his claims.

    I will take that as a full concession that you were wrong in your previous response to Sue.

    Now that you have agreed that the burden of proof falls on the one making the assertions, perhaps you can come to the same conclusion as I have: That Obama is the one responsible for providing the evidence of his claims.

    He has presented his COLB. Unless you have evidence to contradict it, he has met his burden of proof and you have not.

    Your personal dissatisfaction with the legal standard is noted with a yawn.

  • 370
    dunstvangeet
    October 28th, 2009 12:00

    terminu, Let me show a few British Laws to you.

    First off, the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 stripped Obama of his Citizenship of the U.K. and Colonies. This would have happened when Obama was 2 on December 12, 1963. He obtained his CUKC through his father, who was a Kenyan. When Kenya became independent, he lost his CUKC, and obtained Kenyan Citizenship. It’s plain and simple, terminu.

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1963/pdf/ukpga_19630054_en.pdf

    One of the things that the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 did was modify the British Nationality Act. It says (in part): “(2) Save as provided by section 3 of this Act, any person who immediately before the appointed day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall on that day cease to be such a citizen if on that day he becomes a citizen of Kenya.”

    So, if Obama, via the constitution, became a Kenyan Citizen, he lost his CUKC.

    It’s simple. He lost his CUKC on the 12th of December, 1963, because his claim to CUKC was through Kenya, which became independent. He became a Kenyan Citizen at that point, via the constitution.

    The Kenyan Constitution doesn’t allow dual citizenship into adulthood. So, he lost his claim to Kenyan Citizenship on his 23rd Birthday (August 4, 1984) when he didn’t renounce his American Citizenship, and swear an oath of alliegance to Kenya. I believe that this loss of citizenship was retroactive to his 21st Birthday as well.

    So, he doesn’t actually have either British or Kenyan Citizenship. That is plain and simple.

    As far as your so-called case law…

    1. Craig v. U.S. held “there is no such “right” (a) to have courts adopt his proffered legal definition, (b) to be classified as a citizen pursuant to that definition, or (c) to obtain certification of the status he attempts to define.” What the court said is that Craig could not force the court to define Natural Born Citizenship, and then have himself declared a Natural Born Citizen, via that definition.

    Craig v. U.S. was basically Craig was suing to get himself declared a Natural Born Citizen, and therefore force the court to define Natural Born Citizen his way (what you said, Jus Saguinus both parents). The court held that he had no constitutional right to do this, because he had suffered no harm by it not doing it.

    2. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Mind showing me the passage that says that children of foreigners cannot be Natural Born Citizens? The dissent of Wong Kim Ark seemed to think that the reasoning of the majority declared all children of Foreigners to be Natural Born Citizens. Oh, and Wong continually quoted from cases, such as U.S. v. Rhodes, which stated: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens.” Nowhere in the majority opinion of Wong does it go into what you’re alledging.

    Wong seems to say the exact opposite of what you say, and I cannot find a single passage that goes into that children of foreigners cannot be Natural Born Citizens.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

    3. Minor v. Happersett: The passage that you like to quote from also says, “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” Which means that the court didn’t actually rule on any sort of definition of Natural Born Citizen, (or citizen for that matter) because it was not neccessary. Minor fit both definitions that they laid out. Furthermore, whatever doubts that the court had in Minor were resolved in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

    4. Perkins v. Elg – The only case that you’ve actually cited correctly.

    Now, let’s go into other cases.

    U.S. v. Rhodes: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens.” This exact passage was quoted in the majority opinion of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

    Lewis v. Clarke: Directly said that people born to Foreigners are Natural Born Citizens. Again, this case was quoted approvingly by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

    How about some Legal Authorities: Justice Antonin Scalia believes that Natural Born Citizenship is Jus Soli. (Oral Arguments of Nguyen v. INS).

    Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg outright rejects the argument of more than two types of citizens, which is essential for your argument that you can be a citizen-by-birth, but not a NBC. (Oral Arguments of Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS). She also goes to say that she believes that her grandson born in Paris is a Natural Born Citizen.

    So, you have two current Supreme Court Justices directly disagreeing with you on your pet definition of Natural Born Citizen. Do you really think that Sotomayor (who was, by the way, born in Puerto Rico) would say that definition? What about Thomas? What about Alito, who’s descended from immigrants himself? What about Breyer? Which 5 justices do you really think will uphold your definition? Scalia and Ginsburg have directly gone against it in oral arguments for another case. That leaves Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor.

    There is so much arguments against this position, that it’s ridiculous.

  • 371
    SanDiegoSam
    October 28th, 2009 12:05

    Phil:

    Can you show me the Article/Section/Clause in the Constitution where it is specifically stated that the Joint Session of Congress is the “last legal opportunity” to “raise the issue” of eligibility?

    The Constitution does not concern itself with trivia. You will not find the recipe for Coke Classic within it, nor the definition of “lugubrious,” nor the elevation of Mt. Whitney, nor the proper way of poaching an egg.

    And you will not find in it the vast corpus of American law either common or statutory.

    Furthermore, can you show me the Article/Section/Clause in the Constitution where the lack of objections during such a Joint Session of Congress “waived” any ability for anyone to otherwise object to or question the President’s bona fides?

    Anybody can question anything. But only some people can actually act on what is questioned.

    The Constitution reserves to the Congress sole power to remove a President.

  • 372
    SanDiegoSam
    October 28th, 2009 12:21

    Misanthripocus:

    Dear, dear, jumpy you are, you Obamatons – but I understand, besieged by reality how you are it’s difficult to keep things in prospective -

    What a buzzkill you are, Mis. I mean you were having so much fun trying to mock the “Obamatrons,” why would you wish to deny us equal opportunity to have such entertainment? It is always a delicious pleasure when your opponent’s attempt at insulting you explodes in their own face for the simple reason that they are not as smart as they think they are. When one is attempting to be clever, it helps that you understand the setup for the joke.

    But since you appear to to know nothing more about taxonomy than you do about the law, your attempt came off with the grace of the dancing hippo’s from Walt Disney’s Fantasia. Certainly, you would not want to deny us the enjoyment of such exquisite comedy.

    Heh-heh-heh! SanDiegoSam, you’re a loser!

    How can that be? I am an “Obamatron.” We hold the Presidency and both houses of Congress. We have a 100% win rate in court.

    Oh, misanthropicus. You are such a card!!!

  • 373
    Black Lion
    October 28th, 2009 12:35

    siseduermapierda says:
    October 28, 2009 at 10:14 am
    MGB says:
    October 28, 2009 at 9:56 am
    *Maybe the Kenyan reporters knew something that the AP does not.*

    You must have been cracking yourself up when you wrote that. AP’s resources to find things out vs. a local paper. Yeah, Sure, Right. Thanks for my morning laugh, MGB! It’s what they call ‘grasping at straws’.
    _________________________________________________________________

    Sise, grasping at straws is being too kind. Especially when the AP released the following statement regarding the article from 2004….

    http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/10/26/obama-birthplace-lawyer-submits-suspect-document/23981/

    “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.”

    It is obvious that the Kenyan paper added the language, which we all know is false. I as sure that the brithers will claim that the AP is lying and covering for President Obama. However the amazing part is how the birthers will hang on to this unverified article but demand supporting proof regarding any article that supports the President.

  • 374
    Truther
    October 28th, 2009 12:41

    dunstvangeet says:
    “First off, the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963 stripped Obama of his Citizenship of the U.K. and Colonies. This would have happened when Obama was 2 on December 12, 1963. He obtained his CUKC through his father, who was a Kenyan. When Kenya became independent, he lost his CUKC, and obtained Kenyan Citizenship. It’s plain and simple, terminu.”

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1963/pdf/ukpga_19630054_en.pdf

    I think you need to keep reading. . .
    3.-(1) (2) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, a person shall
    not cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies
    under section 2(2) of this Act if he, his father or his father’s
    father-
    (a) was born in the United Kingdom or in a colony ;

    Since Obama’s father (and father’s father I presume) was born in a colony, I don’t think Obama would have been automatically “stripped” of UK citizenship as you suggested.

  • 375
    David
    October 28th, 2009 12:44

    SanDiegoSam,

    “I will take that as a full concession that you were wrong in your previous response to Sue.”

    Not at all. You see – you need to know what we were discussing before jumping in to try to prove a point for either side. That’s why your first comment actually proved mine when you were trying prove hers. I was not “wrong in my previous response to Sue.” I was furthering my argument by using the tactics employed by people like you, her, and other Obama supporters and apologists.

    “He has presented his COLB. Unless you have evidence to contradict it, he has met his burden of proof and you have not.”

    Again, read all of my previous comments before you make irrelevant points. This is not an argument about his COLB. (But even if it was, it should be noted that this COLB has only been “presented” as “evidence” in the form of a picture on the internet. I do not dispute that he was not born in Hawaii…I merely ask why he refuses to publicly release his birth certificate.)

    “Your personal dissatisfaction with the legal standard is noted with a yawn.”

    Once again, you failed to understand the discussion at hand. I have repeatedly made the point that this is not about court cases and “legal standards.” Perhaps next time you should comprehend what has already been discussed before jumping in.

    And by the way – you still proved my point. I thank you for that.

  • 376
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 13:05

    dunstvangeet
    Natural BORN Citizen is jus soli jus sanguinis both parents AT BIRTH. AT BIRTH Obama was not a natural born citizen. He cannot be made in to one at any other time by acquiring or revoking any citizenship. And further you are incorrect insofar as Obama’s current citizenship, he never “lost” a citizenship (how ridiculous) and you did not take in to account both the BNA 1948 and the Kenyan Independence Act.

    Obama is STILL a British Citizen to this very minute.
    In US V. WKA read GRAY.
    In Minor the 14th had already been in the Constitution for 6 years.
    NO ruling has ever found that Obama was born NBC nor that he was even born in the USA.

    “Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was not only born a dual national of the United States and Great Britain, but at present he continues to be such. Some maintain that American law on citizenship cannot be subjected to any foreign law. But such an argument does not resolve the question of Obama’s dual nationality, for each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right. This point can be better understood when we consider that McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents and U.S. citizenship law declared him a U.S. citizen even though he was born in Panama and Panamanian law may have declared him a citizen of Panama. Neither Panama nor any other nation questioned the United States’ right to pass a law that gave McCain U.S. citizenship by descent from his parents even though he was born in Panama. Great Britain, being a sovereign nation, has the same right as does the United States to pass such citizenship laws. Now let us examine the British law that applies to Obama and his father and which makes Obama a British citizen not only at the time of his birth in 1961 but still today.

    The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:

    “4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:

    Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
    (a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
    (b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.

    5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ….”

    Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama’s father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.

    Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama’s 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.

    Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

    “1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. [sic] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. [sic] if his father becomes. [sic] . . . a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subjection (1). [sic] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. [sic] 1963.”

    Under the Kenyan Constitution of 1963, Obama’s father and Obama became citizens of Kenya. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain, nor the Kenyan Constitution, nor the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, as amended, caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship. Rather, the statements have been that his British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963 and that he then lost Kenyan citizenship under the Kenyan constitution and laws when he did not renounce U.S. citizenship at age 21. But since Obama never lost his British citizenship, it does not matter that Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship as he contends.

    Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:

    “97. Dual citizenship
    1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”

    While the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. Kenya’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948 and which he did not lose under the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, as amended. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect Obama’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship.

    The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:

    “Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.

    Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child’s minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality.”
    Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.

    “It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .

    Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality.”
    British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.

    Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, as amended, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning “declaration of renunciation” at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,” there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any “declaration of renunciation” of his British citizenship.

    What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya’s 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.

    This all leads to the question of how can Obama be an Article II “natural born Citizen” if he was at birth both a U.S. citizen (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and a British citizen which alone disqualifies him from having that status? But to make matters worse, Obama continues to be a British citizen at a time that he is currently the President of the United States. Can we reasonably conclude that the Founding Fathers, who had just fought a war with Great Britain and who did not want a foreigner to occupy the Office of President, would have allowed a British citizen born after 1789, who carries that status not only from birth but also to the time he occupies the Office, to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its Military? Another question is how can a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military with current dual citizenship obtain a security clearance which he should have to access classified U.S. government information needed by him to carry out the sensitive functions of that Office?

    When Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same, citing E. Vattel’s, The Law of Nations (1758) and John Jay’s letter of 1787 to then-General George Washington regarding providing a strong check on keeping foreign influence out of the Office of Commander in Chief by requiring that only a “natural born Citizen” occupy that critical and powerful office. As a naturalized citizen cannot be President because of being born subject to a foreign power, neither can Obama.
    Senator Trumbull, when commenting on the 14th Amendment declared: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” Sen. Howard added: “the word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” On May 30, 1866, Senator Howard continued: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Govern- of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, P. 2890, col. 2. Again, only if the both parents of the child were citizens at the time of birth could the child be subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, not owe allegiance to any foreign power, and not be a person “born in the United States who are foreigners [or aliens].”

    By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  • 377
    David
    October 28th, 2009 13:19

    Sue,

    “The issue is President Obama’s eligibility. The ‘birther lawyers,’ which you appear to support, sued President Obama. These ‘birther lawyers’ and supporters (you?) have made all sorts of allegations against President Obama and have not provided credible, admissible evidence in a court of law to support your allegations.”

    This is where you’re wrong again. I do not support most of these “birther” lawsuits. I have stated many times that Orly Taitz is making a mockery of the eligibility issue. Most of the claims made by her and others are absurd. I have only made a few, quite pertinent arguments – and I also question the assumptions made by people who know only as much as they have been told regarding Obama’s past.

    “Therefore, based upon the above situation, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff’s and supporters of these eligibility lawsuits.”

    Like I have stated numerous times before, my argument is not a lawsuit. I am merely asking for the same thing you ask for with the “birther” lawsuits – can we see the evidence that supports your claims? Obama has made many claims about himself and his past but has provided very little evidence to support those claims. I’m asking to see something to corroborate his life story. The burden of proof is not on me to obtain records that I cannot legally obtain. As I stated in my original comment, this is a matter of providing information to the public – to earn the public’s trust and to give them the opportunity to make better judgments when electing those who will run the federal government.

    “However, Sis, Bob, Practical Kat, brygenon, quertyman, jvn, SDS, etc., cite sources for their statements, as a rule.

    “You, on the other hand, generally, do not.”

    Yes, they sometimes do cite sources for their claims. I usually do not make any of my own. I frequently argue fundamental principles and issues from reason which require no citations to third-parties for specific claims being submitted or rebutted.

    On the other hand, people like you, Sis, Bob, Practical Kat, brygenon, qwertyman, jvn, SDS, etc., almost never acknowledge the reasonable arguments. You resort to ridicule or simply ignore the point made because you apparently cannot respond to it in any rational manner. It seems that unless you can provide a link to support your argument, you cannot make one. How did we ever debate anything before the internet? How did they ever teach reasoning and critical thinking before the 90′s?

    If I argue the law of identity and tell you that “A is A,” would you need a citation for that? If I tell you that a computer cannot also be a grapefruit, would you need a citation for that? If I tell you that Obama cannot be the most transparent and honest president in history if he keeps nearly all of his records sealed, would you need a citation for that? I would hope not.

    There is a thing called “comon sense” or “reason” – unfortunately, most people don’t have the mental capacity to properly employ it. I wish you and your cohorts luck with trying to acquire that capacity.

  • 378
    siseduermapierda
    October 28th, 2009 13:32

    David says:
    October 28, 2009 at 1:19 pm
    *Like I have stated numerous times before, my argument is not a lawsuit. I am merely asking for the same thing you ask for with the “birther” lawsuits – can we see the evidence that supports your claims? *

    No, you’re not and you know it. You’re demanding the President provide information that is not required by the Constitution, US statute or legal precedent. And you continue to demand, but try to excuse away and obfuscate your lack of presenting a basis for your demands. You think you’re being clever and cute, but you make yourself look stupid. If you are demanding on “basic principles”, then you should be able to cite the principles. you don’t because you know you can’t cite any basis for what you’re asking for. You just keep trying to flip the burden of proof off the birthers and onto President Obama. Won’t work. The President has the benefit of the assumption that he is who he says he is until someone proves otherwise. No law requires him to prove anything to you. The only thing that will work David is for you to get with your Congressman and get him to introduce an amendment to the Constitution that requires candidates for President prove their eligibility or introduce a resolution for articles of impeachment.

  • 379
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 13:37

    In A2S1C5 the terms Natural Born Citizen are clearly differentiated from US Citizen by the word “OR”. Further POTUS/VP must be NBC but Congress can be US Citizen. They CANNOT be the same thing.

    Since US Citizen is defined by the 14th amendment, and Minor holds no 14th Citizen is NBC, and if Obama was born in HI he’s a 14ther, he cannot be a NBC.

    So there’s the Constitution itself and one of many SCOTUS precedent holdings which prove that NBC is defined by 14th.

    CRA1866 was NEVER overturned.
    The Naturalization Oath requires one to abjure all other allegiances.
    The BNA 1948 and Kenyan Independence Act prove Obama is STILL A BRITISH CITIZEN.
    According to British Law, Obama is a Natural Born British Subject.

  • 380
    siseduermapierda
    October 28th, 2009 13:38

    terminu says:
    October 28, 2009 at 1:05 pm
    quoting from a guy whose case was just dismissed? What a load of horse pookey. A natural born citizen is someone who was born here. The status of his parents makes no difference. Wong Kim Ark. If there was any factual basis for the two citizen parents claim, you’d have conservative constitutional experts being brought the House and Senate judiciary and rules committees by eager Republican reps to testify that President Obama is ineligible and should be disqualified. Instead you have a bottle-blonde-moron, a sometimes professional poker player and a DUI attorney trying to prosecute birther cases. Haven’t you asked yourself why that’s the best representation these cases seem to be able to find? Two citizen parent theory is not supported by the Constitution, any US statute or legal precedent. If it were, you’d have a slam-dunk.

  • 381
    siseduermapierda
    October 28th, 2009 13:42

    terminu says:
    October 28, 2009 at 1:37 pm
    *Since US Citizen is defined by the 14th amendment, and Minor holds no 14th Citizen is NBC, and if Obama was born in HI he’s a 14ther, he cannot be a NBC.*

    A 14ther? Give us a break!! The 14th amendment defines two types of citizens: citizens from birth and naturalized citizens. There is no such category as a type of citizen who is a citizen from birth but not a natural born citizen eligible to be President. It’s a cutesy-pie little invention by birtherdom. Natural born citizen = native citizen = citizen from birth. Two kinds of citizen, only two. And the naturalized ones can’t be President. That leaves the rest.

  • 382
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 13:42

    which prove that NBC is NOT defined by the 14th amendment

    Obama is still a British Citizen, was never a natural born citizen.
    The idiots are still harping on the birth certificate because that’s a deliberate obfuscation and misdirection.

    ACCORDING TO THE BNA 1948 AND KENYAN INDEPENDENCE ACT
    WHICH HE CITES HIMSELF OBAMA IS STILL A BRITISH CITIZEN
    AS HE WAS AT BIRTH
    THEREFORE HE WAS NEVER A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the USA

    OBAMA SAID SO HIMSELF
    S.R. 511

    HIS OWN WORDS as COSPONSOR

  • 383
    jvn
    October 28th, 2009 13:44

    Term -

    You are just flat out wrong.

    US citizenship law is superior to the laws of any other country.

    Anyone born in the United States is a natural born citizen of the United States at birth except in select situations that do not encompass the circumstances of the President’s birth.

    Under US law, any American citizen (natural born or naturalized) can renounce their citizenship after they become a legal adult, but, failing that, it cannot be taken away from them. Again, this is without regard to the laws of any other country.

    So you can play around with the laws of other countries and make pronouncements, but it means absolutely nothing.

    Could the President seek British citizenship if he wanted to? I don’t know and I don’t really care. That has zero to do with his eligibility!

  • 384
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 13:46

    fraudster siseduermapierda :

    The holding in Minor v. Happersett excludes ANY 14th definition.
    Now, isn’t that cute? That’s called SCOTUS precedent.
    And naturalized citizens by oath must abjure all other allegiances, which Obama has not done either because per BNA 1948 and KIA he’s still a British Citizen.
    CRA 1866 has never been overturned.

  • 385
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 13:50

    fraudster jvn:

    You can make stuff up and believe it we go by the laws.
    BNA 1948 and KIA says Obama is still a British citizen, AND US does not supercede sovereignty of another nation, as in it swallows up like a big hungry whale all the guppy non-US citizenships of duals. Ridiculous.

  • 386
    David
    October 28th, 2009 13:52

    siseduermapierda,

    For the last time:

    I am not filing a lawsuit and demanding that documents be released. This is not a court room. I am merely asking that Obama be what he claims he is – honest and transparent. He can choose to be those things, or he can choose to not be those things. The public will judge him accordingly.

    Really…you’re looking pretty damn stupid with every comment you make about “burden of proof” and privacy laws. How many times do I have to say that I am not making a legal argument here? Pull your head out and at least try to understand what you’re reading.

  • 387
    jvn
    October 28th, 2009 13:56

    Term -

    Babbling on the edge of coherency, okay, on the very, very, very furthest edges of coherency, doesn’t do much for your argument.

    You do realize, of course, that the 14th Amendment defines the acquisition of citizenship at birth for EVERYONE BORN IN THE UNITED STTAES AFTER IT’S PASSAGE, right?

    So, even if your ramblings that Minor v. Happersett excluded those born with citizenship under the 14th Amendment are correct (which they are most decidedly NOT) NO ONE IN THE UNITED STATES IS CURRENTLY ELIGIBLE TO BE PRESIDENT.

    I can well understand that the more intelligent and more articulate birthers have stopped commenting in the face of continual defeat, but can you at least try to state your arguments in a somewhat understandable format?

  • 388
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 13:57

    fraudster jvn:
    Obama needn’t seek British citizenship, since he’s already a British Citizen per THE LAW (BNA 1948 and KIA). Each nation has the sovereign right to make its own citizenship laws and one nation cannot deny another nation that right, unless one nation has by submission through treaty allowed such, which of course Britain has not done with respect to the USA.

  • 389
    Observer
    October 28th, 2009 13:58

    Black Lion:

    However the amazing part is how the birthers will hang on to this unverified article but demand supporting proof regarding any article that supports the President.

    Well then we’ll just treat both news conveyors as neutral sources. The more recent recant (why not before since it’s obviously been in play for a while) by AP is however within a time period where they are known to have the unfavorable reputation of being within the parameters of “state run” news sources. While the other, esp. back in the year of the article, had no other reason for an additional false descriptive reporting about Obama than the facts as known – since the relevancy of his birth place really didn’t come into public question back then. No one really cared about who he was or where he came from back then.

  • 390
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 13:59

    fraudster jvn:
    You really ought to read the Constitution for the first time in your life, for US citizens are precluded from being POTUS in A1S1C5. Knowing this is a leap for your intellect, we beg you try your mightiest, for otherwise you tax us with the redundant idiocy that in proving Obama is a 14th US Citizen he’s somehow eligible, when indeed the Constitution and SCOTUS precedent in Minor deem otherwise.

  • 391
    jvn
    October 28th, 2009 14:00

    Ask away, David.

    I feel pretty good about the President’s chance at re-election just because of the country’s political history.

    I wouldn’t recommend holding your breath until he gives in to the birthers demands though…

  • 392
    misanthropicus
    October 28th, 2009 14:03

    Re SanDiegoSam:

    [...] But since you appear to to know nothing more about taxonomy than you do about the law [...]

    Heh-heh, SDS, the topic of the thread is dba Obama’s fraudulence, and I am proud that I came with several irrefutable examples, from his fake Columbia credentials to his rhetorical blunders that prove his phoniness.

    As far as dba Obama’s ilegitimacy as a president, that’s a fact of gravitation’s verity – and the fact that you, squad of Obamatons are so bitterly arguing and trying to jam or deflect any cogent discussion about this matter shows that there is a growing awarennes amongst you that dba Obama’s slide is irrevocable and likely to be covered by infamy.

    Oh, by the way, you still didn’t informed me whether the Phony One speaks Swiss with the same impeccable accent like his Austrian – check this with Bill Ayres, someone who’s been so close to Barry as literary adviser sure knows more about that.

    Gosh, also, you didn’t inform me what are you interested in learning more about Obama: his views on astronomy? On anatomy? On geography?

    Heh-heh – Obamatons in disarray – love it -

  • 393
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 14:05

    John Bingham…
    you know that guy, the architect of the 14th amendment?

    Here’s what he said IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

    “[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…. . .”

    - John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

  • 394
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 14:13

    the fraudster’s obscene precedent would mean that the son of Achmedinejad birthed to a US mother in the US, living here for 14 years, indoctrinated in Iran the rest
    would be perfectly fine as POTUS

    NO other US president since the grandfather clause of A2 has NOT had BOTH parents US citizens.

  • 395
    Black Lion
    October 28th, 2009 14:37

    Observer says:
    October 28, 2009 at 1:58 pm
    Black Lion:

    However the amazing part is how the birthers will hang on to this unverified article but demand supporting proof regarding any article that supports the President.

    Well then we’ll just treat both news conveyors as neutral sources. The more recent recant (why not before since it’s obviously been in play for a while) by AP is however within a time period where they are known to have the unfavorable reputation of being within the parameters of “state run” news sources. While the other, esp. back in the year of the article, had no other reason for an additional false descriptive reporting about Obama than the facts as known – since the relevancy of his birth place really didn’t come into public question back then. No one really cared about who he was or where he came from back then.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Observer, good point. However you can’t find one US newspaper from 2004 that reprinted the AP article that had the phrase “Kenyan Born” in it. So it can’t be a recant if it was never said. Like you said back in 2004 no one cared who he was or where he came from, so the AP would have never “scrubbed” the article. And all articles are saved in this day and age. The actual paper copy of the AP article and every search never showed those words. Now if you could have found at least one US paper that had the phrase in it, you would have an argument. The Kenyan paper, along with other Affrican papers added the African angle to sell papers. That was why they never bylined the author of the article, which is standard practice. The Kenyan article was just nonsense. It was not proof of anything. The only issue is that the people who chose to believe it made an error in judgement.

  • 396
    Phil
    October 28th, 2009 14:46

    Practical Kat,

    20th amendment, Section 3, give Congress the power to determine qualifications of the President:…

    You’re answering the wrong question. What I actually asked was the following:

    Can you show me the Article/Section/Clause in the Constitution where it is specifically stated that the Joint Session of Congress is the “last legal opportunity” to “raise the issue” of eligibility?

    In reality, you’ve contradicted the “last legal opportunity” via the next comment by you:

    The 25th Amendment provides an alternative way to remove a President, in the event of incapacity, which also requires concurrence of 2/3 of both houses of Congress.

    Clearly, “the event of incapacity” is not solely restricted to the time of a General Election; it can happen at any time, which was precisely my point.

    Also, I’m not addressing impeachment at this time; I was merely challenging you on your claim that the Joint Session of Congress is the “last legal opportunity” to determine eligibility, when clearly you have admitted that it is not.

    It’s generally held in law that the failure to object in the appropriate forum for determination of an issue waives the objection. In the case of the Joint Session of Congress, there simply is no subsequent proceeding — Congress has the FINAL WORD on who is selected President, and the exercise that during the joint session — so if anyone in Congress has a valid objection, that is the time when it has to be made.

    In a typical election cycle, I could not agree with you more. However, let’s not forget the context of — as you’ve already mentioned — the 25th Amendment. In other words, there is nothing in the Constitution that states that there is any statute of limitations, as it were, regarding a President’s eligibility for the presidential office.

    So, while it is true that the Joint Session of Congress is an appropriate place to file objections, there is absolutely nothing else in the Constitution that says that any other congressional action could not subsequently occur during a given President’s term (how else would impeachment proceedings otherwise begin, even though the point of this conversation is not about impeachment, it’s about eligibility?).

    -Phil

  • 397
    Black Lion
    October 28th, 2009 14:51

    terminu says:
    October 28, 2009 at 2:13 pm
    the fraudster’s obscene precedent would mean that the son of Achmedinejad birthed to a US mother in the US, living here for 14 years, indoctrinated in Iran the rest
    would be perfectly fine as POTUS

    NO other US president since the grandfather clause of A2 has NOT had BOTH parents US citizens.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Not true. Chester A. Authur’s father was not a citizen of the US at birth. He was Irish. Try again.

    And if the American people wanted to vote in the son of the Iranian President, granted that he was born in the US and lived her for 14 years, they could. I don’t think it would happen though. You don’t give the American people enough credit. All of this so called evidence was available before the election and still 70 million Americans decided that Barack Obama was the better choice for President of the US. That is what is great about the Constitution, that the people make the choice. And if they don’t like the job he is doing, they will vote someone else as President in 2012.

    The birhters can make all of the claims the want about the President being ineligible, that is their right has Americans. However these accusations require legally admissible proof, which almost a year later we are still waiting for.

    The birhters rely on supposition and innuendo to fuel it. Implications that the President did not attend Columbia is one of the most ridiculous ones. To think that one of the finest universities in America would state that the President was a graduate if he was not is just not realistic. Professors and classmates have come forth that remembered him, and yet still some question if he went there. The movement loses any sort of possible credibility because of that. When you ignore easily verifiable information to make the claim that the President did not attend Columbia to smear him makes the movement look petty and vindictive. And of course not believable. And then some wonder why the politicans and the mainstream don’t the birhters seriously.

  • 398
    Phil
    October 28th, 2009 14:56

    jvn,

    So, in the alternative, you are implying that the courts can see that there is an issue, that they might even agree that the President is ineligible, but can’t take the cases because of some technical problems?

    Since I don’t know what the Courts see (I’m not a lawyer nor a judge), I really can’t answer this question. Could there be issues that the Court sees that it cannot, in good faith, surmount legitimate technicalities to address? Obviously, that is a possibility; to what degree is another issue entirely.

    Preposterous. The history of the SCOTUS is filled with cases where they ignored everything about the case save for the constitutional issue they wanted settled.

    Your characterization of such a position as mine and your opinion of why SCOTUS has determined their actions with respect to certain unspecified petitions is, clearly, your prerogative, but does not necessitate the need to illegitimize questions.

    By the way, how come you get to sidestep the question of why none of the GOP members of Congress agree with the “two parents as citizens” theory when I am constantly asked why the President doesn’t just release his BC?

    Sorry, I try not to speak for other individuals, so you’ll have to ask them why they ask you the questions they ask you.

    However, speaking for myself, if Congress is tasked with being the final arbiters of eligibility with respect to a General Election cycle, then it would necessarily follow that they should know what they’re talking about. Unfortunately, in reality, based upon their form-letter responses to their constituents, there seem to be as many different responses regarding the eligibility question as there are actual members of Congress! That’s hardly confidence-inducing to me.

    Regarding Mr. Obama releasing his bona fides, there’s a reason why Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 exists in the Constitution. For you, when you figure out the “why” it was put in there, then you’ll begin to understand the “why” individuals such as myself are asking about it.

    -Phil

  • 399
    Black Lion
    October 28th, 2009 15:07

    terminu says:
    October 28, 2009 at 1:59 pm
    fraudster jvn:
    You really ought to read the Constitution for the first time in your life, for US citizens are precluded from being POTUS in A1S1C5. Knowing this is a leap for your intellect, we beg you try your mightiest, for otherwise you tax us with the redundant idiocy that in proving Obama is a 14th US Citizen he’s somehow eligible, when indeed the Constitution and SCOTUS precedent in Minor deem otherwise.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    terminu, there is a reason that Mario’s opinion did not sway the judge. It is because it was incorrect and did not make any sense. In the ruling for the Minor case, the Supreme Court EXPLICITLY said they would NOT address the question of children born to alien parents. The Court only had questions regarding whether children born to alien parents became citizens of the US, period. No third class of citizens was discussed in this case. Throughout English legal history it was assumed that native were the same as natural born. Natives or natural born citizens were different from aliens or foreigners. And finally the Wong Kim Ark case determined that the children of non citizens, or aliens, are citizens of the United States. Not one is any kind of foreign law like the British Nationality Act mentioned regarding determining who is or is not a citizen of the US.

    Further Minor also says that there are exactly two kinds of citizen: native or natural born citizens and naturalized citizens (note the equivalence of natural born and native). There is no special class for those born citizens but natural born citizens. As long as anyone is born a citizen (and Barack Obama undoubtedly is one of these) then they are a natural born citizen. This is certainly true since the passage of the 14th amendment even though the court in Minor had some unexplained doubts that it was the case before.

    Finally one notes that Minor cites no authority for its doubts, and that the comment is part of the dicta (commentary) of the case, and not the decision.

    And since you decided to cite John Bingham, let me cite someone else from that time period. Attorney General of the US Bates said in 1862 “… our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic…”.

    “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..” US Constitution 14th Amendment

    So you have two types of citizens, natural and naturalized. The birhter argument that there was some sort of third class or type of citizen, born on US soil but not natural born, is false. No law or Court case can be cited where it discussed any third type of citizen.

    The US Constitution only defines two types of citizens. So creating some sort of 14th amendment citizen or US citizen but not natural is a birhter fantasy. Kind of like the so called Kenyan BC’s. Neither one exists.

  • 400
    siseduermapierda
    October 28th, 2009 15:30

    David says:
    October 28, 2009 at 1:52 pm
    *The public will judge him accordingly.*

    David finally gets it!!! You’re exactly right about the public judging him. And where do you think they’re going to judge him? In the voting booth in 2012!!!! If you’re not satisfied with his transparency, Don’t vote for him! Find somebody to run against him who you are satisfied with who can get more votes! So stop demanding information from him that no law requires him to give you. If you can’t cite the law that applies, you can’t make a case, inside or outside a courtroom.

  • 401
    siseduermapierda
    October 28th, 2009 15:35

    terminu says:
    October 28, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    You are completely wrong. Re-read Minor. And it was explained in a prior post why you are wrong about British citizenship. When you start out down the path of suggesting that Barack Obama may not be a citizen at all, intelligent people tune the rest out. It’s wacka-doodle nonsense.

  • 402
    misanthropicus
    October 28th, 2009 16:12

    Can anyone vouch for Obama’s history?

    Obamamama (Valerie Jarrett) is a pefect illustration of Obamatons’ hypocrisy –

    http://www.breitbart.tv/top-obama-aide-blasts-fox-news-while-ducking-msnbc-question/

  • 403
    brygenon
    October 28th, 2009 16:20

    Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote],

    See 28 USC 1739 for how state records are proven. Your receipt thing isn’t it, and the Constitution gives Congress, not you, power to prescribe how state records are proven.

    Nice. Remember, I think it would be a great thing to get the alleged Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth admitted into Court. Let’s bring it and see what happens.

    The courts don’t seem to want to get involved in your conspiracy theory, so I doubt you’ll have much luck with that. In any case, you have one definite answer there: yes, President Obama showed the proper legal documentation of his birth in Hawaii.

    Ah, you missed the premise: “Want answers to your questions?” Senator Jon Kyl, Republican Whip, told us long ago, “Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office.” That’s not a technicality; that’s the merits. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called those who don’t believe President Obama was born in Hawaii “crazy”. You can choose not to believe the Senators, but only Congress can legally remove the President and they are telling you how it is.

    Again, nothing new here, my dear opposition commenter. I am fully aware that Sen. Kyl, the second most powerful Republican in the Senate (for whatever that’s worth these days) made such a statement. Of course and necessarily, I am more than free to question upon what basis he made such a claim. After all, any politician can make any claim they wish; that doesn’t necessarily make such a claim true.

    I did not say it was anything new. The questions of Obama’s eligibility were answered long ago. Yes, he is eligible. Do the proper authorities say so? Yes. Do senators argue with conspiracy theorists? Of course not, but Senator Kyl did refer to Snopes.com where the myths you are spreading have been debunked. Since the time of Kyl’s letter you have gotten yet more proof, most notably the clear statement from the Hawaiian Department of Health: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

    Regarding Sen. Graham, again, he is free to posit his opinion regarding those who question this President’s bona fides as much as he likes; it’s not like this site or others of my ilk are exactly just now receiving such pejoratives as “crazy,” “right-wing extremists,” or the like, as I know you’re quite well aware.

    The issue is that you keep pretending things have not been established when in fact they have. That’s why even President Obama’s serious political opponents call you crazy (or worse).

  • 404
    SanDiegoSam
    October 28th, 2009 16:32

    David:

    I was not “wrong in my previous response to Sue.” I was furthering my argument by using the tactics employed by people like you, her, and other Obama supporters and apologists.

    And yet you stumbled rather badly by providing an object lesson in the opposite. We appear here to be in violent agreement.

    The burden of proof is on the affirmative.

    Obama has met his.

    It remains evidentiarily unchallenged.

  • 405
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 16:36

    fraudster siseduermapierda :

    If barack was born in Hawaii, he is a US citizen but not a natural born citizen because his father was UKC and per BNA1948 and KIA he is still even a British citizen having never revoked said citizenship.

    If barak was not born in Hawaii his mother, in 1961 was too young to confer US citizenship.

    THOSE ARE THE LAWS
    deal with it, fraudster

  • 406
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 16:40

    fraudster siseduermapierda, you may like to make up things and believe them, but next time try reading the BNA ’48 and KIA which prove that barack’s citizenship did not vanish in to thin air nor get gobbled up by superior US sovereignty, what made-up lala fluff!

    Minor states the definition of NBC as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents, and that NBC is not in the Constitution, yet the 14th had been added 6 years prior, obviously NBC is not therefore in the 14th.

    The Constitution Article II differentiates NBC from US Citizen via the legal term “OR”, critical because US citizen is sufficient eligibility for Congress, not for POTUS.

  • 407
    SanDiegoSam
    October 28th, 2009 16:40

    misanthropicus:

    Heh-heh, SDS, the topic of the thread is dba Obama’s fraudulence

    Hey you were the guy babbling about “oistriches” and “speciae.” Not me.

    The topic of this thread was Obama at Columbia. The topic was quickly shown to be based on falsehood, and even Phil has gone back and rewritten his headline to disguise how badly and thoroughly it was debunked.

    Your “irrefutable” evidence is no more coherent than your garbled misuse of the phrase “cognitive dissonance.” But that is neither here nor there. If you had evidence of a fraud, then you should be filing a criminal complaint. Until you do so, you’re pretty much just a yawner.

  • 408
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 16:47

    fraudster Black Lion:
    Thank you for proving the point that Barack is ineligible:

    “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..” US Constitution 14th Amendment

    “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means sole allegiance, which is redundantly born out in CRA1866 and the VERY MODERN naturalization oath. Show were CRA1866 was ever overturned?

    and since you USE the 14th amendment, you might possibly give credence to the man who constructed the bulk of it, Mr. John Bingham who clearly defines NBC as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.

    You know what? I notice none of you bots bother countering one argument in particular…

    OBAMA HIMSELF SAYS BOTH PARENTS MUST BE US CITIZENS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS

    SENATE RESOLUTION 511

  • 409
    terminu
    October 28th, 2009 16:56

    fraudster Black Lion:
    Thank you for proving the point that Barack is ineligible:

    “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..” US Constitution 14th Amendment

    “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means sole allegiance, which is redundantly born out in CRA1866 and the VERY MODERN naturalization oath. Show were CRA1866 was ever overturned?

    and since you USE the 14th amendment, you might possibly give credence to the man who constructed the bulk of it, Mr. John Bingham who clearly defines NBC as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.

    And Chester Arthur the usurper, his father’s citizenship was not known at the time of his usurpation, born out in recent historical discoveries. So he lied, and made US military salute the British flag and indian tribes are suing over their land because he was ineligible, as is Obama. Chester Arthur is a historic usurper, he defrauded about his parental citizenship, whereas Obama has admitted he was born British.

    And you lied about any Kerchner ruling, in fact that is the stark glaring outcome–no ruling whatsoever, the judge never said Obama was NBC nor that he was even born in Hawaii. The merits of the case, any case, has never come to scrutiny, just as no courts martial have taken place –because they will not pass muster.

    No jury would allow that a British citizen is a natural born American. If it’s not obvious, try to think of what the founders would have thought of such an obscene slap in the face to their sacrifice notion..

    And failing that, fall back on Barack Obama’s words in S.R. 511 which he actively cosponsored and signed off on…your fraud plastic jesus said…

    BOTH PARENTS MUST BE US CITIZENS FOR THE CHILD TO BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
    You know what? I notice none of you bots bother countering one argument in particular…

    OBAMA HIMSELF SAYS BOTH PARENTS MUST BE US CITIZENS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS

    SENATE RESOLUTION 511

  • 410
    siseduermapierda
    October 28th, 2009 17:00

    terminu says:
    October 28, 2009 at 4:40 pm
    Minor states the definition of NBC as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents*

    No it doesn’t. The definition of who is citizen born under the jurisdiction of the US was decided in Wong Kim Ark. You’ve made the same error often made by birthers. ( Or you copied and pasted and never really read the whole decision.) They cherry-pick a phrase out of the decision that you think supports your argument and dismiss the rest. But you’ve taken it out of context of the decision. Dr Conspiracy wrote a fine explanation of the decision in the Minor case. I’ll post it for you here so you will understand it in its context to the Wong case that followed it:
    - Minor tells us that there are two kinds of citizens: native or natural born and naturalized
    - There was some question prior to the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment whether the children of aliens born under the jurisdiction of the United States were citizens.
    - Minor does not resolve this question
    - However, it is clear that those born citizens are natural born citizens (since there are only two types, and those born citizens cannot be naturalized).
    - United States v. Wong Kim Ark clarifies who is under the jurisdiction of the United States and thereby who are citizens at birth.
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/minor-v-happersett-88-u-s-162-1874/
    (Calling names reduces your credibility.)

  • 411
    siseduermapierda
    October 28th, 2009 17:08

    terminu says:
    October 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm
    fraudster siseduermapierda :

    *If barack was born in Hawaii, he is a US citizen but not a natural born citizen *

    Utter nonsense. The 14th amendment defines two and only two types of citizen: born and naturalized. There are no separate natural born citizens. The born citizens ARE the natural born citizens. The case of Wong Kim Ark clarified who are the citizens born under the jurisdiction of the US, and that is most certainly children who are born here, regardless of their parents’ status. Insisting there is a different class of citizen other than the two defined by the 14th amendment is a fatal flaw in your logic. The Wong case tells us it just isn’t so. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii Aug 4, 1961. Prove otherwise. And stop the stupid ‘fraudster’ name-calling, you come off looking like a jackass.

  • 412
    Phil
    October 28th, 2009 17:09

    Jenni,

    Phil, I am worried about you…I check back in on you and it seems like this site is a mess. While I never agreed with you politically, I must say you ran one of the better RW sites and I took a lot of information from your site in writing my paper.

    If the site is a “mess,” that would be based on the quality of comments being bandied about. I can assure you that the postings continue to be of bodaciously kewl quality.

    You’re using portions of my site for writing your paper? Wow. Nice effect. Hopefully you’ve properly sourced it ;)

    What is going on? Slow updates, all this in-fighting. Where is a nice liberal girl to go for the RW viewpoint? Please don’t make me go to Citizen Wells or one of the really crazy places !!!! Wake up, Phil!!!!

    Yes, it is true — my life is temporarily exceptionally busy for the time being, so the site is not as updated as frequently. But hey — at least the comments don’t require me to always moderate them to be public.

    “In-fighting?” Don’t you mean, “vehement, robust discussion?” That’s been going on since long before you took a break from my site.

    -Phil

  • 413
    Phil
    October 28th, 2009 17:13

    SanDiegoSam,

    Phil:

    Can you show me the Article/Section/Clause in the Constitution where it is specifically stated that the Joint Session of Congress is the “last legal opportunity” to “raise the issue” of eligibility?

    The Constitution does not concern itself with trivia. You will not find the recipe for Coke Classic within it, nor the definition of “lugubrious,” nor the elevation of Mt. Whitney, nor the proper way of poaching an egg.

    And you will not find in it the vast corpus of American law either common or statutory.

    Excellent. Then the truth of the matter is that any given Joint Session of Congress that convenes for the purpose of certifying Electoral Votes is not the “last legal opportunity” to “raise the issue” of eligibility.

    Anybody can question anything. But only some people can actually act on what is questioned.

    The Constitution reserves to the Congress sole power to remove a President.

    Again, excellent, regarding the impeachment question. However, that’s not been my question.

    -Phil

  • 414
    Practical Kat
    October 28th, 2009 18:20

    Phil surmised:

    Then the truth of the matter is that any given Joint Session of Congress that convenes for the purpose of certifying Electoral Votes is not the “last legal opportunity” to “raise the issue” of eligibility.

    No, Phil, the truth is that the Constitution provides one, and only one, avenue for determining the issue of eligibility — and that is at the joint session, as outlined in Article II and the 12th and 20th Amendment.

    There is NO OTHER mechanism after the electoral college has voted. Under the Constitution, Congress is REQUIRED TO certify the candidate with the most electoral votes as President, UNLESS they find that he is unqualified. Once they certify — there is no mechanism to challenge or question that determination.

    Rather than try to build your argument on what the Constitution clearly does not say — why don’t you explain your rationale and specify the legal or Constitutional authority for your own belief?

    So far, every birther lawsuit has been thrown out of court on jurisdictional grounds. It’s going to keep right on happening, perhaps with a few more Judges stepping up to the plate and imposing big money sanctions on the idiots with law degrees who insist on wasting their time with frivolous law suits.

  • 415
    David
    October 28th, 2009 18:23

    siseduermapierda,

    “David finally gets it!!!”

    Actually, I think it is YOU who has finally comprehended my original point – at least in part. Congratulations nonetheless.

    However, you missed the part where I also stated that disseminating information about one’s past that has been kept from the public – i.e., records, associates, etc. – is crucial to knowing and understanding a candidate running for federal office. If we don’t know about people, we can’t make proper and rational judgments. If we can’t make proper judgments about our leaders in the federal government, then we put ourselves at risk for failure and ruin.

    Now, I suppose I’ll wait another six days and countless more comments for you to finally grasp that.

  • 416
    Practical Kat
    October 28th, 2009 18:35

    Phil speculated:

    The 25th Amendment provides an alternative way to remove a President, in the event of incapacity, which also requires concurrence of 2/3 of both houses of Congress.

    Clearly, “the event of incapacity” is not solely restricted to the time of a General Election; it can happen at any time, which was precisely my point.

    Also, I’m not addressing impeachment at this time; I was merely challenging you on your claim that the Joint Session of Congress is the “last legal opportunity” to determine eligibility, when clearly you have admitted that it is not.

    If you actually read the 25th Amendment, you would know that it is clearly addressed only to situations where the President is “unable” to fill his duties, in the case of mental or physical disability. It is NOT a way to test the President’s qualifications to hold office — it IS a way to act in the event that there is a President who suffers a debilitating stroke, or Alzheimer’s, or who lapses into a coma.

    “Fail to qualify” is NOT the same as “unable to discharge the powers and duties”.

    Congress determined (without objection) on January 8th that Barack Obama was qualified. (It’s an either/or proposition — if they had not made that determination, they could not have designated him President). THAT determination cannot be revisited.

  • 417
    misanthropicus
    October 28th, 2009 18:36

    Jenni @ The Audacity of Questioning -

    [...] Phil, I am worried about you…I check back in on you and it seems like this site is a mess. [...]

    Jenni, “get in their face is the answer”, and you know this very well.
    The site is not exactly a mess, yet it is under constant assault by a swarm of Obamatrolls who are willing to go at any lengths to push any issue or discussion re Obama to irrelevancy -

    The comments section of any site has two functions:
    1) debate the article in cause,
    2) a posting bord for additional, pertinent information

    … and if you check, you will see that on this site the trolls in cause don’t constructively debate issues, all what they do is building assaults of circuitous arguments and jam the thread ad nauseam, trying to push the issue to death – again and again, again and again, like some broken records -

    As any trolling operation, while what’s happening here can be irritating, it also is counterproductive:
    1) the trolls convince none -
    2) but, as the curent article well shows, these trolls sure confirm that anything related with Obama is fraudulent and malevolent, fact that is quite motivating for further digging in Obama’s obscure past -

    While you acknowledged that you are a liberal (unfortunately, for so many a self-incrimination declaration), I hope you don’t really have an Obamaton’s flawed nature and ways –

    Best regards -

  • 418
    Phil
    October 28th, 2009 21:00

    Practical Kat,

    Phil surmised:

    Then the truth of the matter is that any given Joint Session of Congress that convenes for the purpose of certifying Electoral Votes is not the “last legal opportunity” to “raise the issue” of eligibility.

    No, Phil, the truth is that the Constitution provides one, and only one, avenue for determining the issue of eligibility — and that is at the joint session, as outlined in Article II and the 12th and 20th Amendment.

    There is NO OTHER mechanism after the electoral college has voted. Under the Constitution, Congress is REQUIRED TO certify the candidate with the most electoral votes as President, UNLESS they find that he is unqualified. Once they certify — there is no mechanism to challenge or question that determination.

    Again, I think we’re talking about two distinctly different issues here — one of eligibility and one of impeachment. Further, to date, I’m pretty sure that the American republic has never actually had to deal with an ineligible President who was found to be such either before or during his term.

    But even if we are to consider this argument to the fullest, the bottom line is that the Constitution only ever states that Congress has the “sole” power to impeach; it does not say that Congress has the “sole” power to determine eligibility.

    Rather than try to build your argument on what the Constitution clearly does not say — why don’t you explain your rationale and specify the legal or Constitutional authority for your own belief?

    Quite simply, where the Constitution is silent, I believe that this means that the federal government is to be silent in that respect and refer to the Bill of Rights, or, more specifically, the 9th and 10th Amendments. Of course, this observation of mine is of a general nature. Specifically regarding eligibility, if the Constitution does not give Congress the sole power of determining eligibility, then, clearly, Congress does not have that power. It would be precisely the same as saying that while the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, Congress should step in to speech of any sort if it offends someone.

    As I believe “jvn” recently made comment, the Constitution similarly does not spell out the ingredients for Coca-Cola (or some such legitimate analogy). Therefore, we can clearly surmise that this is subsequently not a federal issue but one that is left to the States or the People thereof.

    So far, every birther lawsuit has been thrown out of court on jurisdictional grounds. It’s going to keep right on happening, perhaps with a few more Judges stepping up to the plate and imposing big money sanctions on the idiots with law degrees who insist on wasting their time with frivolous law suits.

    Yeah, and?

    -Phil

  • 419
    Phil
    October 28th, 2009 21:07

    Practical Kat,

    If you actually read the 25th Amendment, you would know that it is clearly addressed only to situations where the President is “unable” to fill his duties, in the case of mental or physical disability. It is NOT a way to test the President’s qualifications to hold office — it IS a way to act in the event that there is a President who suffers a debilitating stroke, or Alzheimer’s, or who lapses into a coma.

    “Fail to qualify” is NOT the same as “unable to discharge the powers and duties”.

    Sounds to me like an issue of a difference of opinion. Has SCOTUS ruled in your favor somewhere in determining the precise and exact scope of the 25th Amendment with respect to presidential eligibility?

    Congress determined (without objection) on January 8th that Barack Obama was qualified. (It’s an either/or proposition — if they had not made that determination, they could not have designated him President). THAT determination cannot be revisited.

    Actually, the question regarding objections was never raised as it had been in previous Joint Sessions, so I’m not completely sure what you’re talking about in the first part of your pulled comment.

    Secondly, we are apparently going to have to agree to disagree that “THAT determination (sic.) cannot be revisited.” To date, I have seen no constitutional verbiage nor federal law that specifically says that Congress is the sole arbiter of eligibility (versus, of course, impeachment).

    -Phil

  • 420
    siseduermapierda
    October 28th, 2009 21:19

    David says:
    October 28, 2009 at 6:23 pm
    *Now, I suppose I’ll wait another six days and countless more comments for you to finally grasp that.*

    No more answers for you. You bore me.

  • 421
    JJ
    October 28th, 2009 21:20

    For all of your points pro or con of the constitutional matter….heed this…….

    If you are accepting that aka Obama, who is really Soetoro, because he hasn’t proven he ever legally changed his adoptive name, is president…….then you are suggesting that Ahmadinejad, of Iran, can visit the U.S., impregnate a U.S. citizen, and after she gives birth in ********, Mississippi, the child can become President of the U.S. one day.
    You’re okay with that??
    Because ‘if’ Ann is aka Obama’s mother, and ‘if’ Barack Obama, Sr. is his father, and ‘if’ aka Obama was born in Hawaii, then that’s exactly what has happened……a British subject has become your president.

    The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof………on American soil and blood of two citizens, not one American and one British………….
    And that’s why a million of your tax dollars are spent to tuck away any of these ‘documents’ that prove aka Obama’s true dual citizenship…..British and Indonesian……he’s an illegal alien.

  • 422
    siseduermapierda
    October 28th, 2009 21:29

    JJ says:
    October 28, 2009 at 9:20 pm

    *You’re okay with that??*

    Yes, I am OK with any child born in America except the child of a diplomat no matter the status of his parents be eligible to be President. The primary process would weed out someone like the child of Ahmadinijad. If you think Obama is really named Soetoro, don’t vote for him in 2012. If you don’t think a child born in Hawaii and who has spent 44 of his 48 years living in the US is eligible, don’t vote for him. If you don’t like the law, get your senator to propose a Constitutional amendment on eligibility. But don’t try to force your views on the majority who think you’re nuts.

  • 423
    Black Lion
    October 28th, 2009 22:27

    terminu says:
    October 28, 2009 at 4:47 pm
    fraudster Black Lion:
    Thank you for proving the point that Barack is ineligible:

    “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..” US Constitution 14th Amendment

    “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means sole allegiance, which is redundantly born out in CRA1866 and the VERY MODERN naturalization oath. Show were CRA1866 was ever overturned?

    and since you USE the 14th amendment, you might possibly give credence to the man who constructed the bulk of it, Mr. John Bingham who clearly defines NBC as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.

    You know what? I notice none of you bots bother countering one argument in particular…

    OBAMA HIMSELF SAYS BOTH PARENTS MUST BE US CITIZENS FOR NATURAL BORN CITIZEN STATUS

    SENATE RESOLUTION 511
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    First of all the Senate resolution also said that you had to be born in Panama in 1936 but I see you of course forget to mention that part of the resolution. So that means that no one other than McCain is eligible to be President.

    Subject to the jurisdiction of does NOT mean sole allegiance. It means that being born in the US means that you are subject to its jurisdiction by virture of being a citizen of the country.

    Chester A Authur’s father’s status was known at the time. There are writings that show that.

    Regardless of what Bingham may have said, AG Bates said different as shown in my quote. Also the Wong Kim Ark ruling was in 1896, which came after the 14th amendment, is the case regarding citizenship.

    So overall you have been proven wrong. But you knew you would be. Hence the name calling. I guess when your argument makes no sense, like yours, you need to distract by calling names. Which is the usual birther M.O.

  • 424
    Black Lion
    October 29th, 2009 08:19

    JJ says:
    October 28, 2009 at 9:20 pm
    For all of your points pro or con of the constitutional matter….heed this…….

    If you are accepting that aka Obama, who is really Soetoro, because he hasn’t proven he ever legally changed his adoptive name, is president…….then you are suggesting that Ahmadinejad, of Iran, can visit the U.S., impregnate a U.S. citizen, and after she gives birth in ********, Mississippi, the child can become President of the U.S. one day.
    You’re okay with that??
    Because ‘if’ Ann is aka Obama’s mother, and ‘if’ Barack Obama, Sr. is his father, and ‘if’ aka Obama was born in Hawaii, then that’s exactly what has happened……a British subject has become your president.

    The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof………on American soil and blood of two citizens, not one American and one British………….
    And that’s why a million of your tax dollars are spent to tuck away any of these ‘documents’ that prove aka Obama’s true dual citizenship…..British and Indonesian……he’s an illegal alien.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Wow, a entire post filled with speculation and no facts. That was impressive. Let us address some points. First of all can you show us some legally admissible proof that President Obama ever changed his name to Soetero or was adopted? And we don’t mean the unsourced “Indonesian school record”. That is not considered proof. Secondly can you show us where the President spent “millions of our tax dollars” hiding his documents? I mean yo were so specific so you must have proof? Since Obama is the President, the DOJ is defending him in these ridiculous lawsuits. And the so called documents are all protected by federal privacy laws. Now if you want to change the privacy laws so that anyone can look at your personal records, then do that. The only waste of taxpayer money is all of the time the courts have to waste with these frivolous lawsuits by Orly, Apuzzo, and Berg. Leo never had the guts to actually file one so he is not in the same category as the others. And of course the biggest lie is that your parental citizenship status matters in determining whether or not you are a natural born citizen. That has never been the case and is currently not the case. That was a birther invention from some Swiss philospher. Not the US Constitution and definately not SCOTUS rulings. Thanks to the Wong ruling, we know that is not the case. Sorry. The President was born in HI, so he is a natural born citizen.

  • 425
    Practical Kat
    October 29th, 2009 15:40

    Phil asserted:

    To date, I have seen no constitutional verbiage nor federal law that specifically says that Congress is the sole arbiter of eligibility (versus, of course, impeachment).

    Here’s the most recent ruling from a Federal Court on the matter:

    [O]n the day that President Obama took the presidential oath and was sworn in, he became President of the United States. Any removal of him from the presidency must be accomplished through the Constitution’s mechanisms for the removal of a President, either through impeachment or the succession process set forth in theT wenty-Fifth Amendment…. The process for removal of a sitting president–removal for any reason–is within the province of Congress, not the courts.

    Barnett v. Obama, “Order regarding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss”, at pp. 24-25; see:
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/21808122/Judge-Carter-Ruling-on-MTD

  • 426
    gaetano
    December 10th, 2009 09:27

    It sure is funny that after one year of obama, every one that I ask says they didn`t vote for him.Whats up with that? Nobody want to take the blame? The only people that say they did are hideing behind their computer.