Rep. Deal Wants Obama’s Birth Certificate; Let the Blowback Begin!

by Phil on 11/6/2009

Friday, November 6, 2009 update:

Apparently Rep. Deal knew he was going to stir up quite the proverbial hornet’s nest by seriously suggesting that he was going to ask the President to see his birth certificate. So, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (h/t PeachPundit), the castigations are now beginning.

As you read through what I post from the article, below, I’m going to interject my own commentary into what the included public figures say, because I think most of them are seriously full of it; the idea that somehow someone is considered to be, essentially, other than rational for daring to question the President is, itself, asinine:

“I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available and it leaves many things to be desired,” Deal said in an interview Friday.

Deal’s statement came a day after he noted in an online chat that he would join other U.S. House members in writing the president and asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate.

Welcome to the club, Rep. Deal. Some of us have been questioning this man with only the image of an alleged document for more than a year because there’s got to be more that could be available regarding this man’s background.

I only wonder who these “other U.S. House members” are.

He stopped short of saying he was a proponent of the so-called “birthers” movement that has questioned the legitimacy of Obama’s citizenship.

Don’t you just love the way that the AJC editorializes via castigation those of us who are “fringe” enough (according to whom?) to question Mr. Obama’s bona fides? If the media were just as derogatory to the Left in this country, I’d otherwise shut my electronic mouth.

A spokeswoman for Obama said the White House had no comment on Deal’s statements other than what it has said in the past when refuting claims questioning Obama’s citizenship.

Nice. I wondered how they were going to initially respond. Hopefully Rep. Deal will continue to pester the great and mighty Executive branch for an otherwise very simple bit of info for which he has every right to ask (as do the rest of we, the People).

In June 2008, Obama’s campaign office released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate — a “certification of live birth” — that shows he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. Government officials in Hawaii have verified that the document is official, as have several news organizations.

Well, at least the AJC got part of this paragraph right; all that we have to date is an image of an alleged document.

However, I’m just a bit confused: the AJC then states that “[g]overnment officials in Hawaii have verified that the document is official.” Oh, really? That’s news to those of us who have been following this issue from the get-go. Where, exactly, did the Hawaiian officials actually claim that the alleged document that the blog FactCheck.org allegedly has on hand is exactly the same document that originated from the Department of Hawaii? In other words, where’s the record of the transaction?

Oh, and the “several news organizations” claim? Who the hell are you talking about? Surely you don’t mean that other news organizations merely took the image of the COLB and said, “Yep, we hereby proclaim this to be an official document,” without one single forensics investigator actually verifying the physical document?

Yet Deal and others say they still have doubts.

Uh, yes, we do.

“What I have seen — and I think it is the only thing that has been put out — is a certification of live birth, and it just does not contain the type of information that most state birth certificates would contain,” Deal said. “It obviously does not have the signature of a doctor. Most birth certificates or even certificates of live birth have those kinds of verifications.”

Bingo. He’s on the right track.

Some of Deal’s colleagues in Congress said they are disappointed and puzzled about why the Gainesville Republican is raising the citizenship issue.

Fasten your seat belts, dear readers; rough waters ahead… over 62 words found in the Constitution

“I’m sorry to hear that Nathan, who’s a very decent person, is raising that question,” said Democratic U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Atlanta, a strong Obama supporter. “I don’t think there’s any question, any doubt, that the president was born in America, in Hawaii.” …

In Washington, Lewis said he thought it was time to end questions about Obama’s citizenship.

“This is an issue that needs to be put to rest,” he said. “I don’t believe the president of the United States of America, knowing you must be a citizen born in America, would even consider, even think of running for president,” if he were not a citizen.

I will give Rep. Lewis one point — he states his opinion and doesn’t browbeat Rep. Deal (at least in this instance) for doing what he’s doing. Yet, it’s exceptionally incomprehensible — and politically irresponsible — to make such a broad-based assumption — assumption – that anyone who would be ambitious enough to run for the presidency would simply not run, by definition, without being eligible.

Why do I say this? Because, as I’ve documented on my site — and as Justin Riggs over at YourFellowCitizen.com has done yeoman’s work — even the major political parties take the question seriously enough to make the candidate sign a self-ascribing document in which the candidate proclaims themselves to be eligible (of course, the document assumes that the person wouldn’t lie, because it doesn’t require physical documentation to back up the claim).

So, if major political parties promulgate such documentation, what in the world is Rep. Lewis doing simply assuming that a presidential candidate wouldn’t otherwise run if they weren’t eligible?

Republican gubernatorial candidate John Oxendine said he believes Obama is a legal U.S. citizen.

“Any serious adult running for governor of Georgia needs to understand that we have a responsibility to do business with the president of United States,” Oxendine said. ” Questioning his citizenship after he has been elected to the highest office in our land is disrespectful.”

Mr. Oxendine, you’re completely out of order on this issue. Even some of the vehemently (at times) opposing commenters on my site would wholeheartedly disagree with you that it’s disrespectful to question the President.

How is it disrespectful to question the President’s bona fides? Are you suggesting that there is some sort of statute of limitations on eligibility? Who are you to determine what is considered “respectful” versus “disrespectful” questioning of any elected official?

What’s more, is this to say that if you were to be elected my Governor in our great State of Georgia that individuals such as myself couldn’t question you or your actions in office?

Mr. Oxendine, perhaps you should go ahead and simply shred the Bill of Rights while you’re at it. Obviously you have no use for the First Amendment, much less Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.

Ben Fry, a spokesman for Republican gubernatorial candidate Eric Johnson said, “We take the government of Hawaii at its word when they say the president is eligible to serve.”

Uh, there’s just one teensy-weensy problem with your comment, Mr. Fry: The great State of Hawaii never said a word about whether or not Mr. Obama is eligible to be President. They only ever claimed that he’s a natural born citizen, though that means absolutely nothing with respect to any legal authority on Mr. Obama’s eligibility — unless, of course, we could get the Director of Health into Court and begin questioning her for the record.

And even if the great State of Hawaii actually made such a proclamation, please do point out to me where in the Constitution it says that States are the ones responsible for enforcing the eligibility clause, with what type of documentation and to what extent such documentation is sufficient for such substantiation.

I don’t think you can do it.

Said Republican candidate Karen Handel’s spokesman Dan McLagan, “I think its pretty kooky and probably not very helpful for our water negotiations and other issues with the administration.”

I see. So, when the question is considered too weird or extreme (even though it’s completely constitutional), let’s just call the question “kooky” so we don’t have to face it head-on. Yeah — that’s exactly how I’d want my next Governor to act on a constitutional issue. Not.

Chris Carpenter, a spokesman for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Roy Barnes characterized Deal’s statements as “great silliness.”

Governor Barnes, there are probably a few reasons why you’re currently the former Governor of Georgia; let’s just leave it at that.

And I’m not leaving PeachPundit — a blog that I otherwise completely enjoy following via my RSS feeds for important news out of Georgia — out of my critique:

In all seriousness (too late?), I am pleased to see most of the candidates – and yes, Oxendine too – stand up and call crazy “crazy”. We’ve got serious issues on the table. I have no interest in watching top tier candidates allow themselves to be drawn in to discussions of birthers, secession, or other fringe causes of the day.

“Icarus,” oh “Icarus,” I do believe you’re rhetorically flying a bit too closely to the sun today; your waxed wings are melting, because I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

Let me explain something to you. A “birther,” as they’ve been pejoratively called ever since anyone has begun questioning Mr. Obama’s eligibility, is merely someone who wants to see some actual, original documentation regarding the President’s background.

Is that fringe? I fail to see the illogic of the question, considering it’s actually in the Constitution.

A “secession[ist]” is someone who actively advocates for the literal dis-integration of the American States. “Tenthers,” as the term has recently been coined, merely wish to see the 10th Amendment be upheld as a balance of power between the several States and the federal government. You know, federalism, that wonderful concept that our founding fathers gave to us and that some of us feel is rapidly slipping away. Go check out Michael Boldin’s TenthAmendmentCenter.com for a complete portfolio of postings regarding federalism, not secession. Please, educate yourself before showing yourself to be so ignorant.

Is that fringe? I fail to see the illogic of federalism — unless you want to see a completely bloated federal government operating outside the confines of the Constitution.

—-

One of the contenders for Governor in the Republican primary here in the great State of Georgia is Representative Nathan Deal. In an interesting move this morning (according to TalkingPointsMemo and AJC — oh, yes, and thanks to commenter “Geir (Gerhardt) Smith” for my h/t), the Congressman informally announced that he’s going after Mr. Obama’s birth certificate:

[He] has announced that he is signing a letter to the White House with several of his colleagues — asking for a copy of President Obama’s birth certificate.

Deal made the announcement this morning in anonline chat held by his campaign, when asked by Tom Crawford of the Georgia Report (subscription required):

[Comment From Tom Crawford]
Do you believe that Barack Obama is a native-born American citizen who is eligible to serve as president? I am asking because your comments on this issue have been a little ambiguous. I would appreciate your clearing this up.

Nathan Deal – I am joining several of my colleagues in the House in writing a letter to the President asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate so we can have an answer to this question.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution noted that this isn’t the first time that Rep. Deal had been asked about presidential eligibility for Mr. Obama:

Back in July, Deal was asked a similar question by Mike Stark of the liberal Firedoglake blog. The exchange outside the U.S. Capitol was caught on a Youtube video. (Deal is at :45 and at 1:20 on the video.)

In the video, Deal is asked whether opponents need some basis in fact or reality to suggest Obama is not a legitimate president. Deal responds:

“You know, the best way to do that, I think, is to produce the birth certificate and let that be the end of it. I don`t think that`s been done yet.

Rep. Deal’s spokesman followed up with TPM on the story:

Deal’s campaign spokesman Harris Blackwood confirmed the authenticity of the chat to TPM, explaining the Congressman’s comment: “There have been so many constituents, a lot of people have asked him, they ask him on the campaign trail. Let’s just get an answer, that’s all we’re saying, not suggesting anything to the contrary.”

Showing his proverbial constitutional credentials, the AJC also reported that he’s pushing for States’ rights via the 10th Amendment:

In today’s online chat, Deal also enlisted in the 10th Amendment movement, promising that if elected governor he would “reassert the role of states rights” and “reclaim the rights that are reserved to our state” under the U.S. Constitution.

While in my view it should be applauded that there is a Congressperson willing to further push the issue to conclusively establish once and for all whether or not Mr. Obama is eligible to be President, it is interesting to note that Rep. Deal is not a co-sponsor of HR1503, Rep. Bill Posey’s (R-FL) bill that would require documentation to be submitted for all future presidential candidates to establish their background information.

Recently, there has been a bit of discussion on the eligibility front between myself and various “opposition” commenters here on my site questioning that if Mr. Obama’s eligibility were truly in question, were I suggesting that there’s a major conspiracy of hundreds of players purposefully attempting to defraud the American people. Of course, my answer was an emphatic no.

Not only would my answer to such a question be no, but I think that the general political ignorance of Article 2, Section1, Clause 5 of the Constitution so escapes federal officeholders — either intentionally or no — that most of their constituents who have asked various Members, to date, about the President’s eligibility have received form letters with nearly as many different definitions of eligibility as their are Members of Congress!

There is no conspiracy theory here, in my view. Clearly, however, there continue to be questions about this President’s background, because we have nothing. Yes, we have an image of an alleged Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth that is alleged to have been procured by the Obama campaign back in 2007. However, to date, there is neither no receipt for the transaction (after all, States don’t just give this information out to legitimate requesters for nothing!), nor has anyone of a forensics background actually physically inspected the document.

Yet, even beyond this document, the American public has absolutely nothing else in hand that substantiates who this President is. It truly is as if America has elected someone that practically came out of nowhere to be the holder of the highest political office in the land. Given the current political climate in Washington, D.C. today, for me, that doesn’t sit too well.

Again, there is nothing wrong in asking the question. In fact, I would wager that it is wrong not to, precisely for the fact that it is a quintessentially constitutional issue. And, as such, I am glad that Rep. Deal is taking the initiative — despite the fact that he may be using this as a political move in the GOP gubernatorial primary — to specifically ask the question of the President.

After all — Rep. Deal does have standing to do so!

Update:

H/t to AudacityOfHypocrisy, a former speechwriter to President George H. W. Bush (bio below), Mr. Michael Johns, wrote in September of this year that Mr. Obama should “Release the Birth Documents:”

It is difficult to pinpoint exactly when the dangerous disregard for our nation’s founding legal document began. It certainly predates this administration. But the culture upon which it rests might be best exemplified in the apparent Congressional and media group think that our 44th President holds no obligation to respond to questions about his Constitutional eligibility, under Article II, Section I of the Constitution, to hold the office to which he ran and was elected. This Constitutional provision states unequivocally that no person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to the Office of President.

Is Barack Obama a natural born citizen of the United States? Probably. But because Obama is going to great lengths to conceal the documents that would settle this issue definitively, it is impossible to say for sure. Since October 2008, Obama has spent in excess of $1.35 million in legal fees to file protective and privacy motions in at least eight federal lawsuits to avoid releasing the documents–his mother’s hospital admission record, his Hawaii certificate of live birth, his educational records during his four years of residence in Indonesia, his Indonesian citizen status at that time and the time of his subsequent reentry to the U.S., and his college and law school admission records–that likely would definitively establish his Constitutional eligibility. Congress, the media, and even many Obama opponents, meanwhile, have failed to exert any pressure on him to halt his pro-active legal measures to avoid disclosure of these documents.

Quite obviously, the question of a President’s Constitutional eligibility is serious business. It was serious business when, in February 2008, The New York Times called into question Senator John McCain’s eligibility for the office because McCain was born on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone, which was then under U.S. control. “It is certainly not a frivolous issue,” The Times quoted Atlanta attorney Jill Pryor as saying at the time. The questions also were serious enough for the U.S. Senate to investigate them, with the Senate ultimately concluding in a unanimous vote that the U.S. administration of the Panama Canal Zone at that time meant that McCain was indeed a natural born citizen and eligible for the Presidency. …

Let me stipulate that, despite following this issue for a year, I am utterly unable to answer that question. But logic dictates that one would not expend in excess of a million dollars in legal fees, as Obama has done, knowing that the only likely result is that a certain percentage of the American people will view such efforts as non-transparent, or even malfeasant. Conversely, it also is wrong to conclude, in the absence of these documents, that Obama has necessarily misrepresented anything about his birth location or Constitutional eligibility, as some critics of Obama’s concealment of these documents continue to do. …

The most important point is this: No national interest is served by permitting these important questions to linger and persist. To settle them, Obama should cease blocking release of the documents sought by the plaintiffs in the various federal cases over his eligibility. And going forward, it seems reasonable to insist that our nation’s Federal Election Commission (FEC), which is charged with regulatory oversight of Presidential elections, require Presidential candidates to submit, along with their candidacy filing, the documents that clearly establish their natural-born eligibility for the office. Americans’ confidence in our Constitutionally-rooted democratic political system requires no less.

Apparently Mr. Johns similarly agrees with Rep. Posey that, practically speaking, the FEC ought to be required to be the depository for background information supporting candidate eligibility.

Do tell — what would be so wrong with that?

Mr. John’s bio:

Michael Johns is a health care executive, former White House and U.S. federal government official, and a conservative policy analyst and writer. In his industry capacities, Michael has held executive management responsibilities in several components of the U.S. and global health care industry. In addition to his extensive private sector career, Michael has served as a White House speechwriter to President George H. W. Bush, a senior aide to former New Jersey Governor and 9/11 Commission Chairman Tom Kean (R-NJ), and a senior United States Senate aide to U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Michael began his career as a policy analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation and as an editor of the foundation’s scholarly magazine, Policy Review. Michael has written for The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor, National Review, CBS HealthWatch, and other national media. He has appeared on PBS, CNBC, C-SPAN, Al Jazeera, Fox Morning News, and other networks. Michael is a graduate of the University of Miami, where he majored in economics and graduated with honors.

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

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

Photo courtesy ChattahBox

There are 219 comments in this article:

  1. 11/5/2009elspeth says:

    Full disclosure!

  2. 11/5/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Yes, we have an image of an alleged Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth that is alleged to have been procured by the Obama campaign back in 2007.”

    Yes, of course it is an image, what else could he show to hundreds of thousands of people? However, he did show the physical copies of the certification to BOTH FactCheck and Polifact, and the facts on the birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii.

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

  3. 11/5/2009Just one of the people says:

    While he’s at it, Representative Nathan Deal, should demand the release of ALL of the rest of his documentation. How did BO get into Occidental? Why does no one at Columbia remember him? Who paid his tuition? Why is BO no where in the year book? What passport did he travel under before he joined the Senate? There are a lot more questions than just the Birth Certificate. This man is a shadow. Even if he was born in Hawaii what about his British citizenship/subject status? If they only get the BC it should be certified and released directly to the representatives from the state of Hawaii, and never pass through the hands of the WH.
    He should release all his School records, even W did, but we all knew he was an idiot anyway. Is Bo afraid that the people will find out he’s a moron, we already guessed that. The only people he still has fooled, are the Obamatrons.

  4. 11/5/2009Aristotle the Hun says:

    As Obama’s poll numbers continue to tank, and his policies are shot down, he will attract people who finally have the balls to do what they should have done a long time ago.

    Obama is going down. It is just a matter of time.

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

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

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

    http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/04/aka-obama-fans-all-together-now-say-omg.html

  5. 11/5/2009NewEnglandPatriot says:

    Fantastic!! And it’s about time!!

  6. 11/6/2009Linda says:

    Show Me the Letter…then, and only then will I believe any Congress Critters words!

  7. 11/6/2009P. Barnett says:

    phil, please inform the idiot journalist that the term is “natural born citizen” not “native born” which are two completely different types of citizenship….

    this so called journalist is as igonorant of our Constitution as the idiots in Congress.

    at least he has b*lls unlike mcshame and the other worthless turds.

  8. 11/6/2009James says:

    Do you think Mr. Deal will have it in the mail by Monday, at least. “A Letter”, a nice queit way to deal with such a contraversy of historic proportions. “Return to Sender”, Elvis, mmm,mmm,mmm….,Perhaps he could serenade the guy from the Whitehouse lawn much more touching (no inclinations intended). And of course, he might just pop in for a beer or two or three. Somebody, up there (no pun intended) might just have some backbone, they certainly do have “patience”.

  9. 11/6/2009Preston says:

    Nathan Deal – Do white men from the south always use those words in polite conversations? When it comes to race relations, he is a uniter not a divider, right? But maybe he thinks he only represents the white populous and the rest be damned.

    The meal Deal should join forces with Orly taitz, he is a closeted Birther. Oh wait what this;

    Judge Land and now judge Carter, smack down the crazies (case dismissed), poor little Birthers.

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

    http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/29/bill-oreilly-slams-orly-taitz/

    To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up.

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

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

    I wonder if she is a mail order bride, just like her law degree? She is perfect reporter material for “Fake News”, where unfounded rumors and innuendo reign supreme , unlike a our US courts of law, where you need to present documented facts, not half baked lies (prepare for more failures).

    A lawyer, dentist, realtor and black belt, WOW I must say a JACK of all trades master of none.

  10. 11/6/2009terminu says:

    The journalist who wrote this is purposefully obfuscating the issue. Obama admits he is native born, but he does not admit that he is natural born because he admits he was born British.
    Native born is not natural born. All native born means is born in-country. A native is a natural born citizen, however because both of the parents are citizens of the country, or pre-originated the country.

    Every permutation is in the 14th amendment defining citizen, save for one, that for natural born citizen (born in-country to two parent citizens aka jus soli jus sanguinis both parents). Article II differentiates citizen from natural born citizen, only the latter being eligible for president. Minor v Happersett holds that the definition of natural born citizen is also not in the 14th amendment.

    Since jus soli jus sanguinis both parents is the only possible combination remaining, it is obviously the definition of natural born citizen.

    Aristotle, a student of Plato, wrote about what a natural born citizen was. The Greeks through to Vattell to the founders who knew the definition, unchanged through thousands of years, of the term “natural born citizen”.

    JUS SOLI
    JUS SANGUINIS (both parents)

    even Obama agrees in SR511

  11. 11/6/2009Steph says:

    We need to make sure Rep. Deal understands that the correct term is “natural born” and all of O’s records need to be released. Let’s hold him to the fire on this one!

  12. 11/6/2009terminu says:

    Obama needs to be prosecuted for his helping genocidal Odinga campaign in Kenya, resulting in 1300 Kenyan christians being slaughtered and 300,000 displaced. Obama helped incite genocide because Odinga threatened genocide ahead of time if he lost the election. He lost, and when he did the genocide began as threatened, and was only stopped by negotiation allowing Odinga co-presidency with Kibaki. Further Obama violated the Logan Act because he was a sitting US Senator at the time, and he even broke the law while on a taxpayer paid trip.
    Odinga is al Qaeda backed, also by al Bakari and Kadafi (to whom Obama just gave $2.5 million). His goal is the imposition of Sharia on majority Christian Kenya. Wright and Farrakhan have met with Kadafi in Libya. Kadafi is behind all of the proxy wars in North Africa, as the endeavor for Islamic US Africa (Islamic United States of Africa), requiring the genocide of native Africans and Christian Africans and even non-fundamentalist muslim Africans, thus the wars in Sudan, Chad, Kenya, Darfur, etc. You will not hear Obama speak out about the Christian and native African genocide in Darfur, because Kadafi is behind it for Islamic US Africa.

    Obama is guilty of inciting genocide. This must come to light and justice must be found.

  13. 11/6/2009uberVU - social comments says:

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by trsol: New Post: Grassroots to DC: Can You Hear Us Now?: http://bit.ly/4hVRmt #tcot #tlot #sgp #gop #killbill #teaparty #iamthemob…

  14. 11/6/2009Poppet says:

    When will people get it right.

    IT’S natural born Citizen (Capital C)

    NO – , NO (small c)

    and definitely NOT native born American citizen.

    We have State Citizens and Federal citizens

    natural born Citizens and naturalized citizens

    and citizens born to non u.s. citizens which can be called
    native born. (nothing to do with natural born Citizen)

    A native born citizen can be born here even if the childs
    parents are Fidel Castro and any other non-citizen.

    Obamas father was never a u.s. citizen and his mother did
    not meet the requirement of being 5 years over the age of 14
    to pass citizenship onto him.

    Obama inherits the fathers citizenship and nationality of
    being born a British subject of Kenya in 1961.

  15. 11/6/2009jvn says:

    Deal is playing to a different audience right now. He is running in the GOP primary for Governor, which means that any way he can get to a plurality of votes could help him get to the governor’s mansion.

    So the “birthers” who could vote for him in that primary and those around the country who could donate to his campaign become a valuable addition to the Deal “bandwagon” – for now.

    I suppose he imagines that his fund raising will go way up, and it just might – until the administration sends back a letter stating “we already released the COLB…” and Representative Deal has to tell the “birthers” that he has “accepted the President’s response.”

    Deal hopes that he can delay that until after the primary.

    I bet he also engages the “flaggers…”

    LOL

  16. 11/6/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    Attila and Phil, the OMG moment is now

    Take a congressman Deal making a letter with a question to the president.

    Some one refusing to answer a question is not CIVIL, but when that question’s addressed by SEVERAL Congressmen then you’ve got an international problem of credibility.

    Deal is a Congressman and no Orly or Dobbs.

    This is big time and this is headline news.

    I’m promoting this story on all my pages from now on SOLID.

  17. 11/6/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Aristotle the Hun says:
    November 5, 2009 at 11:40 pm
    *As Obama’s poll numbers continue to tank*

    Can you point out this “tank” to us, because Obama’s rating has been flat at 52-53-ish since August.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

    All together now, say OMG, his ratings aren’t “tanking”!

  18. 11/6/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:
    November 6, 2009 at 8:23 am
    *Attila and Phil, the OMG moment is now*

    Seriously, the guy didn’t say he has written a letter, or is imminently sending a letter, he said he was “joining several of his colleagues in writing a letter.” Get back to us when they produce a letter that has been sent to the White House. Your conservative heroes shovel a lot of manure, but let’s see if he puts his money where his mouth is. My bet is this is just a string-along to get him some primary votes.

  19. 11/6/2009Phil says:

    siseduermapierda,

    Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:
    November 6, 2009 at 8:23 am
    *Attila and Phil, the OMG moment is now*

    Seriously, the guy didn’t say he has written a letter, or is imminently sending a letter, he said he was “joining several of his colleagues in writing a letter.” Get back to us when they produce a letter that has been sent to the White House. Your conservative heroes shovel a lot of manure, but let’s see if he puts his money where his mouth is. My bet is this is just a string-along to get him some primary votes.

    I’ve been officially following eligibility for just over a year now on this site; I’m not stopping now ;)

    -Phil

  20. 11/6/2009Phil says:

    smrstrauss,

    Re: “Yes, we have an image of an alleged Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth that is alleged to have been procured by the Obama campaign back in 2007.”

    Yes, of course it is an image, what else could he show to hundreds of thousands of people?

    A legitimate image, of course. After all, we have images of other alleged birth certificates too, but we’re quick to point out the flaws in those, but we’re attempting to hold up the HI image as being without question.

    However, he did show the physical copies of the certification to BOTH FactCheck and Polifact, and the facts on the birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii.

    RE: FactCheck and Politifact (corrected), they are blogs on the Internet. There’s nothing especially special about them, save a few folks who have advanced degrees behind their names outside the purview of forensic analysis.

    And nobody with any sort of investigative (forensics) credentials has ever examined the physical documents, nor has anyone shown a receipt for the transaction that produced the alleged document.

    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.”

    Good for The Wall Street Journal. They’re certainly entitled to their opinion. However, they miss the whole Mr. Obama being born as a UK citizen thing as well, so I’m not sure exactly how informed their opinion is.

    -Phil

  21. 11/6/2009Black Lion says:

    terminu says:
    November 6, 2009 at 3:14 am
    Obama needs to be prosecuted for his helping genocidal Odinga campaign in Kenya, resulting in 1300 Kenyan christians being slaughtered and 300,000 displaced. Obama helped incite genocide because Odinga threatened genocide ahead of time if he lost the election. He lost, and when he did the genocide began as threatened, and was only stopped by negotiation allowing Odinga co-presidency with Kibaki. Further Obama violated the Logan Act because he was a sitting US Senator at the time, and he even broke the law while on a taxpayer paid trip.
    Odinga is al Qaeda backed, also by al Bakari and Kadafi (to whom Obama just gave $2.5 million). His goal is the imposition of Sharia on majority Christian Kenya. Wright and Farrakhan have met with Kadafi in Libya. Kadafi is behind all of the proxy wars in North Africa, as the endeavor for Islamic US Africa (Islamic United States of Africa), requiring the genocide of native Africans and Christian Africans and even non-fundamentalist muslim Africans, thus the wars in Sudan, Chad, Kenya, Darfur, etc. You will not hear Obama speak out about the Christian and native African genocide in Darfur, because Kadafi is behind it for Islamic US Africa.

    Obama is guilty of inciting genocide. This must come to light and justice must be found.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Now if you could just provide us with some actual proof, then more people might be curious about this. However we have been hearing about this same story for over a year and no actual proof has ever been provided. Rehashing the same smears doesn’t mean that they will all of a sudden become true….

  22. 11/6/2009Phil says:

    Preston,

    Nathan Deal – Do white men from the south always use those words in polite conversations?

    Fixated on race, are you? That’s too bad.

    To all the birthers in La, La Land, it is on you to prove to all of us that your assertion is true (TOUGH WHEN YOU KEEP LOSING CASES), if there are people who were there and support your position then show us the video (everyone has a price), either put up or frankly shut-up.

    Mmm, no, after a year of covering this issue, and certainly with stories like this, I’m not shutting up, and I think it’s very unpatriotic for anyone to suggest that someone with whom they disagree should shut up. For me, it’s one of those First Amendment things, and my willingness to agree to disagree, no matter how much I don’t like what you say.

    Further, and more to the point, I think my site — much less anyone else’s, and there is plenty on the Internet from which to choose — has provided more than enough information to pose questions concerning the legitimacy of what is claimed to be Mr. Obama’s only revealed piece of background information.

    Really — I’d like to see the receipt of the transaction that procured Mr. Obama’s HI COLB and I would like to see someone with credentialed forensic background to actually inspect the physical document. And then I would like an official opinion regarding Mr. Obama’s having been born a UK citizen try to fit that into the constitutional eligibility clause.

    But, I’ve already covered this in the posting to which you’ve commented, so I’m merely saying the same thing over and over again — wait, isn’t that the definition of insanity? Perhaps it is when this is repeated in the face of some individuals who will not see another perspective.

    -Phil

  23. 11/6/2009Black Lion says:

    Poppet says:
    November 6, 2009 at 5:24 am
    When will people get it right.

    IT’S natural born Citizen (Capital C)

    NO – , NO (small c)

    and definitely NOT native born American citizen.

    We have State Citizens and Federal citizens

    natural born Citizens and naturalized citizens

    and citizens born to non u.s. citizens which can be called
    native born. (nothing to do with natural born Citizen)

    A native born citizen can be born here even if the childs
    parents are Fidel Castro and any other non-citizen.

    Obamas father was never a u.s. citizen and his mother did
    not meet the requirement of being 5 years over the age of 14
    to pass citizenship onto him.

    Obama inherits the fathers citizenship and nationality of
    being born a British subject of Kenya in 1961.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Again where is the proof? Can you show us where in the US law that it states that there is a age limit to pass along US citizenship to someone born in the US? If you are referring to US Section 301 of the Immigration law it only refers to people not born in the US. If you are born in the US there is no need to pass along or confer citizenship because you automatically a natural born citizen of the US according to the SCOTUS ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case.

    You are making up some requirement that is not in the law. Amazing. Which is why as usual there is never any citations of sourcs when you are making your grand statements. Born in the US, you are automatically a natural born citizen. The US Constitution only recognizes to types of citizens, naturalized and born within the borders of the US.

    And if Fidel had a son that was born in the US he would not be eligible for being President because he is a head of state and would fall under the diplomatic exception. I love your strawman arguments However setting that aside if Fidel had a son born in the US and the American people wanted to elect him as President, they could. However you are not giving enough credit to the American people. I seriously doubt that they would elect the son of Fidel, Bin Laden, Quadafi, Kim Jong Ill, or any of the other so called people against the US.

    However the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father born in the US, the American people felt that this would be the best person to lead this country. And they have spoken.

  24. 11/6/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE: Just one of the people:

    [...] Representative Nathan Deal, should demand the release of ALL of the rest of his documentation. How did BO get into Occidental? {…]

    Many and legitimate questions – and here’s an explanation for your Occidental question: Obama got at Occidental on a Fulbright scholarship for foreigners.
    The scholarship was arranged for him by Peter Geithner (Timothy’s dad) who at that time was the head of the Asia Program of the Ford Foundation, and was supervising the “microfinance” program implemented there in Indonesia by, guess who… Stanley Dunham. Gethner senior visited Indonesia several times, met Stanley (actually Barry and Timothy met a few times in Djakarta, too, at that time), and arranged for the foreign student scholarship for BARRY SOETORO, son of that excellent lady –

    This is how Barry Soetoro appeared in the USA – and this is also the reason for Occidental/ Barry’s lawyers to resist David Kreep’s request for having the pertinent documents made public.

    A caveat – this sequence of facts is responded by the Obamatons on this site (Siserda comes to mind first) with a weird act of contortion, their convoluted explanation for Barry Soetoro’s name in some California records of financial awards for foreign students being that… it was another Soetoro… at a different time… and only fletingly in this country… that the truth about holograms is that they are true, but the images on them are irrelevant… that cats often times do so… that… that… that…

    Time and again – a $15 fee would clear the matter. Why someone so good at pondering and evaluating the “pro-s” and “con-s” of a matter like mister Barry prefers the long (think of Perkins and Coie billing – Anita “Mao” Dunn is Robert Bauer’s wife), expensive and certainly counter-productive path of stonewalling and litigation to a fee of … $15?

    It got to be a superior, transcending reason here -

  25. 11/6/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Phil says:
    November 6, 2009 at 10:05 am
    *I’ve been officially following eligibility for just over a year now on this site; I’m not stopping now *

    No, no mention for you to stop. I love hearing about these clowns in Congress. Deal is a member of the US Congress. Why in the world is he talking about writing a letter? Why doesn’t he call the White House, set up a meeting, and ask to see the COLB? I mean really, the President lives only about a mile from Deal’s office, why not just go down there? Because he knows Axelrod will place a copy of the COLB in his hands. Saying he’s going to write a letter is just lip service.

  26. 11/6/2009Black Lion says:

    siseduermapierda says:
    November 6, 2009 at 10:32 am
    Phil says:
    November 6, 2009 at 10:05 am
    *I’ve been officially following eligibility for just over a year now on this site; I’m not stopping now *

    No, no mention for you to stop. I love hearing about these clowns in Congress. Deal is a member of the US Congress. Why in the world is he talking about writing a letter? Why doesn’t he call the White House, set up a meeting, and ask to see the COLB? I mean really, the President lives only about a mile from Deal’s office, why not just go down there? Because he knows Axelrod will place a copy of the COLB in his hands. Saying he’s going to write a letter is just lip service.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Sise, a better question. Why didn’t Rep. Deal, if he was so “worried” about this issue bring it up a year ago? Or when the vote was being certified in front of him during the session of Congress? Now that he knows that he has no power to do anything he is going to “write a letter” to the President asking him to produce this document? Really? Way to go out of a limb Rep Deal. This is obvious pandering to the birther wing of the party for their support and votes. Of course once he is reelected he will magically be satisfied with the evidence that was shown. Amazing how gullible the birthers really are.

  27. 11/6/2009JL says:

    The issue is whether Obama is a NBC-natural born citizen. Forging a birth certificate is easy in today’s world. Please do not obfuscate the issue.

    Is he a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN-that is the question.

  28. 11/6/2009Stock says:

    More BS. If the Congressman was really interested in the resolution of the Constitutional question, he would have corrected the reporter, as anyone who has any knowledge of the issue knows that the objective is to establish that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and not “native born”. To continue down the road with this kind of misstatement continues to provide Obama with the smoke and mirrors which he has so effectively used so far.

  29. 11/6/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE: smrstrauss:

    [...] and the facts on the birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. [...]
    “… it kind of looks like mine…” (Dr. Fukino)

    No, smrstrauss, don’t try to sell this crap again – the Hawaii officials NEVER PRODUCED A STATEMENT that unequivocally showed:
    1) that Obama was born in the USA (Hawaii),
    2) that the the lineage recorded on the document they confirm shows that the infant Barack Hussein Obama (AFRICAN) was/is an American citizen by birth,
    3)… and equally important, WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENT IS THE ONE THEY MENTION IN THEIR STATEMENT –

    SO, the Hawaii authorities NEVER CONFIRMED OBAMA’S LEGITIMACY –
    … and when questioned about WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENT IS THE ONE THEY MENTIONED IN THEIR STATEMENT ABOUT OBAMA, THEY NEVER CAME WITH AN ANSWER –

    So, smrstrauss, if you want to go into the Hawaii matter, first answer this question: WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENT IS THE ONE ON WHICH THE HAWAII AUTHORITIES BASE THEIR CONFIRMATION OF OBAMA’S LEGITIMACY?

    Wriggle out from this, do it -

  30. 11/6/2009misanthropicus says:

    Talking about Hussein Obama’s mysterious background – some onomastic trivia:

    Now we are all know the name of Nidal Malik Hasan – “Hussein” (Hussain) actually means “little Hasan”, or “son of Hasan”…

    Certainly, from now on a solid political selling point…

  31. 11/6/2009swan says:

    After the shootings yesterday at Fort Hood, can everyone see how important it is that our President needs to be(should have been) Property Vetted. He is a Muslim. Where does his allegiance lie? His News conference was also very telling- He didn’t even Care!!! Everything he is doing to this Country and our Constitution is also Proof of his mindset. Why isn’t it all Obvious to ALL of the Congress and Senate???? Do Something Please.

  32. 11/6/2009MGB says:

    I guess they all decided to come up with new handles, because it’s hard to believe that suddenly there’s a new onslaught of True Believers who just happened to find this blog.

    Are y’all in the UK, too?

  33. 11/6/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “And nobody with any sort of investigative (forensics) credentials has ever examined the physical documents, nor has anyone shown a receipt for the transaction that produced the alleged document.”

    No president has ever shown his birth certificate before. Why should Obama have to show a receipt for the payment. Most of us lose our receipts.

    Now, as to the alleged lack of investigation. Obama’s files are closed to outsiders EXCEPT for members of government. Are you sure that the Hawaii police and other law enforcement officials have not looked into the file? With all the allegations, you would think that they have. And they said nothing and did nothing? That would mean that there is nothing wrong with the document.

    Moreover, the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the information on the COLB that was posted and shown to Politifact and FactCheck was the same information on the original birth certificate in the file and that this meant that Obama was born in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html).

    It is hard to explain why these two official would have lied about the documents in the files, particularly because they are in a Republican administration, and even more particularly because the files are open to others in government to look at, so if the police or anyone else in Hawaii or other government agencies looked into the file and found something different from what the two officials said, they would be in deep trouble.

    And, the facts on the certification, that he was born in Hawaii in early August 1961, were confirmed by the notices in the newspapers that appeared about a week or ten days later. Research has been done to show that these notices were sent out by the government of Hawaii at the time, but only for births in Hawaii, not for births outside of Hawaii.

    Finally, there is this witness, who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii in 1961 (because she wrote about the unusual event of a woman named Stanley giving birth to her father, who also was named Stanley). (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

    Re: “the Hawaii officials NEVER PRODUCED A STATEMENT that unequivocally showed:
    1) that Obama was born in the USA (Hawaii).”

    Yes they did: “(http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html).”

    Re: “that the the lineage recorded on the document they confirm shows that the infant Barack Hussein Obama (AFRICAN) was/is an American citizen by birth.”

    If you are born in the USA, you are an American citizen by birth.

    Re: They never said what kind of a document it was. It could not have been any other kind of Hawaiian birth document other than an ordinary one that came from birth at a hospital because all other kinds of Hawaiian birth documents required a delay before an application could be filed. An ordinary one would be generated by the hospital documents and be issued a few days after the birth. Delayed birth, certificate of Hawaiian birth, birth outside of a hospital all required delays of months or in some cases a year. Moreover, if a child were born outside of a hospital, Hawaii asked for confirmation in the form of witness statements from doctors or midwives, or if not these, from some witness who may have been present. So, it is likely that Obama was born in a Hospital.

    Which hospital? Kapolani. Obama has always said Kapolani. All other reports that he was born at Queens Hospital were based on one mistaken newsagency report, which has since been corrected.

    And the statement of the witness seems to confirm that he was born in that hospital too, since she was told of that birth by a doctor at that hospital (though he may not have been the one who delivered, he simply knew of a birth at that hospital to a woman named Stanley) (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html)

    The National Review commented: “The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

    If one applies for a United States passport, the passport office will demand a birth certificate. It defines this as an official document bearing “your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced—the document is formally known as a “certificate of live birth”—bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate—which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the “real” birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy. “

  34. 11/6/2009Observer says:

    This may all be moot in the near future. BO’s policies themselves appear to be doing the real damage. His “magician” like “save” of jobs doesn’t seem to play against the climbing jobless rate, obvious to all who are not continuing to clothe the silly “emperor”. And now we have a nut job of similar persuasion who actually believed in a real swift “hope” of cowardly withdrawal from “non-terrorist” “non-war” zones, reflecting the real idiocy base behind this empty suit of a “POTUS”. After this, better not continue pushing the “benign” definitions of our sworn enemies and their fanatical approach to the rest of the world’s sane desire of real freedoms.

  35. 11/6/2009misanthropicus says:

    (Hussein) “Obama’s Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting/
    A bad week for Democrats compounded by an awful moment for Barack Obama.”
    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-

    After all, why Hussein should care about this? “God damn America” is his belief and marching screed – America is a land of criminals who deserve the worst history can object them to –
    Was I the only one who I saw Obama truly passionate only when speaking in Cairo about the dwarfing merits of the Muslim civilization, and when in Gates case said that “police acted stupidly”?
    Good to have the Wright tape to see where is Obama’s passion -

  36. 11/6/2009AnotherReader says:

    Can’t wait to see the response to this one. After arguing ad nauseum for months that Congress is the only institution that could take this up, I’m sure were about to hear all kinds of new arguments about how he can’t do this for some reason.

    If will be interesting if he(they) really follow thru on this. I won’t be holding my breath, as it seems very few political figures these days, or any for that matter, really have the fortitude to make a stand on anything.

    Isn’t it time that someone stood up for the Constitution and what it stands for? Spare me all of the old standby comments. None of it holds any water with me.

  37. 11/6/2009Phil says:

    smrstrauss,

    Re: “And nobody with any sort of investigative (forensics) credentials has ever examined the physical documents, nor has anyone shown a receipt for the transaction that produced the alleged document.”

    No president has ever shown his birth certificate before. …

    Apparently you missed my posting on this fallacy.

    …Why should Obama have to show a receipt for the payment. Most of us lose our receipts.

    I think we’ve already quite well established that Mr. Obama is not legally obligated to reveal records unless he is instructed to by the appropriate authorities.

    Regarding a receipt, I think if the proverbial shoe was on the other foot, we would be seeing some “how convenient” charges lobbed around.

    The bottom line is that there would have to be a record at the Dept of Health that showed who requested what documentation; legally speaking, this bit of info would go a very long way in substantiating the questioned COLB.

    Now, as to the alleged lack of investigation. Obama’s files are closed to outsiders EXCEPT for members of government. Are you sure that the Hawaii police and other law enforcement officials have not looked into the file? With all the allegations, you would think that they have.

    False premise RE: “EXCEPT for members of government.” Show me the law that stipulates that any official — State, federal or local — can arbitrarily snoop through a private citizen’s files. I don’t think you can, because I’ve already asked about this many months ago, and the answer (once everyone got over the brouhaha of such a question) was, “there is none.”

    Besides, I’ve documented on my site where police officers in DeKalb County, GA arbitrarily attempted to look up Mr. Obama’s record, which set off a string of trip-wires that ended with their being reprimanded for it.

    As much as I’d like to know about Mr. Obama’s past, I’m certainly not going to support any sort of illegal snooping of his files.

    And they said nothing and did nothing? That would mean that there is nothing wrong with the document.

    Regarding your statement in this quote, the premise fails rationality. Are you really prepared to back up the notion that if nobody asks about the President’s background, that absolutely must mean there cannot be anything wrong with it (or right with it, whatever the case may be)?

    Moreover, the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the information on the COLB that was posted and shown to Politifact and FactCheck was the same information on the original birth certificate in the file and that this meant that Obama was born in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html).

    Excellent. Then kindly show me in the Constitution where specifically stipulates that State officials are the ones required to vet presidential candidate eligibility and that a birth certificate is to be the sole means of such determination.

    It is hard to explain why these two official would have lied about the documents in the files, particularly because they are in a Republican administration, and even more particularly because the files are open to others in government to look at, so if the police or anyone else in Hawaii or other government agencies looked into the file and found something different from what the two officials said, they would be in deep trouble.

    A conspiracy of State-based officials is presumed in your quote. I summarily reject it because such a conspiracy theory is based purely on speculation with zero basis in fact.

    And, the facts on the certification, that he was born in Hawaii in early August 1961, were confirmed by the notices in the newspapers that appeared about a week or ten days later. Research has been done to show that these notices were sent out by the government of Hawaii at the time, but only for births in Hawaii, not for births outside of Hawaii.

    I’m not sure about the last part of your comment there; I don’t know enough about laws to be able to tell you that what you say is true. However, regarding newspaper announcements, I could also post something that says Santa Clause was born on December 25, 1945 in the city of Atlanta. That doesn’t mean much to me, except for being exceptionally anecdotal in nature.

    Finally, there is this witness, who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii in 1961 (because she wrote about the unusual event of a woman named Stanley giving birth to her father, who also was named Stanley). (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

    Sorry — already long since debunked here.

    While the rest of your commentary addresses issues brought up by others, I’d like to specifically say something about the following:

    The National Review commented: “The fundamental fiction is that Obama has refused to release his “real” birth certificate. This is untrue. The document that Obama has made available is the document that Hawaiian authorities issue when they are asked for a birth certificate. There is no secondary document cloaked in darkness, only the state records that are used to generate birth certificates when they are requested.

    If one applies for a United States passport, the passport office will demand a birth certificate. It defines this as an official document bearing “your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” The Hawaiian birth certificate President Obama has produced—the document is formally known as a “certificate of live birth”—bears that information. It has been inspected by reporters, and several state officials have confirmed that the information in permanent state records is identical to that on the president’s birth certificate—which is precisely what one expects, of course, since the state records are used to generate those documents when they are requested. In other words, what President Obama has produced is the “real” birth certificate of myth and lore. The director of Hawaii’s health department and the registrar of records each has personally verified that the information on Obama’s birth certificate is identical to that in the state’s records, the so-called vault copy. “

    The problem with the above is the assumption that a COLB is good enough to establish eligibility for the purposes of the office of the President. As I’ve linked to the side of my site, even the State Department fully admits that there is no definitive definition for presidential eligibility for such situations.

    Therefore, assuming that the image of the document of the HI COLB is legitimate, I would have no problems in agreeing that it would be useful for passports and what not; the issue, however, is one of presidential eligibility.

    Lack of law cuts both ways.

    -Phil

  38. 11/6/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    siseduermapierda,
    Phil didn’t say anything about you asking him to stop, he’s saying he doesn’t want to stop because you’re funny.

    Nathan Deal walking down one mile to the White House is funny too. You have a vivid imagination.

    Do you think he should taxi it there ? Axelrod giving a COLB in his hand is hilarious. Have you seen Jerry Lewis-films ? That’s about it. Or in Airplane, when they knock down Hare Krishnas in the airport, that was so funny. Axelrod giving Deal the CLOB when he goes to the White House by taxi could be a very funny scene of a remake of the events. Jon Voigt could play Obama !

    sisedue, do you KNOW there ARE problems with the COLB ? There are people in the USA and the world, like me, who don’t believe a computerized Photo-shopped image is what we’re seeking because we want to see an old ruffled birth certificate.

    Just asking, because you seem to live in a rosy world where heads of staff step out onto the White House porch to give a long-wished-for document to any old Congressman who wants it.

    In Obama’s book he says he used his certificate as book-mark, because he loved it so much and it became all tattered because of that (Phil, has anyone checked up on that, and what he says about it in “his” book ?).

    Despite all your fun, sisedue, the story is on now about Nathan Deal and his sending the letter

    …or his son going down to the mail box to post it in his place

    …but if some congressmen are gathering to write it and Nathan signs first, second or third place on the letter is of rat’s ass’s importance.

    Capito ?

    ————————–

    They’re wrangling about Donofrio’s ideas but the general public is getting a strong message Obama MUST SHOW HIS BC.

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=4211#more-4211

    GOP Gov. Candidate in GA to ask Obama for BC

    “The fact that Tom Crawford uses the term native-born American citizen instead of natural born American citizen is indicative for the game that is being played here. Patriots please be not be fooled, Republican Party is just playing along with the usurper. We have to be awaken to the fact we are dealing with only one party, the Demopublican Party.

    Thanks John Charlton for pointing it out.

    However, it must be noted that Crawford used the same technique as Obama supporters have done for nearly 14 months; that is, he used a question which presupposes another set of laws, which are not applicable. He asked about “native-born” citizenship, which is a more encompassing category than “natural born” citizenship. Only the latter is sufficient, with the requirements of age and residency established in Article II, Section i, paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution, to lawfully hold the office of President of the United States.

    – David Crockett

    The Post & Email pubished

    TO JOIN WITH SEVERAL U.S. HOUSE MEMBERS TO RESOLVE ISSUE
    by John Charlton

    (Nov. 6, 2009) — Yesterday morning, in an online chat conducted by his campaign, Republican Gubernatorial candidate, Nathan Deal (R-GA) announced that he would seek a copy of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate from Obama himself.

    Tom Crawford of the Georgia Report asked:

    Do you believe that Barack Obama is a native-born American citizen who is eligible to serve as president? I am asking because your comments on this issue have been a little ambiguous. I would appreciate your clearing this up.

    To which Deal replied:

    I am joining several of my colleagues in the House in writing a letter to the President asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate so we can have an answer to this question.

    Evidently Deal has more interest in the facts that Federal Judge Clay D. Land of Columbus, Georgia, who dismissed with great rancor, the case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald, which was in part predicated on discovering the evidence of Obama’s birth narrative.

    Talking Points Memo is reporting that Deal’s campaign manager confirmed the authenticity of the conversation and the gubernatorial candidate’s firmness of intention:

    Deal’s campaign spokesman Harris Blackwood confirmed the authenticity of the chat to TPM, explaining the Congressman’s comment: “There have been so many constituents, a lot of people have asked him, they ask him on the campaign trail. Let’s just get an answer, that’s all we’re saying, not suggesting anything to the contrary.”

    However, it must be noted that Crawford used the same technique as Obama supporters have done for nearly 14 months; that is, he used a question which presupposes another set of laws, which are not applicable. He asked about “native-born” citizenship, which is a more encompassing category than “natural born” citizenship. Only the latter is sufficient, with the requirements of age and residency established in Article II, Section i, paragraph 5, of the U.S. Constitution, to lawfully hold the office of President of the United States.

    According to the only definition of “natural born citizen” endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court, Obama does not qualify, if his father was in fact Barrack Hussein Obama, Senior, a british subject at the time of Obama’s alleged birth, Aug. 4, 1961.

    Indeed, Attorney Leo Donofrio has for months publically speculated at his blog (naturalborncitizend.wordpress.com) that the emphasis upon the birth certificate has been fostered by the Media for the purpose of quashing doubts in Obama’s eligibility once he proves he was born in Hawaii; when the real issue in law is his father’s foreign nationality. It remains to be seen, whether U.S. Representative Deal wants merely the controversy to go away, or has genuine interest at last admitting that Obama birth story, as publicizes, does not qualify constitutionally for the office of President of the United States of America.”

  39. 11/6/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Stock says:
    November 6, 2009 at 11:31 am
    * “natural born citizen” “native born*

    Because Mr Deal is a lawyer and he knows they are the same thing. Native Born = Natural Born = Citizen at Birth. All three the same. All three used interchangeably by the courts. Saying they are not demonstrates ignorance of the law.

  40. 11/6/2009tminu says:

    Obama lied at his unauguration. He said his father was an “immigrant”, a total complete bald-faced lie (as per usual from the narcissist pathological liar usurper puppet).
    His father never immigrated, never hung around, never was a permanent resident, never wanted to be, never applied for citizenship…NADA. He beat feet back to Kenya and his other wives.

    But given obama’s lawyers stated that “embarrassing information” was contained in his real birth certificate, it is obvious, again, that he just LIED about his parentage altogether, more federal document fraud. Obama is a true-blue psycho fruitcake and has zero zip character, as is the case with criminals.

    He needs to be prosecuted for inciting genocide in Kenya with genocidal al Qaeda/Al bakari/Kadafi – backed “cousin” Odinga. There’s only a few thousand google hits and youtubes and kenyan press hits on this for the Obot -defenders of criminality and treason. He violated the Logan Act too, minor when you consider that Odinga incinerated women and children in a church, hired his thugs (Obama also counseled him) on hacking, burning, raping other victims.

  41. 11/6/2009NewEnglandPatriot says:

    I just called Congressman Deal’s local office and thanked his aide profusely for the congressman’s honor and integrity in composing the letter to Obama asking that he show his birth certificate. I broke down in tears as I did so. There has been another fatal shooting in Orlando just now with 6 confirmed dead, after yesterday’s Muslim terrorist attack.

    And all Hussein could do was interrupt his Department of the Interior party in DC and stumble over some lame, insincere, cold and callous words about what had happened. He went on for several minutes talking about his “gathering,” knowing full-well what had happened at Ft. Hood. After making his cowardly, phony remarks, he went back to lauding the people who “put the meeting together” and said he hoped for a great relationship with all of them! How profound, after our military has been attacked by a terrorist.

    I also called my congressman and senators and asked that they sign the letter also. I won’t hold my breath, but I asked them to stand up and be real statesmen. Obama is a national disgrace and needs to be removed from office and thrown in a jail cell.

  42. 11/6/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: ” No president has ever shown his birth certificate before. …

    Apparently you missed my posting on this fallacy.”

    I have looked at the site you mention. Notice that the words “purported” appear before John McCain’s birth certificate, and it says that the document “was released.” It does NOT say that the document pictured was McCain’s birth certificate or that it was released by McCain.

    In fact, there is good reason to believe that the document shown is NOT that of McCain and that in fact it was forged by someone who did not like McCain because it says that McCain was born in the hospital in Colon, which is outside the Canal Zone. McCain’s book said that he was born in the “family hospital” inside the Naval base.

    In any case, it was not posted by McCain.

    The only other one who seems to have a birth certificate in some kind of public file is George W. Bush, but there is no indication that the birth certificate was put into the files before Bush’s first election or even his second election.

    The public academic records are spotty. Some presidents cited show them, others do not. Many were obtained by the press but apparently not from the candidate.

    Interestingly, scholars who want to find out Teddy Roosevelt’s, FDR’s or JFK’s detailed academic records at Harvard will find that they are still sealed. Harvard considers that those things continue to be private.

    Some presidents released their grade point averages, but none that I know of released transcripts that showed what grades they got in all the courses.

    And, these releases are voluntary and take place before the election. No president has ever been forced to show his academic records, or his birth certificate for that matter, and none have shown such things after the election, except perhaps just before their second election.

    In contrast to this, Obama showed the official birth certificate of Hawaii and posted it, and the facts on it were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii.

  43. 11/6/2009tminu says:

    Sisebot:
    The following terms are all very different:
    Native born = Born in-country = jus soli only
    “Native” = Natural born Citizen = jus soli plus jus sanguinis both parents

    Nice try at conflating, but the definition of ‘Natural born Citizen’ goes back to Aristotle/Plato, Vatell, and to multiple SCOTUS precedents and the Congressional Record and the Constitution itself.

    “Native born” means jus soli, one of the covered permutations of CITIZEN requirements of soli or sanguinis covered by the 14th amendment. The only permutation not covered by the 14th amendment is jus soli jus sanguinis both parents, and that is the definition of natural born citizen.
    Further, and backing each-other up, Article II differentiates natural born citizen from mere citizen, and Minor holds that natural born citizen is nowhere defined by the 14th amendment as well. Minor also defines natural born citizen as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents. This is the highest most stringent standard of dual loyalty and allegiance to country, for the highest office. Congress/Senate can be mere Citizens but not POTUS.

    Sise, your notion that a mere citizen is eligible is retarded. Nobody believes your regurgitated thesis that if Achmedinejad’s kid is born in US territorial waters on a cruise (jus soli only) that he can one day be president. Nice try Sise, lame though.

  44. 11/6/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “But given obama’s lawyers stated that “embarrassing information” was contained in his real birth certificate.”

    Obama’s lawyers never said any such thing.

  45. 11/6/2009Roderick says:

    ‘bama is going to show his birth certificate. right now is trying to forge one with old printing press etc. and when it’s done it is going to say that father was a kenyan not a citizen of the USA.

  46. 11/6/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Sorry — already long since debunked here.”

    I went to the site you linked to, and it does not debunk at all. No it does NOT debunk.

    All that it says was that she was not a personal witness to the birth, which she never claimed, and neither did I.

    She said that she recalls being told of his birth at that time by a doctor, and remembering it because she wrote about it to her father named Stanley. I do not think that she lied when she said that her father was named Stanley, and I do not think she lied when she said that she wrote him about it. She said that Dr. West told her.

    IN WND’s words: “But Nelson told WND her knowledge of the birth came only from a physician, Dr. Rodney West, with whom she was dining, and the subject was brought up because of the mother’s novel name and the “musical” name of the son, Barack Hussein Obama. She told WND the conversation also was memorable because Obama’s mother’s name was Stanley, named after her father, and the son also was named after his father.”

    This is a believable recollection, and note that it substantiates the facts on the official birth certificate, which was confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)

  47. 11/6/2009siseduermapierda says:

    tminu says:
    November 6, 2009 at 3:08 pm
    *The following terms are all very different*

    Utter Nonsense. The Supreme Court has used the three interchangeably. Native Born = Natural Born = Citizen at Birth.
    Deal knows this, so does the interviewer.

    *The only permutation not covered by the 14th amendment *

    Really? Now you need “permutations” of citizenship outside the 14th amendment to disqualify Obama? Silliness.

  48. 11/6/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    tminu:

    Nice try at conflating, but the definition of ‘Natural born Citizen’ goes back to Aristotle/Plato, Vatell, and to multiple SCOTUS precedents and the Congressional Record and the Constitution itself.

    Uhh… wrong as usual.

    Aristotle and Plato never mentioned “natural born citizens” once. There is in fact no Greek equivalent to the phrase that can be found anywhere in their writing. They spoke of citizenship period, and in a way that directly contradicts the US Constitution.

    De Vattel never mentioned natural born citizenship either. The phrase never escaped his pen or lips, and was never inserted into an English translation of his book until 10 years after the Constitution was written. His actual concept of citizenship also directly contradicts the US Constitution.

    No SCOTUS precedent other than the infamous Dredd Scott decision which was directly overturned by the 14th Amendment provides any precedent in favor of your definition. Wong Kim Ark pretty much settles the issue in Obama’s favor.

    The Congressional record is at best ambivalent on the issue.

    And the Constitution itself helps you not at all.

  49. 11/6/2009siseduermapierda says:

    tminu says:
    November 6, 2009 at 2:52 pm
    *But given obama’s lawyers stated that “embarrassing information” was contained in his real birth certificate*

    Obama’s lawyers never stated that.

  50. 11/6/2009qwertyman says:

    In Obama’s book he says he used his certificate as book-mark, because he loved it so much and it became all tattered because of that

    Absolutely untrue. You’ve either been lied to or are lying yourself, or don’t care whether what you say is true or not.

    But given obama’s lawyers stated that “embarrassing information” was contained in his real birth certificate

    This too is something outright made up.

    Sorry — already long since debunked here.

    Phil, it’s always distressing when you too engage in blatant intellectual dishonesty. The very story you linked to in your post did not change anything about the original story. Nelson never claimed to have first hand knowledge. All she said was that she remembered in 1961 talking with a HI doctor about the birth of a boy named Barack Obama. Nothing in the post you link to changes that.

    That’s almost as dishonest as your post that claimed that nobody at Columbia could vouch for Obama’s presence there when a 2 minute google search would’ve revealed several sources for you.

  51. 11/6/2009Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    Phil, it’s always distressing when you too engage in blatant intellectual dishonesty. The very story you linked to in your post did not change anything about the original story. Nelson never claimed to have first hand knowledge. All she said was that she remembered in 1961 talking with a HI doctor about the birth of a boy named Barack Obama. Nothing in the post you link to changes that.

    That’s almost as dishonest as your post that claimed that nobody at Columbia could vouch for Obama’s presence there when a 2 minute google search would’ve revealed several sources for you.

    So you disagree with what I post. Your point?

    -Phil

  52. 11/6/2009Phil says:

    smrstrauss,

    Re: “Sorry — already long since debunked here.”

    You have your interpretation and I have mine.

    -Phil

  53. 11/6/2009qwertyman says:

    So you disagree with what I post. Your point?

    Except it’s not disagreement. The previous post said that Nelson had been told by a doctor about Obama’s birth. You said it was debunked. Your own story doesn’t debunk the previous post. Nelson doesn’t backtrack at all – she only says that she was only relating what she had been told by Dr. West.

    You were told by several people in the first few posts of the Columbia thread that there were several people who could vouch for him. You still kept your untruthful headline up for days, and even when you changed it, you refused to include the factual information, leaving a completely one-sided and untruthful picture of Obama’s tenure at Columbia.

    My point: I appreciate that you allow open debate on this site. While you “have your doubts,” you tend to project an heir of openness. I expect more out of you than some freeper shrieking about how Obama is the Antichrist because of some lottery result. So when your posts are less well backed up than usual, it’s disappointing. When you try to say that something was debunked when the source you point to does no such thing, it’s disappointing.

  54. 11/6/2009Black Lion says:

    I guess WND is at it again, which means they are making up stories to defame our President. Their new one was to claim that the Ft. Hood shooter was somehow connected to President Obama.

    The WND title stated that…

    Shooter advised Obama transition
    Fort Hood triggerman aided team on Homeland Security task force

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=115230

    However thanks to further investigation we find this to be incorrect…

    “WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan “advised Obama transition” in the headline of an article by Jerome Corsi highlighting his listing as a “participant” in a report for the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) at George Washington University’s Presidential Transition Task Force. However, Corsi himself acknowledges that there is no evidence that “the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition” — indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 “Task Force Event Participants” in the report’s appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a “member” of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP’d for several of the group’s open events.”

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200911060011

    I guess the bottom line is are there any depths that WND will not sink to in order to smear the President of the United States. Stuff like this beyond responsible journalism…

  55. 11/6/2009tminu says:

    Sise/Sam-bots (aka fraudsters)
    You just keep making things up, you are perfectly allowed to believe them yourselves.
    WE use SCOTUS precedent case citings.

    MINOR holds that the definition of natural born citizen is NOT in the 14th amendment.
    You have “bla bla bla”.
    WKA holds that the native born child of an alien is not a natural born citizen.
    You cite “cuz I said so”.
    The CONSTITUTION holds that CITIZEN is different from NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because of the use of the word “OR” and that Congress may be mere citizen, but not POTUS.
    You say “nanny nanny boo boo”.
    MINOR defines Natural Born Citizen as jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.

    The permutations for a 14th amendment CITIZEN exclude jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.

    Since the Constitution and Minor both hold that a Natural Born Citizen is not a statute Citizen (because the former is a birthright, the latter granted by laws)…
    and since a native-born (jus soli only) citizen is a 14th amendment citizen (granted by law)…
    and since a native-born child of an alien cannot be a natural born citizen (WKA0…
    and since a native-born child of an alien is a citizenship status granted by law and not birthright…

    everyone except fraudsters knows that Obama cannot and has never been NBC.

    Again, your STUPID MORONIC NOTION that native-born (jus soli only) can be president would mean that Achmedinejad’s baby born on a cruise ship which ventured in to US waters could someday be president of the USA. NO, POTUS must be a natural born citizen. Says so in Article II Section 1 Clause 5.

    POTUS has the HIGHEST INDIVISIBLE ALLEGIANCE REQUIREMENTS.

    Here’s a question for you mouth-breathers punching out your tripe on the taxpayer dole at DOJ for Holder: If the Constitution excludes mere citizens as president, just what do you morons think that excludes? Here’s a hint: The 14th amendment defines “Citizens” and NOT “Natural born citizens.”

    Idiots!

  56. 11/6/2009siseduermapierda says:

    tminu says:
    November 6, 2009 at 5:08 pm
    *MINOR holds that the definition of natural born citizen is NOT in the 14th amendment.*
    No it doesn’t. The decision in the Minor case held that “citizen” and “eligible voter” are not the same. In the decision, the fact that the Constitution does not define natural born citizen is acknowledged, but not addressed. Wong Kim Ark settled the discrepancy.
    *WKA holds that the native born child of an alien is not a natural born citizen.*
    No it doesn’t. It holds exactly the opposite.
    *The CONSTITUTION holds that CITIZEN is different from NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because of the use of the word “OR” and that Congress may be mere citizen, but not POTUS.*
    bingo! You got one right! The Constitution does indeed mention Citizens and Natural Born Citizens. Just like the 14th amendment says there are Two Types of Citizens: citizens from birth and naturalized. The citizens from birth ARE the natural born citizens. Two kinds of Citizen: Natural and Naturalized. So why are you insisting there’s a third type when you have so succinctly pointed out the Constitution only defines two types in two places?

  57. 11/6/2009Black Lion says:

    tminu says:
    November 6, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    Again, your STUPID MORONIC NOTION that native-born (jus soli only) can be president would mean that Achmedinejad’s baby born on a cruise ship which ventured in to US waters could someday be president of the USA. NO, POTUS must be a natural born citizen. Says so in Article II Section 1 Clause 5.

    POTUS has the HIGHEST INDIVISIBLE ALLEGIANCE REQUIREMENTS.

    Here’s a question for you mouth-breathers punching out your tripe on the taxpayer dole at DOJ for Holder: If the Constitution excludes mere citizens as president, just what do you morons think that excludes? Here’s a hint: The 14th amendment defines “Citizens” and NOT “Natural born citizens.”

    Idiots!
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Why do you persist on continuing on the same false “straw man” argument? A child of “Achmedinejad’s” could not be President because under the Wong Kim Ark ruling (which states emplicity that we use English Common law to decide citizenship) he would be the child of diplomats and such not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. So he would not qualify. However if he moved to the US as a regular citizen and not as the President of Iran, and married a US citizen or not, then yes his child could become President if it was born in the US. However the final decision maker are the voters, and they would probably not vote for him.

    Secondly the Constitution does not exclude “mere citizens” from being President. Since the Constitution was written in English Common law, natural born, native born, and citizen are all considerd the same thing. Besides the Constitution states that their are only 2 types of US Citizens, born in the US or naturalized. There is no third type. Unless you can show us that your argument falls apart.

    Thirdly your continual referencing of the Minor ruling shows that you have no arugment. Anyone familar with the law knows that WKA, which was decided after the Minor ruling is the precedent case law regarding citizenship. But continue with your fantasy about Minor or what the Constitution says and Obama will continue to be President. And that is the fact of the matter.

  58. 11/6/2009syc1959 says:

    Media and the Birthers Pt 1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01nj0rbWVA0

    Video exposing the mis-information, deciet, and lies of the people concerned about the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama. The media downplays the real facts, uses lies, deceit, distraction, and other tactics in smearing the issue that Barack Obama is not, can not, nor ever be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution.
    The Framers and Founding Fathers knew that Citizenship, Allegiance, and Jurisdiction were required for the President and Vice President.
    Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown. These facts are not in dispute.

    See in this video the distortion by the media.

    Joy Behar Lies about the Birthers
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUzXpeXoyl4

    Bill O’Reilly lies about the Birthers

  59. 11/6/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    qwertyman,

    In Obama’s book he says he used his certificate as book-mark, because he loved it so much and it became all tattered because of that

    ———————————-

    No read his book, he says he used his birth certificate as book-mmark so much that it got all tattered

    Oh ! Poor Antichrist doesn’t want to show us a tattered book-mark hahaha !

  60. 11/6/2009P. Barnett says:

    Phil if you are going to allow the liar smrstrauss to post lies all over your site then you should debunk them all…

    it’s not good to have all of this fraudulent info on your site from smrstrauss. he/she is probably one of the paid blogger commentors from the whitehouse or the doj. orgnanizing for amerika???

  61. 11/6/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    AnotherReader:

    Can’t wait to see the response to this one. After arguing ad nauseum for months that Congress is the only institution that could take this up, I’m sure were about to hear all kinds of new arguments about how he can’t do this for some reason.

    Can’t do what? Claim in a chat comment that he’s gonna sign a letter? He can pretend to sign all the imaginary letters he wants. He can ever write and sign real ones, though I wouldn’t count any domestic fowl. He can make all sorts of silly, impotent, meaningless gestures. But if he believed there was a real issue here, he would actually do something dispositive.

    He does not appear to have any intention of doing anything more than give lip service to a Birther in an on-line chat room.

    If will be interesting if he(they) really follow thru on this. I won’t be holding my breath, as it seems very few political figures these days, or any for that matter, really have the fortitude to make a stand on anything.

    See? Even you realize he is only blowing smoke up your ass.

  62. 11/6/2009qwertyman says:

    No read his book, he says he used his birth certificate as book-mmark so much that it got all tattered

    Oh ! Poor Antichrist doesn’t want to show us a tattered book-mark hahaha !

    Alright, I’ve got both of Obama’s books on my shelf, and I ran a Google Books search through both of them and found nothing.

    Either provide a page number or a direct quote of this or admit that this claim is false.

  63. 11/6/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Geir:

    No read his book, he says he used his birth certificate as book-mmark so much that it got all tattered

    That’s a lie.

    Nothing like that is anywhere in any of his books.

  64. 11/6/2009misanthropicus says:

    … and more and more forgotten and new pieces of puzzle appear, and more and more Obama’s deep antipathy for America and the Western world gets clearer contours – the usurper’s anguishes.

    Obama is fully aware that he is an illegitimate American president, and of the fact that he might be toppled anytime – yes, the outsider, the allogen adventurer, like Stalin or Hitler using the nations they found a nest in only to further their ambition –
    And, boy, Hitler didn’t really like the Germans, and Stalin wasn’t fond of Russians, either – and how much does Obama dread those who might march him out from the office!
    And what a great opportunity Obama found again to show how much his hatred for America and Europe is by refusing to travel to Berlin for the Wall’s fall!
    It is understandable that Putin sees that event as “the greates geo-political catastrophe of the 20th. century” – but sinister it is to have the acting president of the US joining Putin in that regard.

    See bellow:

    CNN: “Obama takes heat for skipping Berlin Wall anniversary –
    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is taking aim at President Obama’s decision not to travel to Germany next week to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the latest in a string of conservatives to criticize Obama’s decision to skip the ceremony on November 9.
    Some consider President Obama’s refusal to attend the commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany next week an outrage, I consider it a tragedy.” Gingrich wrote in an op-ed published Friday in The Washington Examiner.

    To commemorate, after all, is to remember. And Americans need to remember, not just that the Wall fell, but why it fell,” Gingrich added. “We need to remember that the Berlin Wall was the symbol of more than just the Cold War, more than just the division of Europe.”

    More @ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

  65. 11/6/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    what quote did you run qwerty ?

  66. 11/6/2009elspeth says:

    Full disclosure.

  67. 11/6/2009syc1959 says:

    smrstrauss is a dis-information blogger.

    One of his posts is the following- ‘He was born on Aug. 4, and the announcement of his birth was sent out to the newspapers of Hawaii’-of which he has failed to respond. The Hawaiian newspaper announcements are not legal documents and only state a birth took place, not to where or when. As for the residence address in the announcement, it has been proven to be a false address as they never resided at that address.

    Even Chris ‘TINGLES’ Matthews had to admitt that the newspaper listings are not legal as to establishing Obama’s birth.
    He has posted to my site numerous times, but I will not acknowledge his rantings.

    Black Lion,
    WND does not have to make up stories to defame Barry. He’s doing a great job himself. His inaction regarding Afghanistan is a copy cat of his hero Jimmy Carter and his inability to protect the citizens who were taken hostage by the Iranians in 1979.
    With the continuing lies and blame game, people are waking up to the reality of what a failure Barry Obama Dunham Soetoro really is.
    Unemployment over 10%, with the real effective unemployment over 20%. How’s that hope and change working for ya?

  68. 11/6/2009syc1959 says:

    Here is another post that smrstrauss has posted.

    smrstrauss@xxx.com
    173.76.33.x Submitted on 2009/09/21 at 7:29pm
    Natural Born Citizen only means born in the USA. The meaning of Natural Born was used at the time of the Revolution by the colonies and after it by the early states to simply mean someone who was born in the colony or the state regardless of the number of parents who were citizens.

    Since Natural Born is the same thing as Ohio-born or Georgia-born, a geographic term, it cannot be changed by a foreign country’s law. The fact that someone was born in the USA cannot be taken away by Mexico claiming that they were a citizen of Mexico. So, the issue is simply the original meaning of Natural Born, which can be seen by numerous quotes and from Blackstone to mean “born in the country.”

    As the Wall Street Journal put it: “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

    HERE IS MY REPLY****
    Again, I will bust his bubble!
    Note, that he equates ‘Natural Born” with being born in the US. As with Joy Behar on my video
    Joy Behar Lies about the Birthers
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUzXpeXoyl4

    he clearly indicates the same that an anchor baby can be President.
    However even with Title 8 of the US Code, he leaves out the other part of the equation, having Jurisdiction.
    The 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Notice not only born here but being under the Jurisdiction.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code
    Anyone born inside the United States There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    Again; I will quote: Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown. These facts are not in dispute.

  69. 11/6/2009sue says:

    http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/summaries/deal.php
    “Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA)
    Representative Nathan Deal (R-GA) is a nine-term member of Congress, representing Georgia’s 9th congressional district. His ethics violations stem from his abuse of his position for his personal financial benefit.”

  70. 11/6/2009bob strauss says:

    sync 1959,I believe I read it at Repubx those so called birth announcements were forgeries. The story said in 1961 those announcements would have been printed using the Linotype system of printing. When Linotype is set up to form a page to print, all of the letters are on blocks, stacking the blocks together forms a line of print. All letters end up in a straight line from top to bottom. If you look at the announcements the print doesn’t line up at all. A sure sign they were not printed with the technology of the day.

    The forged birth announcements were cleverly added to corroborate the forged “Obama birth certificate”. The announcements originally showed up at the “Texas Darling” site, according to jbjd, and of course were added as “proof” by Factcheck.org to bolster their declaration that Obama’s certificate is real, and “just look at these birth announcements, there’s all the proof you need that Obama was born in Hawaii” Factcheck announced.

  71. 11/6/2009MotherRedDog says:

    Phil,

    I think (not sure), that the tattered birth certificate story was something O added to his reading of the book. I can’t verify cause I don’t have it, only the book. It seems like that’s how that story got started.

    Pam

  72. 11/6/2009Phil says:

    qwertyman,

    My point: I appreciate that you allow open debate on this site. While you “have your doubts,” you tend to project an heir of openness. I expect more out of you than some freeper shrieking about how Obama is the Antichrist because of some lottery result. So when your posts are less well backed up than usual, it’s disappointing. When you try to say that something was debunked when the source you point to does no such thing, it’s disappointing.

    I’ve grown rather weary of figuring out whether or not some opposition commenters are truly being serious about their critiques of my postings or simply being malicious in nature, so forgive me for not being more forthcoming with you. I appreciate the critiques and will continue to treat them with a grain of salt for the time being.

    -Phil

  73. 11/6/2009Phil says:

    P. Barnett,

    Phil if you are going to allow the liar smrstrauss to post lies all over your site then you should debunk them all…

    it’s not good to have all of this fraudulent info on your site from smrstrauss. he/she is probably one of the paid blogger commentors from the whitehouse or the doj. orgnanizing for amerika???

    Frankly, that’s not the way I work. I literally would not have a day-time job if I spent all of my time responding to every so obviously (to us) wrong interpretation or misrepresentation of facts found on this site or any other eligibility-related site or forum.

    Instead, for me, I tend to focus either on questions directed specifically to me or on very specific issues to which I think I can respond.

    However, feel free to disagree at will. It’s all a group effort anyway, and some opposition commenters will simply continue to refuse to face the truth; no amount of rhetorical bloviation will ever convince them otherwise.

    -Phil

  74. 11/6/2009syc1959 says:

    bob;
    The birth announcements are ‘prima facie’ evidence that a birth took place, not to where or when. Just like the forged ‘COLB’ there is no hospital, doctor, or witness to back it up. Team Obama attempted to put a doctor to the birth, but this was debunked in a matter of hours. I was one that debunked the Dr Rodney West story.
    Back during this time the 50’s and 60’s it was standard intelligence services to place these type of announcements for passing information. I am not saying this happened, but anyone could have called in a birth and have it listed. Families kept these newspaper clippings in keepsake albums. The problem with this it that newspapers could and often changed the layout and information that was in the announcements. Some newspapers would have individual listings for the hospitals by date and not include such things as the parents residence [address].
    In this case, Barack Obama Sr was listed as residing at 625 11th Ave, and Stanley Ann was 6085 Kalanianaole Highway. But this address has been investigated and according to an affidavit from private investigator Jorge Baro, the neighbor who has lived at 6075 Kalanianaole Highway since before Obama was born had no recollection of the family next door having a black child born to a white mother.

    It would have also been possible for the US Consulate to transmit a telegram to the authorities in Hawaii concerning a birth took place in Kenya to arrange paperwork for the new born’s travel, and this also being transmitted to the newspapers.

    So again, the newspaper announcements do not support anything, other then a birth took place. Not to where or when.

    bob strauss says:

    sync 1959,I believe I read it at Repubx those so called birth announcements were forgeries.

  75. 11/6/2009No Obama says:

    New figure goes above 1.7 million to just one of Obama’s law firms.
    No telling what it has cost the taxpayer for gov. attys and court costs. Weren’t there 4 US Attys involved in the last CA case? 1.3 mil is like saying that unemployment is at 9.8% unless you count those who have rehired into part time, have run out of benefits or anyone who is self employed an had no benefits in the first place! Count all those and it could be over 25% or more.If Obama gets his way it will be 50%! Obamacare estimated as high as 5.5 million jobs at risk. cap and trade will be just as bad or worse. Amnisty is already up, see Lou Dobbs rant CNN…..

    Up coming UN Treaty to give UN 2% GDP every year! Their board can raise it and enforce it as they see fit! All in the name of non existent, Man made Global Warming, excuse me that is, The Evil US Made Global Warming. All of our cars and industry … even our air conditioning is evil and must be abolished! Must see; came across this the other day. All this talk about sustainability is really no growth or backward growth for the US, as the UN would have it, along with the US supporters of Obama and the UN. Thanks AL GORE another lying communist in hiding, spouting off about the evil US!
    http://www.rangemagazine.com/specialreports/05-fall-taking-liberty.pdf The Re-Wilding of American, goal of the econuts, most of the US will be restored to nature, they will cram us all in the cities with no A/C. A fate worse than death! No oil – no cars, no private land ownership, No food-no farm land.. they cut off water to a 400 mile CA farming valley, they will do anything to bring us down in the name of saving the eco system, kill jobs and the population as a result.
    With the .7% Obama has already promised them that is nearly 3trillion a year folks. This is no bull, do your own research and open your eyes! All about UN Agenda 21. Some have stated these bills they are not reading are straight out of this UN Agenda the panic to bring in One World Gov from UN. Earth melting is just the lie thy will use, are using, to panic us into buying it. Who can say no to saving the earth? Sorry for the rant just think everyone needs to see this. Also see the movie “Not Evil, Just Wrong” released a couple of weeks ago. The movie industry would not do it. Gov watch dogs did it, as counter to Gore’s movie of fabricated lies. They also want to see the population go to 1 billion from 6.5 million. All of Obama’s czars are population control advocates, as well! Ban DDT, don’t kill the mosquitoes, let Malaria kill off millions every year? No real proof DDT did more harm than good.
    Old EPA rule, they control navigable waters, now they, Obama, want to control All Water in the US. That means your pond out back for your cows or ducks or whatever.
    Co2 is a problem but DOT cuts thousands of trees along the interstate in one 10 mile stretch outside of town? Why?

    You can bet there is more court time to come! Until Obama discloses, or a court hears it, instead of telling us to jump in the river!YOU have no right to ask if the president is a NBC or not, even though the long outdated, stupid, constitution requires it be so.( Obama’s and friends opinion, not mine!)

  76. 11/7/2009brygenon says:

    Phil wrote:

    I’d like to see the receipt of the transaction that procured Mr. Obama’s HI COLB and I would like to see someone with credentialed forensic background to actually inspect the physical document.

    That’s how fringe conspiracy theories work. They ignore all the actual evidence and obsess over unanswered trivia and anything they have not seen in exactly the form they demand.

    Here’s Obama’s birth certificate: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

    A Hawaiian official explains that, contrary to the reporting of eligibility deniers, ‘The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii‘. Speaking specifically of Obama’s certification, as posted on-line, she said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

    Here’s an official News Release from Hawaii’s Department of Health stating that they have “Obama’s original birth certificate on record”: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf After conspiracy theorists fixated on how it does not literally say that he was born in Hawaii, the Director issued a second release clearing that up:

    I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i“. http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

    And then I would like an official opinion regarding Mr. Obama’s having been born a UK citizen try to fit that into the constitutional eligibility clause.

    The “official” stuff is done. Barack Obama is not only eligible to be President of the United States, he is President of the United States. If you want to know who qualifies as a “natural born citizen” under U.S. Law:

    Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

    You can also look it up (free on-line) in: http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ or read Yale and Harvard Professor Akhil Amar’s explanation at http://slate.com/id/2183588/ .

  77. 11/7/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE bob strauss:
    [...] those so called birth announcements were forgeries. The story said in 1961 those announcements would have been printed using the Linotype system of printing. When Linotype is set up to form a page to print, all of the letters are on blocks, stacking the blocks together forms a line of print. All letters end up in a straight line from top to bottom. If you look at the announcements the print doesn’t line up at all. [...]

    Ditto, bob – and this besides the sheer ridiculousness of that “puzzle piece” that the Honolulu Registrar ad was.
    It was for weeks and weeks pushed by Daily Kos, BUT ONLY AS A TINY PIECE OF PAPER, without other page elements around that would allow contextualization, page header, date, place on page vartically/ horizontally.

    And even, EVEN, EVEN if that ad were authentic, it doesn’t really matter, because:
    1) a birth ad in a paper is not probatory evidence,
    2) then it was confirmed that the Registrar at that time used to recieve by runner, once a week, a list of births from the HD that had no mention of anything that would confirm someone’s citizenship –

    We need to see the paper which is at the bottom of this affair – not papers confirming that a paper confirms that another paper confirms…. (see last week’s debate in which Siserda got in some phenomenal contortions trying to argue that an Index Data clip about Obama confirms that Obama has fulfilled the eligibility requirements as natural born citizen) –

    Best regards -

  78. 11/7/2009brygenon says:

    Phil thinks,

    FactCheck and Politifact (corrected), they are blogs on the Internet. There’s nothing especially special about them, save a few folks who have advanced degrees behind their names outside the purview of forensic analysis.

    FactCheck is run by the University of Pennsylvania, which U.S. News and World Reports ranks (tied for) 4’th among the nation’s universities. Politifact won the 2008 Pulitzer prize for national reporting.

    http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings

    http://www.google.com/search?as_q=politifact+Pulitzer

  79. 11/7/2009tminu says:

    Some idiot wrote: “the Constitution does not exclude “mere citizens” from being President. Since the Constitution was written in English Common law, natural born, native born, and citizen are all considerd the same thing.”

    What lollipop world did you extract that out of?

    That’s insane since the Constitution uses the word “OR” between “natural born citizen” and “citizen”, they are thus NOT the same thing.
    The 14th amendment defines ONLY citizens, not natural born citizens, and this is affirmed in Minor’s holding which has NEVER been overturned. It’s a common bot obfuscation to use the fact that women’s voting rights superceded Minor’s core holding thus infer that means all of Minor’s holdings were overturned, when in fact only that part of Minor referring to women’s voting rights was later changed.

    Dumbots think that WKA is their friend, when in fact it’s their worst nightmare. WKA does not alter Minor because there is no conflict.

    WKA holds that the native born child of an alien is not a natural born citizen. That is in no way a conflict with the holding of Minor that the definition of Natural Born Citizen is not in the 14th and that it is jus soli jus sanguinis both parents. All WKA holds is that a natural born citizen (born of Citizens in-country) has no more rights as a citizen, as the citizen child of an alien (born in-country of an alien). (Later we saw bots desperately trying to call being POTUS a “right” when it’s clearly not.)

    In fact with Wong Kim Ark we see that both children are “born citizens” and only ONE, the one born in-country of Citizens, is a natural born citizen, and the other one is a citizen.

    So much for your STOOPID argument that WKA somehow saves the day, in fact it slam. dunks. the point that the child of an alien, though a “born citizen” CANNOT be a natural born citizen.

    THAR YA GO: WKA SHOWS BOTH KIDDIES ARE BORN-CITIZENS AND ONLY ONE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    Give it up fraudsters, NBC has been codified long before you were born. And if you were born of two US citizen parents in-country, you too can call yourselves a natural born citizen.

    Wong Kim Ark says if you were born of an alien, even in-country, you cannot be a natural born citizen.
    Wong Kim Ark holds that even if you were a “BORN-CITIZEN” born of an alien, you’re STILL not a natural born citizen.

    So, if you want to keep emphasizing that WKA holds more weight than Minor (which it doesn’t it just adds to the obvious points of Minor)… it just buries your stupid made-up deliberately obfuscating b.s. that much deeper. You guys are meritless, precedent-less, ridiculous, and pathetic… and as your plastic jesus narcissistic pathological liar fraud usurper commie puppet tanks in the ratings as he systematically destroys this country from soup to nuts more and more people who hitched their wagon to what they thought was a star will bail like he has the plague. They already are.

    pffft, were you sitting around puffing your bongs when you drummed up that silly “born citizen” = “natural born citizen” tripe?
    Remember that, WKA, both “born citizens” only one a “natural born citizen”.

    lol

  80. 11/7/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    FactCheck is run by the University of Pennsylvania, which U.S. News and World Reports ranks (tied for) 4′th among the nation’s universities. Politifact won the 2008 Pulitzer prize for national reporting.

    http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings

    http://www.google.com/search?as_q=politifact+Pulitzer

    Blinky, blinky, flashy, flashy. Sorry, but I don’t get as star-struck by things that mean absolutely squat with respect to determining the authenticity of a document as I might have in the past (“OOOOoooo! They have fancy degrees! Well, that must mean something, then!”).

    As I’ve said before, I think it’s great that the folks that run the blog site have advanced degrees. However, their degrees don’t delve into forensic analysis, which was my point all along.

    Oh, wait a minute — this is “brygenon” with whom I’m commenting. That means my response must automagically be handicapped proportionally to the likelihood that it’ll be taken seriously by “him;” I’d likely die of asphyxiation if I were to hold my breath on there being a truly positive outcome to this thread.

    -Phil

  81. 11/7/2009misanthropicus says:

    … an addition to the previous, “Psychological Make-up Of An Usurper” (mix of fear and hatred for those over whom he happens to reign by fraudulence):

    [...] Michael Reagan [...] says President Barack Obama’s decision not to attend the Berlin Wall anniversary ceremonies in Berlin is “completely consistent with Barack Obama, how he uplifts the enemies of freedom and pushes those who yearn to be free away as if there’s something terribly wrong with us.” [..]

    more @: http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/reagan_berlin_wall/2009/11/06/282960.html

  82. 11/7/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    MotherRedDog, the debunking of the story as you say is a process you do internally.

    You object to a point of view and review it internally , yourself, with no contradictory examining, and come up with a verdict that “It’s been debunked.”

    When you can prove the numbers 666 777 9 of the Antichrist were not drawn for Obama, then come back and give us an update. Thanks.

  83. 11/7/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    what quote did you run qwerty ?
    Unless u have the exact quote i think you’ll not manage to find it.
    Only someone who’s read the book can find it.

  84. 11/7/2009ctd says:

    Awesome! Thank you Rep. Deal for being my Congressman and for showing interest in this very simple, yet very important, question.

    Ignore all the disparaging “you’re a birther” remarks, ignore the fringe nuts on both sides, ignore all the distractions of circumstantial evidence (most of which DOES show something is wrong with the BC), and focus on the simple central question: is the Obama eligible to be POTUS? let’s see the original long-form birth certificate. McCain was asked the same question (and for good reason), and he immediately complied.

    It’s not hard, Barack. Just show Congress the original long-form birth certificate and we’ll shut up.

  85. 11/7/2009elspeth says:

    Phil,

    Your update says:

    Uh, there’s just one teensy-weensy problem with your comment, Mr. Fry: The great State of Hawaii never said a word about whether or not Mr. Obama is eligible to be President. They only ever claimed that he’s a natural born citizen

    I thought they said “natural-born American citizen” meaning he was born on U.S. soil via natural birth, not cesarian.

    Full disclosure.

  86. 11/7/2009DCA says:

    The congressman is obviously uninformed.

    “What I have seen — and I think it is the only thing that has been put out — is a certification of live birth, and it just does not contain the type of information that most state birth certificates would contain,” Deal said. “It obviously does not have the signature of a doctor. Most birth certificates or even certificates of live birth have those kinds of verifications.”

    The congressman is completely wrong like usual. I can prove it instantly. I have my son’s CA ‘birth certificate’ issued in 1993 – No doctor name, no hospital. It has the date, parents name, and the city – that is it. We have used it for everything including his US Passport. Not a single birther assertin about COLBs has proven true in 18 months.

    This guy will never write a letter to the Whitehouse. This is not news.

  87. 11/7/2009tminu says:

    As an example of assailable divided allegiance that one would never want in high office; Hasan the Fort Hood ‘Allahu Akbar’ slayer, the one Obama says not to prejudge, was a “born-citizen” born of an alien (Palestinians) in Virginia, therefore per US v Wong Kim Ark Hasan was not a natural born citizen, which would have required him to have two US citizen parents and to be born on US soil.

    I see no need for surprise over Obama’s “frightful insensitivity” widely reported in the press regarding Hasan’s murders, he was hard pressed to read a script. When are people going to realize, Obama does what he does, because that is what he WANTS? He mismanages Afghanistan so more soldiers die, because that’s what he wants. He trashes the US Economy, loots its treasures, bankrupts its future, destroys US currency, and caters to continual job-losses and socialist takeover of big business, because that is what he WANTS. He focuses on the largest power and life/death control grab, aka his Embalmacare bill, despite the will of the people he loathes, because that is what he wants.

    Obama needs to be prosecuted for helping to incite genocide with al Qaeda/al Bakari/Khadaffi-backed Odinga. Obama needs to be prosecuted for interfering in Honduras forcing them to re-install the Chavez/Ortega unconstitutional coke drug brick (by the jetloads) mule Zelaya. Obama looks like the world’s biggest drug pusher!

    Obama admits he was born British. US v Wong Kim Ark holds that of two born-citizens, only the one born of US citizen parents is a natural born citizen, the one born of an alien is not. Obama is an installed usurper.

  88. 11/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    tminu says:
    November 7, 2009 at 9:42 am
    *Hasan….. therefore per US v Wong Kim Ark Hasan was not a natural born citizen*

    Do you really think by stating over and over and over exactly the opposite of the decision in Wong Kim Ark you’re going to make it come true?

    The True Opinion in Wong Kim Ark held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

    Wong, Hasan, Obama – all natural born citizens. You have never really read the Wong decision have you tminsu? If you had, you would know the Court used the terms natural born, native born and citizen at birth interchangeably. By the way, you made a wrong assumption that Hasan’s parents were not citizens. News stories say Hasan’s paternal grandfather came to the US in the 1940s. His father was born here.
    http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=9012970
    It is his mother who came from Palestine in the late 1960s.

  89. 11/7/2009qwertyman says:

    what quote did you run qwerty ?

    All variations of birth certificate.

    Page number, or admit that what you’re saying is untrue.

    Heck, a google search for “Obama birth certificate tattered” shows this very page as the fourth response. I’m guessing this is something you either made up or were told and haven’t bothered to check yourself.

  90. 11/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Sorry, Hasan’s father came here as a teenager, his mother as a young girl. It would appear he was the child of two citizen parents. So much for your immigrant, foreign influences theories.

    “HASAN , Malik Awadallah, 52, passed away Thursday, April 16, 1998, at his home in Vinton. He was born in Palestine on August 7, 1946, and emigrated to the United States at age 16, spending most of his life in Virginia. ”

    “HASAN , Hanan Ismail, (Nora), 49, passed away Wednesday, May 30, 2001, surrounded by her loved ones. She was born in Palestine January 15, 1952 and came to the United States as a young girl. ”
    http://homelandsecurityus.com/?p=3212
    I’ll tell you what I’m more interested in, that the news media hasn’t made a connection yet. Nadil Hasan was born in 1970, graduated from William Fleming HS in 1988, but didn’t graduate from VT until 1995. The stories that he joined the Army right out of high school don’t make sense. Unless he was enlisted and the Army paid for not only his medical education, but his undergrad too. I would like to see someone reconcile this gap.

  91. 11/7/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “The Hawaiian newspaper announcements are not legal documents and only state a birth took place, not to where or when. As for the residence address in the announcement, it has been proven to be a false address as they never resided at that address.”

    The Hawaiian newspaper announcements are not legal documents, but they confirm the information in the birth certificate. They were only sent out by the Hawaii government for births in Hawaii, and they appeared in the newspapers about ten days after Obama was born, indicating that there could not have been a significant delay in the registration. Thus it would be impossible to have a certificate of Hawaiian birth or a delayed certificate in the file. The only kind of a birth certificate that did not require delay was an ordinary birth certificate from a Hospital, and that is confirmed by the witness who recalls being told of his birth.

    As for not residing at that address. They put down that address as their legal address at the time of birth and then they got their own apartment later.

  92. 11/7/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    qwerty, the only way to resolve this is to ask the people here if anyone has the quote about the tattered birth certificate. Anyone who has read Obama’s book saying “I liked my birth certificate so much I kept it with him at all times and even used as a book mark in all the books I was reading to such a point that it bacame all tattered and worn.”

    Hahaha ! Moron ! can’t you see how I’m taking you for a ride ?

    The quote is true but who gives a rat’s ass ?

    Normal-intelligence people just want to see the damned thing and give a damn about the side-stories and episodes of said certificate.

    I think I’ll pass on your posts qwerty, because when Deal sends his mail to Obama asking for the certificate, who will give a thought anymore as to what you say and think ?

  93. 11/7/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    The hounds are loose because Nathan Deal is 17 years in Congress and a ninth-term legislator.

    OH UUUH !

    Bad trouble in perspective and the end-game possible for Obama.

    Does Obama gauge the depth he could face ?

    Jail, trial and the block.

    If not he better now.

    It’s now.

  94. 11/7/2009syc1959 says:

    brygenon LIES again:
    A Hawaiian official explains that, contrary to the reporting of eligibility deniers, ‘The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii‘. Speaking specifically of Obama’s certification, as posted on-line, she said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”

    ****NOW see the truth.
    ACTUAL reply from the State of Hawaii -stating that the long form can be requested.
    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/hawaiireply3crop.jpg

    Another one of brygenon LIES;

    Here’s an official News Release from Hawaii’s Department of Health stating that they have “Obama’s original birth certificate on record”: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf After conspiracy theorists fixated on how it does not literally say that he was born in Hawaii, the Director issued a second release clearing that up:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i“. http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

    As with people that are blinded by the facts, and I will quote here again. “IT IT NOT WHERE HE [OBAMA] WAS BORN. HE COULD HAVE BEEN BORN IN THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT, THE OVAL OFFICE, A MANGER. He fails the United States Constitutional requirement of being a ‘Natural Born Citizen’.

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.

    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown. These facts are not in dispute.

  95. 11/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 7, 2009 at 11:06 am
    * “IT IT NOT WHERE HE [OBAMA] WAS BORN. HE COULD HAVE BEEN BORN IN THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT, THE OVAL OFFICE, A MANGER. He fails the United States Constitutional requirement of being a ‘Natural Born Citizen’. *

    Oh baloney. Wong Kim Ark says he is. So does the entire Congress, the Electoral College and on and on and on. The 1-1/2 year old Leo-invented two citizen parent theory is not the law. It’s a theory from a sometimes professional poker player. If it were true you’d have constitutional scholars coming out of the woodwork to challenge Obama. But not a peep. Why’s that Steve? Even the most respected conservative constitutional scholar of them all, Ted Olson, says Obama is NBC. You are promoting a losing argument.

  96. 11/7/2009syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda I hate to break the news to you, but I have been saying the following LONG before Leo.

    Quote; Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown.

    The 14th Amendment and Title 8 state that NOT only being born in country, but that you have to have the Jurisdiction.

    You attempt to solve a math problem with only half the equation, it does not work.

    Citizenship + Jurisdiction + Allegiance = Natural Born Citizen

    Even SR511 that allowed McCain, was flawed as it clearly stated the requirements for NBC status.

    Senate Resolutions is a resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something which they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution.

    Again, I will note: being protected by a constitution.
    What Constitution are they refering to that protects the NBC requirement.

    “””Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it…”””

    Note BORN TO TWO (2) US CITIZEN Parents, but OUTSIDE the Country.
    Which we know McCain was NOT born in a US Military hospital on base, as there WAS no hospital on base.

    Please state who are Barack Obama TWO (2) US Citizen parents?

    Now, lets take a look at John Bingham, ‘author’ of the 14th Amendment of which you attempt to use a flawed decision of KWA.

    I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen -Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives ((Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291, March 9, 1866 ) http://grou.ps/zapem/blogs/3787

    Note: that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.

    Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British subject [CITIZEN] at birth, was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 [JURISDICTION] and followed the condition of his father, a foreign national from Kenya [ALLEGIANCE] to the British Crown.

    I believe Obama fails, based on John Bingham

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
    -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_Z…

    Now Justice Waite stated;
    it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

    Again born in country to parents who are citizens

    Please state the US Parent(s) of Barack Obama, both of them.
    Oh, that’s right his father was a foreign national, or ‘as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.’

    “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied.
    “That is mine, too,” said Leahy
    -Homeland Security SecretaryMichael Chertoff and Senator Patrick Leahy, (April 03, 2008) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/041008c.html

    Again, please provide the names of both the United States citizen Parent(s) of Barack Obama.

    that’s right, his father was a foreign national. He was from a foreign country.

    Since you like to use KWA, here is another
    “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.”
    -Justice Grey, in US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=1…

    Where is this other resort that the Supreme Court and other cases used to determine.

    E. Vattel, the Law of Nations.

    212. Citizens and natives.
    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

    It’s hard for Obama supporters to face facts.

  97. 11/7/2009Pat Smith says:

    Obama’s speech to the Nation on the Fort Hood tragety is a prime example of why Obama is NOT a Leader.

    Obama’s first 2 plus minutes in his opening remarks are talking about the Tribal Nation Conference. Only after that does he talk about Fort Hood.

    On Friday, Obama asks “us” to “not jump to any conclusions”. Golly, gee…what are we missing? A Muslim extremist kills and wounds a large number of people?

    For Sue and those other OBots who shout “Prove it…prove it”…here is the Link. http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/A-Disconnected-President.html I cannot get the YouTube of the Jerk’s speech to transfer…YouTube-FortHoodTragety-BarackObamaGivesOddShoutOut

  98. 11/7/2009misanthropicus says:

    “[g]overnment officials in Hawaii have verified that the document is official.” Oh, really? That’s news to those of us who have been following this issue from the get-go. Where, exactly, did the Hawaiian officials actually claim that the alleged document that the blog FactCheck.org allegedly has on hand is exactly the same document that originated from the Department of Hawaii? In other words, where’s the record of the transaction? ”

    Phil, I have to remind you that dr. Fukino was once categorically regarding this: “It kind of looks like mine…”

    Looks like in the times announced by “Everything depends on what do you mean by IS”, then confirmed by “It wasn’t rape-rape!” Fukino’s statement has the gravitation’s verity.

  99. 11/7/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE Pat Smith:

    1) [...] Only after that does he talk about Fort Hood. [...]
    * Surprised? Wasn’t his electoral slogan “God damn America!”?
    For Obama, everything bad that happens to this nation is fully deserved – wasn’t his speech in Cairo focused on America’s rottenness and on the Muslim world grandeur?

    2) [...] On Friday, Obama asks “us” to “not jump to any conclusions”. [...]
    * another variation of the “police acted stupidly” –

    We’re the ones who we’ve been waiting for – heh, and quite an act you are!

  100. 11/7/2009Black Lion says:

    tminu says:
    November 7, 2009 at 12:42 am
    Some idiot wrote: “the Constitution does not exclude “mere citizens” from being President. Since the Constitution was written in English Common law, natural born, native born, and citizen are all considerd the same thing.”

    What lollipop world did you extract that out of?

    That’s insane since the Constitution uses the word “OR” between “natural born citizen” and “citizen”, they are thus NOT the same thing.
    The 14th amendment defines ONLY citizens, not natural born citizens, and this is affirmed in Minor’s holding which has NEVER been overturned. It’s a common bot obfuscation to use the fact that women’s voting rights superceded Minor’s core holding thus infer that means all of Minor’s holdings were overturned, when in fact only that part of Minor referring to women’s voting rights was later changed.

    Dumbots think that WKA is their friend, when in fact it’s their worst nightmare. WKA does not alter Minor because there is no conflict.

    WKA holds that the native born child of an alien is not a natural born citizen. That is in no way a conflict with the holding of Minor that the definition of Natural Born Citizen is not in the 14th and that it is jus soli jus sanguinis both parents. All WKA holds is that a natural born citizen (born of Citizens in-country) has no more rights as a citizen, as the citizen child of an alien (born in-country of an alien). (Later we saw bots desperately trying to call being POTUS a “right” when it’s clearly not.)

    In fact with Wong Kim Ark we see that both children are “born citizens” and only ONE, the one born in-country of Citizens, is a natural born citizen, and the other one is a citizen.

    So much for your STOOPID argument that WKA somehow saves the day, in fact it slam. dunks. the point that the child of an alien, though a “born citizen” CANNOT be a natural born citizen.

    THAR YA GO: WKA SHOWS BOTH KIDDIES ARE BORN-CITIZENS AND ONLY ONE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

    Give it up fraudsters, NBC has been codified long before you were born. And if you were born of two US citizen parents in-country, you too can call yourselves a natural born citizen.

    Wong Kim Ark says if you were born of an alien, even in-country, you cannot be a natural born citizen.
    Wong Kim Ark holds that even if you were a “BORN-CITIZEN” born of an alien, you’re STILL not a natural born citizen.

    So, if you want to keep emphasizing that WKA holds more weight than Minor (which it doesn’t it just adds to the obvious points of Minor)… it just buries your stupid made-up deliberately obfuscating b.s. that much deeper. You guys are meritless, precedent-less, ridiculous, and pathetic… and as your plastic jesus narcissistic pathological liar fraud usurper commie puppet tanks in the ratings as he systematically destroys this country from soup to nuts more and more people who hitched their wagon to what they thought was a star will bail like he has the plague. They already are.

    pffft, were you sitting around puffing your bongs when you drummed up that silly “born citizen” = “natural born citizen” tripe?
    Remember that, WKA, both “born citizens” only one a “natural born citizen”.

    lol
    __________________________________________________________________
    As usual you talk a lot but never provide us with the actual quote and link to the claims you make. Which is not surprising because you are absolutely clueless and wrong.

    Minor never defined what a natural born citizen was. All Minor said was that a child born of 2 parents who were citizens could be considered natural born but in regards to a child born to non citizens the Court was not sure so they declined to make a decision.

    Wong answered the question by stating that the Court needed to look to English Common law. And that any child born within the boundaries of the kingdom was considered a natural born subject, which they took to mean a natural born citizen was someone born within the jurisdiction of the US.

    WKA does hold more weight than Minor because the minor case was not explicitly discussing citizenship and was decided before the Wong ruling. Your arugment were raised back in 1896 and did not work back then. The dissent explicitly said that by referencing Vattel and that under the majority ruling that the child of anyone born in the US could be eligible for President.

    Either way we can see that you choose to believe what you want. But as time goes on and Barack Obama remains President, you will see that the court system and 99.9% of all legal scholars define natural born as being born in the US regardless if your parents are citizens are not. You can disagree, but the fact is that your opinion and my opinion don’t mean squat. The SCOTUS will never hear any of these cases because the all legal scholars know that the WKA ruling has already decided the issue. But we can all debate here about who is right or wrong but the ultimate decision has already been made and that decision won’t be up for review until 2012.

  101. 11/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Pat Smith says:
    November 7, 2009 at 12:32 pm
    *Obama’s first 2 plus minutes in his opening remarks are talking about the Tribal Nation Conference. Only after that does he talk about Fort Hood.*

    Well Doy! Obama’s reason for visiting the Dept of the Interior headquarters on Thursday was he was scheduled to address the Tribal Nation Conference. How rude it would have been to ignore his hosts and his reason for being there and launch immediately into remarks about Fort Hood. The first 2 minutes were simply a polite acknowledgement of his reason for being there. Your criticism is completely off the mark.

  102. 11/7/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    Has anyone read Obama’s book, and knows the quote where Obama says “I liked my birth certificate so much I always kept it with me and used it as a book-mark for the books I was reading – so that it became all worn and tattered.” ?

    This is very important because no one has broached this and qwertyman is making a whole matter out of this.

    Other things are going on, such as demonstrating outside Congress with signs asking for his certificate from Obama, called the Antichrist; and inside Congress, a movement to ask Obama for the certificate.

  103. 11/7/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 6, 2009 at 9:33 pm
    smrstrauss is a dis-information blogger.

    One of his posts is the following- ‘He was born on Aug. 4, and the announcement of his birth was sent out to the newspapers of Hawaii’-of which he has failed to respond. The Hawaiian newspaper announcements are not legal documents and only state a birth took place, not to where or when. As for the residence address in the announcement, it has been proven to be a false address as they never resided at that address.

    Even Chris ‘TINGLES’ Matthews had to admitt that the newspaper listings are not legal as to establishing Obama’s birth.
    He has posted to my site numerous times, but I will not acknowledge his rantings.

    Black Lion,
    WND does not have to make up stories to defame Barry. He’s doing a great job himself. His inaction regarding Afghanistan is a copy cat of his hero Jimmy Carter and his inability to protect the citizens who were taken hostage by the Iranians in 1979.
    With the continuing lies and blame game, people are waking up to the reality of what a failure Barry Obama Dunham Soetoro really is.
    Unemployment over 10%, with the real effective unemployment over 20%. How’s that hope and change working for ya?
    __________________________________________________________________
    I guess if WND doesn’t need to make stories up to defame President Obama then they were telling the truth in August of 2008 when they wrote the following…

    “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate 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.”

    Secondly no one ever claimed that the birth announcements were legally admissible. However they were discovered by an anti Obama PUMA when she was researching his birth. WND even proved that the address in the announcement was the address of President Obama’s grandparents.

    Hope and change is working out fine for me. The country has a new and better direction that it had over the past years and the tanking of the economy was the fault of both parties so I doubt that one person or party can solve it.

  104. 11/7/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    Pressure building up inside and outside Congress

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/11/06/2121102.aspx

    excerpt:
    Dana Milbank on yesterday’s Tea Party protestors: “Many of the demonstrators chanted ‘Weasel Queen,’ their pet name for the speaker of the House. Others wore masks of Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.); they were covered in fake blood and carrying dolls representing aborted fetuses, as the Grim Reaper led them in chains to hell. In the front of the protest, a sign showed President Obama in white coat, his face painted to look like the Joker. The sign, visible to the lawmakers as they looked into the cameras, carried a plea to ‘Stop Obamunism.’ A few steps farther was the guy holding a sign announcing ‘Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds’ [sic], accusing Obama of being part of a Jewish plot to introduce the antichrist.”

    Looks like Obama’s between a rock and a hard place. Either he produces his birth certificate and goes to jail, or else he faces the signs saying he’s the ANTICHRIST.

  105. 11/7/2009Pat Smith says:

    siseduermapierda says:

    Well Doy! Obama’s reason for visiting the Dept of the Interior headquarters on Thursday was he was scheduled to address the Tribal Nation Conference. How rude it would have been to ignore his hosts and his reason for being there and launch immediately into remarks about Fort Hood. The first 2 minutes were simply a polite acknowledgement of his reason for being there. Your criticism is completely off the mark.

    ————————————————————

    The above statement further proves why Sisboomba is a weak link. Awwwwww, Zero would have been “rude” ???? Have to wonder how the families of those murdered and the survivors feel hearing their CIC give a shout out and 2+ minutes opening remarks to the Tribal Nations before addressing the Ft Hood tragety.

    Sis could have gained some credibility by admitting that Obama handled this inappropiately. There is NO accountability on Obama’s faux pas’s. Sad….

  106. 11/7/2009keokuk says:

    Have to wonder how the families of those murdered and the survivors feel hearing their CIC give a shout out and 2+ minutes opening remarks to the Tribal Nations before addressing the Ft Hood tragety.

    Experiences may differ, but when I lost a brother on 9/11, I didn’t give a damn what the president had to say about it. I lost someone dear to me. Nothing some guy I never met said could have made that better or worse.

    If the Fort Hood families are anything like me, they have far more pressing concerns on their minds than what the president did or did not say.

  107. 11/7/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE siseduermapierda RE Pat Smith:

    [...] How rude it would have been to ignore his hosts and his reason for being there and launch immediately into remarks about Fort Hood. The first 2 minutes were simply a polite acknowledgement of his reason for being there. Your criticism is completely off the mark. [...]

    Siserda’s job is to come with excuses for the inexcusable, that is the acts & deeds of narcissistic, callous usurper:

    Bellow is the Boston Globe editorial that describes the usurper’s indifference for Americans striken by grief (had the Fort Hood been some pansexual Nuslim pygmys, Barry’s reeaction would have been, of course, deeply emotional):

    Boston Globe
    “Obama’s delayed empathy/November 7, 2009

    IN TIMES of national tragedy, Americans expect their president to capture the mood and moment with the right blend of emotion, empathy, and urgency. It’s a delicate act of timing and tone. And President Obama, despite his eloquence and dignity, has yet to master it, as illustrated by his awkward response to the deadly shootings at the Fort Hood Army Base in Texas.
    Obama’s initial remarks came shortly after 5 p.m. Thursday, while Americans were struggling to come to grips with the shocking rampage and its chaotic aftermath. The stage was set for the president to quickly and somberly address the tragedy. Instead, a serene-looking Obama offered light introductory comments, keyed to those attending a Tribal Nations Conference that was hosted by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs. His introduction included a convivial “shout-out’’ to one of the conference attendees.
    Several minutes in, Obama finally called the Fort Hood shootings “a horrific outburst of violence.’’ The words he spoke next were respectful and appropriate. But it took him too long to get to the point of delivering them.
    It takes more than scripted eloquence for presidents to connect with their fellow Americans. It requires a visceral ability to grasp the scope of tragedy, calculate its impact on the national psyche, and react swiftly to it. Ronald Reagan did it after the Challenger explosion took the lives of seven crew members on Jan. 28, 1986. So did Bill Clinton, after the Oklahoma City bombings of April 19, 1995, left 168 dead and more than 600 injured. [...]

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/11/07/obamas_delayed_empathy/

    Siserda’s opens his rant with “How rude it would have been to ignore his hosts,” then more crap –
    Siserda’s abjection pefectly complements Obama’s callous indifference for the grief and sufference -

  108. 11/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Pat Smith says:
    November 7, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    Still totally off the mark Pat. What ‘faux pas’? Obama was at DOI to address the tribal leaders. It was absolutely appropriate to acknowledge the group he was scheduled to address before making comments about Ft Hood. Brief remarks to greet who he was there to speak to. Obviously you have no social graces. Thank goodness Obama does.

  109. 11/7/2009Pat Smith says:

    misanthropicus,

    I am amazed and pleased that so many newspapers and broadcasts have seen fit (finally) to remark on the insensitivity and blatant disregard Obama showed on Ft Hood. OBots like Sisboomba are an Obama jockstrap. She/he/it could have shown some credibility in admitting that Obama handled this badly. Instead, the Jockstrap says Obama would have been “rude” !

    Maybe Sis could explain why this tragety could not have been addressed by Obama separately from the Conference? Seems Obama makes enough speeches about his HC debacle that he could have given the dignaty of this sad moment to address the Nation separately.

  110. 11/7/2009Lisa C. says:

    Thank God that someone has the integrity to help us get this answered once and for all. What gives Obama the right to hide so much personal information that all the other candidates have opened up for public awareness? And why has he authorized nearly $2 million in payment of legal fees to keep fighting our very right to question the credentials he claims he has? If we voters don’t have the right to know whom we’re voting for, then we have lost the Constitution and Obama, no matter how ambitious he is, is not even close to important enough to risk that. Let the cowards duck and jive and let us know the truth. If he has nothing to hide, then don’t; if he does, who has the greater right to know what is being hidden than the troops who go to war under his command, than the citizens who pay his salary?

    Remember of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and for the PEOPLE?

    Our right to know more about him trumps everything including his Praetorian guard.

  111. 11/7/2009Bubba McSchwartz says:

    “In Washington, Lewis said he thought it was time to end questions about Obama’s citizenship.”

    Well, we certainly wouldn’t want to resort to something as underhanded and unscruplous as using the truth to put an end to these pesky and embarrassing quesitons, now, would we? Nah, that would be politically incorrect.

  112. 11/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Pat Smith says:
    November 7, 2009 at 6:10 pm
    “so many”

    Right. The Boston Globe and Fox News. Invented controversy. Another day, another smear of our President

  113. 11/7/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE Pat Smith RE misanthropicus,

    [...] I am amazed and pleased that so many newspapers and broadcasts have seen fit (finally) to remark on the insensitivity and blatant disregard Obama showed on Ft Hood. OBots like Sisboomba are an Obama jockstrap. [...]

    Pat, what we’re assisting at is the confirmations of so many Americans’ suspicions regarding Obama’s true Americanness and his feeling about this nation – just reviewing a few from Obama’s reservoir of baseness and seditious acts:

    1) Obama has deliberately insulted Britain, by sending back Churchill’s bust (the mau-mau strikes back) without caring that Britain/ Egland is the nation/ civilization we are most related to, culturally speaking (language, law, etc.) –
    2) Obama’s Cairo speech in which has constantly (and falsely) praised the merits of Islam, while disparaging those of America –
    3) Dumping the Eastern Europe allies for a hypothetical help from Russia vis-a-vis Iran – it didn’t happen, and as of this morning, Iran reneged on its other promise of sending the uranium elsewhere, hardly a positive development –
    3) Obama has insultingly refused to atend the WWII end ceremonies in Europe, besmirching the entire US army and this nation that made so many sacrifices to defeat the Axis and secure a more paceful environment for this world (incidentaly, Vladimir Putin WAS there) –
    4) has insultingly refused to attend the Gdansk ceremonies marking the beginning of the desintegration of communism, process in which the US had such an important role –
    5) has insultingly refused to attend the Berlin Wall ceremonies, event that marked the end of communism in Europe, and the beginning of general re-integration of the Old World – extraordinary geoplitical processes in which America had again a paramount role –

    Obama detests whatever sign of grandeur in the history of America – he’s is all vengeance, vengeance amplified by his fear that he might be un-masked as an imposter any time and marched out from the office –

    Should we be surprised that he couldn’t care less about the Fort Hood tragedy? Nope – his regard for America and all things American was very clear from the very beginning –
    By the way, right now, the empathy president checked out again, flying to Camp David –

    Lord! Do we got a creature in the WH, don’t we?

  114. 11/7/2009tminu says:

    Here are relevant passages and information from Wong Kim Ark and Minor v. Happersett
    —————-
    “The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’”

    Have another look:

    “…and his child (the child of an alien)… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

    Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:

    – he compares two children

    – on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien

    – on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen

    Do you see the difference?

    He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.

    He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.

    – The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.

    Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:

    “…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

    But that’s not what they said.

    – By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.

    – But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born citizen child.

    – This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.

    Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.

    Here’s the final holding of the case:

    “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.”

    This is the core holding of the case. It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen. The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.

    If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said. But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/

    ————–

    The Court in Minor refused to say that a person born in the US to parents who were foreigners was a ” natural born citizen” – the Minor court also refused to say whether such a person was even a “citizen” at all!

    # In 1874, in the Minor v. Happersett case, the Supreme Court affirmed the definition of natural born citizen which had appeared in the 1797 English translation of Vattel’s Law of Nations:

    …it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. (Minor v. Happersett, 1874)

    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/obama-presidential-eligibility-an-introductory-primer/

    ———–

    Here’s a question for you mouth-breathers punching out your tripe on the taxpayer dole at DOJ for Holder: If the Constitution excludes mere citizens as president, just what do you morons think that excludes? Here’s a hint: Minor holds that the 14th amendment defines all “Citizens” and only excludes the definition for “Natural born citizens”.

    Idiots!

  115. 11/7/2009CH says:

    We need a full birth certificate.

    We need “natural born citizen” legally defined, so that all political parties and all states and all candidates are held to the same criteria.

    I myself am uncomfortable with that term being defined as one US parent. It is more than place of birth, it seems from the intent of the founding fathers.

    Obama has demonstrated the dangers of a child raised here part time with one foreign parent. His US parent had no interest in being here either.

    He has no clue why America is admired around the world, and he wants only to change something he does not even comprehend. He should change himself.

    Hawaii calls him a “natural born citizen” but when I e-mailed the Hawaii officials and asked for their specific definition of Natural Born Citizen, which they claimed for Obama, they did not respond with their definition. Interesting.

    Until we know how they define this term, it is meaningless, what they claim.

    Finally, of most concern to me, Obama’s use of numerous social security numbers would seem to mean that no matter where he was born, or who his father is, he needs to be removed, due to criminal activity and flagrant abuse of the US social security system, if proven guilty in a court of law. Two investigators seem to have double verified that indeed, he has used numerous social security numbers.

    Perhaps these wonderful Congressman have been watching the court system with Kerchner and Orly, thinking the courts would resolve the issue. Instead, they watch with horror with the rest of us, and they see abuse by judges and have decided they will settle the issue themselves, if the courts keep pointing to them.

    It is certainly a relief to see some patriotic Americans in the ranks of the Congress. That is a miracle.

    All it takes is one decent person to turn the tide. We seem to have more than one.

  116. 11/7/2009Birdy says:

    In Washington, Lewis said he thought it was time to end questions about Obama’s citizenship.

    I’m glad Rep. Lewis agrees. Obama should just release his birth certificate and end questions about his citizenship.

  117. 11/7/2009siseduermapierda says:

    tminu says:
    November 7, 2009 at 7:56 pm
    *Idiots!*

    No tminsu,that’s you. You are completely wrong. If you were right, conservative constitutional scholars would be wrestling with each other to get a case to the SC. Where are they if it’s sooooo obvious. There’s your biggest clue that you’re all wet.

    The Supreme Court decision in Minor v. Happersett upheld The Supreme Court of Missouri’s ruling that limiting Virginia Minor’s right to vote did not violate her 14th amendment rights. The 19th amendment fixed this.

    It is clear that in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court’s conclusion was that Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen. You cherry-pick phrases from the decision, yet ignore the final conclusion. A child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth. Gray used “natural born” , “native born” and “citizen at birth” interchangeably.

    Where are the constitutional scholars? Not supporting your theory!

  118. 11/8/2009jvn says:

    Thanks Tim for providing the proof that the President IS a “natural born citizen!”

    here is the quote:

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

    Notice that last part: “AS THE NATURAL BORN CHILD OF A CITIZEN…”

    Note that citizen is singular, not plural.

    President Obama is clearly the natural born child of a citizen.

    Case closed…

  119. 11/8/2009brygenon says:

    syc1959 says:

    brygenon LIES again:

    A Hawaiian official explains that, contrary to the reporting of eligibility deniers, ‘The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii‘. Speaking specifically of Obama’s certification, as posted on-line, she said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”

    I thought I cited that to a Hawaiian paper to verify every quote, every claim — oh look — I did. Since syc1959 snipped it, here it is again: http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

    ****NOW see the truth.
    ACTUAL reply from the State of Hawaii -stating that the long form can be requested.
    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/hawaiireply3crop.jpg

    A birther blog? And it doesn’t even refute anything I wrote.

    But wait, there’s more of the same:

    Another one of brygenon LIES;

    Here’s an official News Release from Hawaii’s Department of Health stating that they have “Obama’s original birth certificate on record”: http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf After conspiracy theorists fixated on how it does not literally say that he was born in Hawaii, the Director issued a second release clearing that up:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i“. http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2009/09-063.pdf

    So click the links and see that, once again, brygenon had the facts correct.

    As with people that are blinded by the facts, and I will quote here again. “IT IT NOT WHERE HE [OBAMA] WAS BORN. HE COULD HAVE BEEN BORN IN THE WASHINGTON MONUMENT, THE OVAL OFFICE, A MANGER. He fails the United States Constitutional requirement of being a ‘Natural Born Citizen’.

    Syc1959, it’s not clear who you are quoting there… Ah — you are quoting *yourself*. Compare that the sources I cited and quoted, and syc1959 snipped:

    Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

    You can also look it up (free on-line) in: http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ or read Yale and Harvard Professor Akhil Amar’s explanation at http://slate.com/id/2183588/ .

  120. 11/8/2009tminu says:

    Please actually READ the holding, not what you wish it to say…

    “…and his child (the child of an alien)… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

    Therefore IF the child is born of an alien, at all, it is only a citizen.

    Obama is the child an alien, thus he is a citizen (if born in-country).

    – The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.

    Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:

    “…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

    But the court does not hold that, because that is not the case, no matter how the commiebots spin and wish.

    The holding is that the child of an alien is a citizen. The holding is that the child of an alien is not a natural born citizen. The holding is that both citizens and natural born citizens, have equal rights as citizens. Obama is the child of an alien.

    The ONLY importance of being a natural born citizen in the entire Constitution is for the specific and highest eligibility criteria for president, nothing else.
    http://drkatesview.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/nbc2.jpg?w=480&h=580

  121. 11/8/2009tminu says:

    and you commiebots keep avoiding “The” question asked of you…

    and that is…

    Since Article II differentiates natural born citizen from citizen as two entirely separate entities, and Minor holds that natural born citizen is not defined in the 14th amendment, and the 14th amendment defines “citizens”, and the native born child of an alien as a citizen as does Wong Kim Ark….

    then the only remaining permutation is jus soli jus sanguinis both parents,
    mathematically, logically, it is the only arrangement not covered by the 14th
    which would fit to perfection with what Minor, WKA, Elg, the Constitution, and John Bingham himself, etc. have to say

    What you bots are saying is impossible, that a “born citizen” like Hasan and Obama, both born of aliens, is a natural born citizen. Both had citizenship claims upon them at birth from foreign sovereign countries, so they cannot be a natural born citizen of the USA. You’re trying now to say that only one citizen parent suffices for natural born citizen status, when in fact that is only the case for citizen status (14th amendment) and since natural born citizen is nowhere in the 14th that CANNOT be the definition of it.

    Rep. John Bingham, in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment, repeated Vattel’s definition when he said: “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

  122. 11/8/2009brygenon says:

    siseduermapierda says:

    Still totally off the mark Pat. What ‘faux pas’? Obama was at DOI to address the tribal leaders. It was absolutely appropriate to acknowledge the group he was scheduled to address before making comments about Ft Hood. Brief remarks to greet who he was there to speak to. Obviously you have no social graces. Thank goodness Obama does.

    Don’t you see? It’s a liberal media conspiracy. Hit him where he’s *strong*. Fault Obama for not adopting the right tone, for spending about three minutes thanking his hosts before delivering the appropriate remarks on the attack. Even if rearranging his speech would have been better in this case, there’s no way President Obama loses to anyone on the tone of his speeches.

    Best part is that it reminds people of how bad it was before Obama. President Obama got elected, and won the Nobel Peace Prize, largely for not being George W. Bush. Given that standard, Obama could have delvired twenty minutes of knock-knock jokes. President’s G.W. Bush’s delay was off the scale, and not merely a matter of tone.

    On 11 September 2001, when he learned that the *second* plane had hit the New Your World Trade Center, when there was no doubt that America was under attack, G.W. Bush, the President of the United States, continued listening to an elementary-school reading lesson. He could have explained to the class that an urgent matter demanded his attention and excused himself, but for at least seven minutes our Commander in Cheif chose to sit there and not defend the country.

  123. 11/8/2009richCares says:

    Phil, a word of advice
    get back to being a Conservative site that covers Conservative issues. Drop the birther stuff, all you do is draw the loonies, besides this issue is over, Obama won. Also don’t damage your credibility by refering to nutty WND, that is unless you are proud of the loonies you draw.

  124. 11/8/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    richCares,

    u know “Nathan Deal certificate” gets hundreds of thousands of hits on Google

    can u ignore a ground swell of blog-hits ?

  125. 11/8/2009siseduermapierda says:

    tminu says:
    November 8, 2009 at 2:19 am
    * Wong Kim Ark….*

    Over and over and over you deliberately mis-state the decision in Wong Kim Ark. You are trying to mislead people who don’t know any better. Two kinds of citizen: natural born and naturalized. Two, Two, only two. If there was a third kind, you’d have many constitutional scholars supporting your “theory”. But you don’t and that says it all about your “theory”. Like Judge Land said, just because you say something is so, doesn’t make it so. Anyone with doubt Should read the decision. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
    The Supreme Court decided that a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth. “at the time of birth” means natural born citizen, means native born.

  126. 11/8/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE richCares:

    [...] Phil, a word of advice [...] Drop the birther stuff, all you do is draw the loonies, besides this issue is over, Obama won. Also don’t damage your credibility by refering to nutty WND, that is unless you are proud of the loonies you draw. [...]

    richCares, you guys have such a feeble list of techniques for trying to smother this issue!
    The “damaging you credibility” take is a typical technique used by Obamatons – and also an illustration that your list of techniques for trying to smothering this issue is really primitive.

    Other than (1) circuitous & incompetent argumentation, (2) deflecting, trying to send on tangent the issue, (3) jamming, (4) personal attacks, and (5) worrying loudly about your adversaries reputation, you don’t have anything else.
    I said “primitive” – and counter-productive too –

    Yes, Obama is an illegitimate president and will be proved so, and will marched out from the office, placed in a courtroom where he will tried for usurping the position and swindling unsuspecting Americans by raising under fully aware of his false pretention more than $ 700 million.

    Have a good one -

  127. 11/8/2009Black Lion says:

    siseduermapierda says:
    November 7, 2009 at 6:21 pm
    Pat Smith says:
    November 7, 2009 at 6:10 pm
    “so many”

    Right. The Boston Globe and Fox News. Invented controversy. Another day, another smear of our President
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Sise, some people will just repeat the talking points of the right, no matter what sense it makes. For instance it was FOX news, the Drudge report, Linda Chavez, the Gateway Pundit, Ben Johnson, and the American Thinker that all manufactured this so called outrage about the President not addressing the tragedy at Fort Hood until 2 minutes into his remarks. FOX acutally uses the phrase “shout out” in their commentary. That will tell you specifically where some commenters got their so called “issue” from. But as we all know that some indivudals will do anything, including manufacturing issues to disparage the President of the United States.

    However not were as bad as WND, that made up some sort of conntection between the President and the Fort Hood shooter.

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=115230

    Of course once this investigated further, it was discovered that WND severely exaggerated the issue in order to create some sort of conntection to the President. WND wants to smear the President so much that they will perpetuate lies just to smear the President. It is amazing how far this so called news site will go.

    “WorldNetDaily falsely claimed that alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan “advised Obama transition” in the headline of an article by Jerome Corsi highlighting his listing as a “participant” in a report for the Homeland Security Policy Institute (HSPI) at George Washington University’s Presidential Transition Task Force. However, Corsi himself acknowledges that there is no evidence that “the group played any formal role in the official Obama transition” — indeed, the Task Force was initiated in April 2008. Moreover, while Hasan was listed as one of approximately 300 “Task Force Event Participants” in the report’s appendix, HSPI has reportedly said he was not a “member” of the Task Force, and was listed because he RSVP’d for several of the group’s open events.”

  128. 11/8/2009Black Lion says:

    The rhetoric against the President is rising to ridiculous levels. Not only is he vilified by some extreme right editorials (including FOX) but the nature of the so called Bachmann protest regarding healthcare last week shows that it is not about policy as it is about just being against anything that our President is for. I mean the imagery at the rally last week was so over the top that even some Republicans came out against it…

    “At yesterday’s tea party rally on Capitol Hill, at least one protester brandished a large graphic photograph of the victims of the Dachau Nazi concentration camp, comparing health care reform to Nazi policies. Today, Rep. Eric Cantor’s (R-VA) spokesman called the photograph “inappropriate.”

    “Cantor, in an interview today with Bloomberg, also offered some criticism of radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s comparison of President Obama to Adolf Hitler. “Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion about politics?” said Cantor, who is the only Jewish Republican in Congress. “No, I don’t, because obviously that is something that conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful.”

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/cantor-says-tea-partys-dachau-photos-inappropriate-takes-issue-with-limbaugh.php?ref=tn

    You can see how over the top the protest was….

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911060047

    No matter what the issue the automatic move by the right is to smear and vilify the President. This has gone way beyond politics as usual. And since our President will be in office until at least 2013, it doesn’t look like things will get any better…

  129. 11/8/2009misanthropicus says:

    Re Black Lion:

    [...] And since our President will be in office until at least 2013, it doesn’t look like things will get any better… [...]

    BL, you simply just don’t get things – here’s the way you should have encompass what you tried to describe in the above phrase:

    “And since this presidential usurper, dba Barry Obama (?) might struggle to last in the office up to 2011, it doesn’t look like this nation will project less discontent and despise for him and his pathetic antics any time soon -”

    Now use my correction, update your comment and repost -

  130. 11/8/2009bob strauss says:

    Black Lion, “politics as usual”? Since when is having a usurper as President politics as usual?

    What did you think the American people were going to do when they found out Obama is a fraud? Sit on their hands and keep their mouth shut. You people(obots)are ignorant of US history if you think that patriots won’t step forward to protect their Constitution and their country.

    Most Americans are not mind numb robots like you would have us believe. They know their Constitution, they know the requirements for one to become President, and they know Obama doesn’t meet those requirements.

    You and other obots on this site can misstate the findings of court cases and try to mislead the people, but you are not going to convince the millions of people in this country that know Obama does not qualify for the office of President.

  131. 11/8/2009richCares says:

    “Yes, Obama is an illegitimate president and will be proved so”

    Sure, continue in your delusions (Obama in office 11 months and still high approval)

  132. 11/8/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE richCares:

    [...] Sure, continue in your delusions (Obama in office 11 months and still high approval) [...]

    Dear, you sure do some good peyote:
    1) Obama’s approval is not high: it settled at just over %50 (i think is %51), which is the lowest for this term period for any president in recorded history –
    2) how long will this stagnation last, no one knows – certain thing is that all trends go agains Obama’s greasy rhetoric:
    a) two governorships lost,
    b) and more important, the Maine referendum on gays showed that liberals & liberal causes are handsomely losing grounds – in addition to Maine look at the numbers in California where the majority don’t want see the prop 8 issue again in the ballots. Kaput, over, finito –
    3) Obama’s playing golf and delaying any action in Afghanistan will cost him dearly – and rightfully so –
    4) the 2010 elections will follow on this month’s pattern –

    And, to return to the essential debate, Obama’s future attempts to stay in the office will be eventually defeated by the legitimacy issue – expect an ugly storm regarding this –

    An ugly year for the Obamatons, 2010 -

  133. 11/8/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “…and his child (the child of an alien)… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”

    That is precisely right. The child of an alien if born in this country IS as much a citizen as a child of three or more generations of US Citizens. And that means in the eligibility to be president.
    A Natural Born citizen simply means one who was born in the country. This is very clear from the common law, the law in the states at the time of the writing of the Constitution and the laws in the American colonies. Natural Born meant then what native born means today. They seldom used Native Born; they used Natural Born all the time, and it meant born in the country.

    The Wong Kim Ark case does not say that Wong is a Natural Born Citizen. It doesn’t have to. He wasn’t running for president. The issue with Wong was whether he was a citizen. The court ruled six to two that he was a citizen because he was born in the USA. And, it repeatedly says that being born in the USA is the same thing as being Natural Born.

    For example”

    “It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

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

    Note that this is like a syllogism. The logic of a syllogism follows this format. All men are mortal. Jones is a man. Jones is mortal.

    The quotation above says that all children born in England were Natural Born, and it says that the same rules were followed in the colonies and in the States under the Constitution. It said separately in the ruling that Wong was born in the USA. Therefore he was Natural Born.

    But this is hardly overwhelming. The use of the term Natural Born at the time was the equivalent of native born, or Ohio-born. As late as World War I, the use of the term Natural Born was simply born in the USA. In registering for the draft in WWI, men were asked whether they were citizens, and if they were citizens whether they were naturalized or natural born.

    Shortly after the writing of the Constitution, St. George Tucker was an officer in the American Revolutionary Army, a Professor of Law, justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia and a judge of the Federal District Court for Virginia by appointment of President James Madison wrote about the absence of naturalization laws in the colonies and in the US States before the adoption of the Constitution. Since there was no naturalization, he said, there were only two kinds of residents, those who were Natural Born and those who were aliens.

    He said: “A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject.52 “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by the birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration.”http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=advanced_search.php

    Natural born in this quotation cannot mean “two US parents.” It can only mean “born in the colony” or “born in the state.”

    John Adams, John Jay (who wrote to Washington that the future commander in chief should be natural born) and Ben Franklin showed that in the USA, a natural born citizen is equivalent to the British natural born subject, when they wrote in this draft of a treaty with Britain.

    The spelling and capitalization are what they were at the time.)

    Quote begins:

    Draft Articles to Supplement the Preliminary Anglo-American Peace Treaty [ca 27 April 1787 [in Paris]

    Articles agreed on by David Hartley Esq., Minister Plenipotentiary of His Brittanic Majesty for &c in behalf of said Majesty on the one part, and J.A. [John Adams], B.F. [Benjamin Franklin], J.J. [John Jay] and H.L [Henry Livingston, who was also at the US Embassy in France, but is not as famous as the other three], ministers plenipotentiary of the Unites States of America for treating of peace….in addition to the articles agreed on the 30th day of November 1782…The subjects of the Crown of Great Britain shall enjoy in all and every of Said United States, all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Citizens of the Said States—and, on the other hand, all the citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the legislature of the other shall judge fit to exempt.”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=vemc7Vuqk1YC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=%22draft+articles+to+supplement%22&source=bl&ots=Aojo7Iux2Z&sig=r8tN3gtsaDaRYWKBox5fOWNPo4M&hl=en&ei=K4pBSvW6ComJtge3iN2dCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

    End quotation

    And, under British law, as stated by Blackstone, and repeated throughout the Wong case, a Natural Born subject was simply someone born in the country regardless of the number of parents who were citizens. Even persons who were only temporarily in the country could give birth to Natural Born subjects, and Natural Born citizens.

  134. 11/8/2009Pat Smith says:

    siseduermapierda says:

    Right. The Boston Globe and Fox News. Invented controversy. Another day, another smear of our President

    ————————————————————–
    misanthropicus,

    Unless the Media ONLY prints/broadcasts favorable remarks about Obama, they “smear” the Usurper ????

    Wish an OBot would show me where FOX News broadcast on Obama’s appalling speech to the Nation on Ft. Hood. Oh, wait…if you print what Obama says it is an “invented controversy”. One cannot judge the Messiah on content or delivery…waaaaaaaaaaa…..

    —————————————————————

    SisBoomBa…Yes, WE Can…Change You Can Believe In (like 10.2% Unemployment)!

  135. 11/8/2009Phil says:

    richCares,

    Phil, a word of advice
    get back to being a Conservative site that covers Conservative issues. Drop the birther stuff, all you do is draw the loonies, besides this issue is over, Obama won. Also don’t damage your credibility by refering to nutty WND, that is unless you are proud of the loonies you draw.

    Yo, dude — where’ve you been for the past year? In the eyes of some individuals, I am the biggest “loon” for covering the eligibility issue!

    And while I’m sure that every time I post something regarding a topic other than eligibility or States’ rights (which I will be doing soon regarding healthcare), someone somewhere is going to say, “Good, Phil’s moving on now from eligibility,” the truth of the matter is, the eligibility question is not going to go away anytime soon.

    Regarding WorldNetDaily, again, apparently you haven’t been around my blog for very long; I have referred to them so many times that not only do I have a whole Category in reference to the site, but they’ve referenced my site numerous times in many of their postings.

    As a final thought, I will continue to post what I wish to post and how I wish to characterize what I wish to post. While I appreciate the fact that you might not like some of the things I post, you are certainly not going to direct me on how I run my site.

    -Phil

  136. 11/8/2009richCares says:

    OK Phil, you enjoy being VP of Birherstan, what will you do during Obama’s second term. By the way it was just advice as I see way too many deleusion people on you site, enjoy if you wish.

  137. 11/8/2009robacosta says:

    What happens if Obama shows him his Birth Certificate along with affidavits from State of Hawaii, maybe Deal should be careful of what he wishes!

  138. 11/8/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    Phil,
    …the Obots going wild now.
    They know they’ll not get Obamacare through the Senate and the Republicans are too worked up now.
    They’re going for Obama’s neck.
    So, they’re going wild here, whatever you do they’ll hate you.
    Turn on them and let’s go for the revelation of truth. No more arrangements. They’re unsatiable. Cut them loose. No hope from them. They’ll never agree.

  139. 11/8/2009richCares says:

    “…the Obots going wild now”
    example of projection
    hint: Obots think birthers are for entertainment, a joke!

  140. 11/8/2009tminu says:

    Sisusilly: You never show a SCOTUS precedent holding, so what you’re mumbling about is bunk.

    Strauss wrote: “That is precisely right. The child of an alien if born in this country IS as much a citizen as a child of three or more generations of US Citizens. And that means in the eligibility to be president.”

    Well well, you obviously haven’t read the Constitution which specifically precludes mere citizens from being POTUS, so therefore you’re full of it totally and completely!! You’re insane if you think intelligent people buy in to your lies and obfuscations about Article II, which if you don’t like you can try to get amended–but it has NEVER been amended (and not for lack of others trying)…so instead you just pretend it says a citizen can be president=delusional. The entire point of WKA was that the native born child of an alien is a mere citizen, which has no more rights than does the in-country born child of citizens or a “natural born citizen”. Your silly lie that being president is a “right” is absurd, especially since there are other highly discriminatory requirements to being POTUS. If it were a “right” the requirements could not exist for age or years living in the USA, not to mention being a natural born citizen. The ONLY time natural born citizen is ever mentioned in the Constitution is a specific eligibility requirement for the office: jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.

    Really, you bots just keep making shtuff up and believing it, it’s funny to watch your delusionsal arguments justifying this so-far bloodless marxist coup by an installed ineligible unconstitutional narcissistic pathological liar usurper total fraud. You are just enemies of the USA, embrace it, pound your chests, grab your bullhorns and join the jihadists gleefully denouncing their newly adopted country on the streets of manhattan.

  141. 11/8/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Well well, you obviously haven’t read the Constitution which specifically precludes mere citizens from being POTUS, so therefore you’re full of it totally and completely!!

    Only a Natural Born Citizen can be POTUS, a naturalized citizen cannot be POTUS. Any citizen who was born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. That is what Natural Born means. It means being born in the country. As late as World War I, males asked to register for the draft were asked whether they were US citizens and then whether they were naturalized citizens or Natural Born Citizens.

    Re: “The entire point of WKA was that the native born child of an alien is a mere citizen, which has no more rights than does the in-country born child of citizens or a “natural born citizen”.”

    NO, the entire point of the Wong Kim Ark case was to show that Wong was a citizen because he was Natural Born, meaning born in the USA, that is why, it had long discussions of EVERY child born in Britian and in the US Colonies being considered Natural Born.

    Re: “The ONLY time natural born citizen is ever mentioned in the Constitution is a specific eligibility requirement for the office: jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.”

    The only time that Natural Born is mentioned is in eligiblity to be president, sure. But it never says jus soli plus jus sanguninis, and it could have if it wanted to. The law in the US colonies and in Britain was ONLY just soli. Moreover, the basis of the law was Natural Birth, which meant at the time, birth in Britain or birth in a US colony.

    You beak with the normal conservative principle of strict construction in trying to read into Natural Born something that is not there. The idea that there is a special category requiring jus soli plus jus sanguinis when there was a very commonly used meaning of Natural Born as birth in the country is farfetched. The strict constructionists on the court, the very conservatives who you rely on to win, will not vote your way.

    They will say such things as: “If the framers had meant two US parents, they would have said it,” or, “if they had meant Natural Born as defined by Vattel, and not as defined in the common law, they would have said it.”

    Moreover, you are in really deep crap when it comes to the test of two parents being US citizens. I can imagine one justice leaning down and asking: “by two parents, do you mean the legal parents or the DNA parents?” Now, if you answer “the legal parents,” the judges will laugh and ask you if the father had been previously married would that invalidate the marriage and hence remove the Kenya impact on Obama.

    If you say, “the real parents,” then the judges will ask: Are you saying that all future candidates for president must prove that their parents, not merely their legal parents, but their DNA parents, were citizens? And, how can they do that? Must they have their father’s remains tested to make sure that he really is the father, and then prove that he was a citizen?”

  142. 11/8/2009richCares says:

    You are just enemies of the USA

    do you realize that many Obama supporters have served this country, I served as a US Marine, 3 of my brothers also served, 1 killed in action, 2 wounded, I was lucky I came back whole. You don’t like Obama, that’s fine. but knock off the phony patriotism. Your kind would want to exhume and remove half of those honored in Punchbowl (where my brother is). Phony patriots like you make me sick.

  143. 11/8/2009Sharon 2 says:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2381530/posts

    A comment of mine was lost in moderation (or edited out) that dealt with the issue of the phone calls to Judge Carter’s chambers. I wondered what evidence Judge Carter had that Taitz encouraged calls and also pointed out that he didn’t let her speak to the issue. Logically, I can only think of two ways: it was on her website and he either reads it or someone else reads it and showed it to him (I thought maybe I had seen it there, but then, several here said that she encouraged the calls and that could be the source of my memory rather then actually seeing it myself). The other (and this could be in addition to the first idea) is that callers identified themselves as supporters of Taitz.

    Consider the following that I found a few weeks ago. I won’t give the monikers of the commenters or the link of the site:
    _______________
    They tried to call us paid Obama trolls. Actually, we’re a bunch of people with a universal wicked sense of humor and the means to unleash it against the deliberately clueless. we should be paying Obama for the opportunities at mirth that his election has provided.

    Contact me offline and I’ll tell you how the libel lawsuit between Berg and Oily Taint came about. Better yet, join up at Politijab and contact me there.
    ___________________

    It may have been an “opportunity of mirth” to flood then Judge’s chambers with calls. This is speculation of course.

    Finally, I think that Judge Carter should have either let Taitz respond to the affidavits before mentioning them in his opinion or not mention them at all.

    Even if Judge Carter was wrong concerning the phone calls and the affidavits, I doubt the case would be reversed on those grounds.

  144. 11/8/2009qwertyman says:

    Has anyone read Obama’s book, and knows the quote where Obama says “I liked my birth certificate so much I always kept it with me and used it as a book-mark for the books I was reading – so that it became all worn and tattered.” ?

    This is very important because no one has broached this and qwertyman is making a whole matter out of this.

    As far as I can tell that quote doesn’t exist. This is important because if you are willing to either lie or not check your facts on something like that, what else are you willing to lie about? What else have you thrown out there with disregard for its truthfulness? Do you repeat everything you hear on a right wing blog without first checking if it’s accurate or not?

  145. 11/8/2009Phil says:

    richCares,

    You are just enemies of the USA

    do you realize that many Obama supporters have served this country, I served as a US Marine, 3 of my brothers also served, 1 killed in action, 2 wounded, I was lucky I came back whole. You don’t like Obama, that’s fine. but knock off the phony patriotism. Your kind would want to exhume and remove half of those honored in Punchbowl (where my brother is). Phony patriots like you make me sick.

    First, I’d like to thank you for serving our country in the way that you have; if it weren’t for the military, our country would have been long gone on many occasions.

    Secondly, let me also mention that I have a dear relative for whom we mutually care much for each other who similarly served, is an absolutely sincere Christian but is passionately liberal in his political beliefs. As in, “don’t bring certain subjects up unless you want a serious can of whoop-butt on your hands.”

    You can chalk my response as a “token liberal relative” response all you wish, but I can assure you that we’re all in this country together, and while many passionately disagree on certain topics such as eligibility, it is just as important to learn to agree to disagree.

    As much as possible, I prefer to go ahead and crack all the proverbial egg shells that litter the floor than let something stew and simmer with no way to vent.

    -Phil

  146. 11/8/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Well well, you obviously haven’t read the Constitution which specifically precludes mere citizens from being POTUS…”

    Mere citizens cannot be POTUS, only Natural Born Citizens can be POTUS. This means that naturalized citizens cannot be POTUS, but natural born citizens can be POTUS, and Natural Born just means born in the USA.

    The Wong Kim Ark case repeatedly says that every child born in Britain, or the American colonies before the revolution, or the early US States, and in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution was Natural Born (except for the children of foreign diplomats).

    Natural Born meant at time what Native Born means today. Native Born was hardly ever used. Natural Born was used in law and in commentary, and it meant born in the country. ONLY Vattel said that there was a special category of citizen that was born jus soli and jus sanguinis. Our legal scholars never said any such thing.

  147. 11/8/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    richCares, you’re like Al Capone, all his life he thought the cops were jokers. Fun to entertain him because he was so *smart*. He came from Obama’s hometown CHICAGO !!!!

    Listen, we just want to pull him over to the curb; no stress – and check his driver’s licence !

    Nothing to get excited about and no carnaval-needed ! For entertaining the Antichrist either !

    Entertainment ? We don’t want Obama to come out of his car dancing and wearing full Brazil-drag. No you’re wrong. We don’t want to put on a show to ENTERTAIN YOU GUYS.

    Hahaha ! We just want Obama to stay in his car, and just hand us the licence and keep his hands in full view.

    This is a thing we really think is important, and no rigmarole and joke. We don’t see ourselves as clowns.

    qwertyman, I feel we’ll have to put this to popular vote and ask if anyone knows the passage in Obama’s book where he says: “I liked my birth certificate so much I always kept it with me and used it as a book-mark for the books I was reading – so that it became all worn and tattered.”

    You object to my asking anyone ?
    I mean he’s the president so finding somone who’s actually read the book shouldn’t be impossible. I think with a little bit of patience we’ll find it.
    Do you have time and patience ?

    We’ll find it. Anyone see that passage ?

  148. 11/8/2009Cris Ericson says:

    CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION AS A MEMBER OF THE
    BIRTHERS
    THIS CERTIFICATE CERTIFIES THAT THE PERSON NAMED IS A
    GENUNIE CERTIFIED MEMBER OF THE BIRTHER MOVEMENT

    _______________
    Name

    ____________________________
    Blog Group

    _______________________________
    Date

    No Birther shall ever allow any non-Birther to see their original long form membership certificate.

    Official Signature of Official Certifying the Above-Named Individual as a Genuine Certified BIRTHER:

    ___________________________________

    Authority Certifying Official:
    None Necessary if you live and breathe outside Hawaii;
    which didn’t want to become a State, they were forced to,
    and now they are getting back at us.

  149. 11/8/2009qwertyman says:

    qwertyman, I feel we’ll have to put this to popular vote and ask if anyone knows the passage in Obama’s book where he says: “I liked my birth certificate so much I always kept it with me and used it as a book-mark for the books I was reading – so that it became all worn and tattered.”

    You object to my asking anyone ?
    I mean he’s the president so finding somone who’s actually read the book shouldn’t be impossible. I think with a little bit of patience we’ll find it.
    Do you have time and patience ?

    We’ll find it. Anyone see that passage ?

    I have read both of Obama’s books. They are on my bookshelf. I also searched through them on Google Books and ran a google search. In all cases, I found nothing.

    The words bookmark and tattered do not appear in Audacity of Hope. Bookmark doesn’t appear in Dreams from my Father either.

    Frankly, at this point you are either intentionally lying or simply do not care whether what you say is true or not.

  150. 11/8/2009siseduermapierda says:

    tminu says:
    November 8, 2009 at 4:27 pm
    *Really, you bots just keep making shtuff up *

    You are the one ‘making stuff up’. The Supreme Court found that Wong Kim Ark, a child born in San Francisco to two non-citizen legal residents was a natural born citizen. No amount of parsing, cherry-picking, dissembling or name-calling will change that. So we have Wong, a child born in San Francisco of two non-citizen parents who the Supreme Court ruled was a natural born citizen. And we have Barack Hussein Obama II, born in Honolulu of one natural born citizen and one non-citizen legal resident. There is no doubt President Obama is eligible. If you were right about Wong, which you most definitely are not, conservative constitutional lawyers would be tripping on each other trying to get a case before the SC. Don’t you folks wonder why Ted Olson wrote that Barack Obama is eligible, but the best you can get to represent you is Taitz, Apuzzo and Donofrio? That says it all!

  151. 11/8/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    qwertyman seems to be very serious about this issue.

    But qwertyman’s not the only one on this forum.

    Anyone read the Obama-book ?

    He says something like “I liked my certificate so much I kept it with me all the time using it to mark my pages in the books I read.”

    qwertyman doesn’t seem to get this whole process, if I had the quote per se, it’s be over I’d just post it.

    I’m looking for someone who’s read the book and can clearly remember it. Without needing to make a search.
    qwertyman needs to do searches.
    That’s useless.

    Who has read the book ?

    I give the passage-gist, I just need the original.

    Thanks.

    “bookmark and tattered” are not at all enough for searches !

  152. 11/8/2009qwertyman says:

    qwertyman doesn’t seem to get this whole process, if I had the quote per se, it’s be over I’d just post it.

    I’m looking for someone who’s read the book and can clearly remember it. Without needing to make a search.
    qwertyman needs to do searches.
    That’s useless.

    Who has read the book ?

    I give the passage-gist, I just need the original.

    I have read the book, and he mentions his birth certificate as being between some old files in his attic. You seem to assume that I have been lying the past few times I’ve said I’ve read Obama’s books. Nothing even close to what you are saying is in either book.

    Maybe you should read the book for yourself and see. It’s actually a pretty interesting book. Maybe you’d even stop thinking that he is literally the Antichrist.

  153. 11/8/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    qwerty, i’m obliged to you for helping out here but I’m looking for someone who’s less looking for a knock-out as desperately as you are, and I’d also like to get the quote because I’m intellectually, a very curious guy.

    I repeat “Does anyone have the quote ?”

    It’s not “files in the attic” in I’m looking for, but a specific passage where he says he “uses it to mark his book-pages and it became worn out”.

    qwertyman, does he say “between files in the attic ?”

    hahaha ! You sure you want to write that ?

    PHIL ! I found the certificate ! hehehe !
    qwerty sold me the story hahaha !

    qwerty ! Obama is the Antichrist hahaha !

    No doubt possible.

  154. 11/8/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:
    November 8, 2009 at 7:45 pm
    Geir, the ‘passage’ doesn’t exist. I can assure you, I read both books and this is a completely serious answer. The only reference Obama made to his birth certificate was that he found a copy in his mother’s papers when he was in high school. As I recall, he didn’t mention its condition. If you go to google books and search for “birth certificate bookmark” you get no returns for anything related to Obama. If you can’t find the quote yourself, then you have nothing. Repeating something when you have no means of backing it up is spreading a rumor.

    You can test my answer to you. Go to google books. Search “obama birth certificate”. It will return “Dreams from my Father” page 26. Read on pages 26 and 27 where what Obama was more interested in was an article about his father that was with the papers. Here’s the link to save you a search:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=HRCHJp-V0QUC&pg=PA26&dq=obama+birth+certificate&lr=#v=onepage&q=&f=false

  155. 11/9/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    plot thickens

    now obama found the certificate “in his mother’s papers”

    Seems this african teenager found a certificate ruffling through his US mother’s papers and started using it as book-mark and totally devastated the thing.

    Prolly totally wasted it so PHIL ! the answer is he’s not even got one anymore.

    We got Nathan Deal will go into the White House and bust this guy to produce his ID and it’ll be over.

    What is this, a street-corner hustler ?

    If you forgot – we’re talking about the POTUS, the world’s most powerful man. Has the world gone mad ?

    We can’t be sitting here talking about whether he’s got legit ID. It’s about as bad as talking about some local Harlem drug-dealer. Does this guy come from out of nowhere ? Grow up !

  156. 11/9/2009bystander says:

    Geir

    As Sise told you the quote is on page 26:

    “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school”.

    That’s it – not a single other reference in the whole book. The birthers, yet again, have lied to you.

  157. 11/9/2009brygenon says:

    bystander says:

    Geir As Sise told you the quote is on page 26:

    “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school”.

    That’s it – not a single other reference in the whole book.

    I too have a copy, and can verify the accuracy of Bystander’s reporting, including that his quote is the *only* reference to a birth certificate in Barack Obama’s book, Dreams From my Father. The quote is in the penultimate (second-to-last) paragraph in Chapter One.

    The birthers, yet again, have lied to you.

    Yeah, Bystander has it right.
    What’s new?

  158. 11/9/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:
    November 9, 2009 at 4:57 am
    *plot thickens*

    Man are you late to the party! Obama wrote “Dreams” in 1995. Almost 15 years ago!!!! Obama DID NOT use the BC copy as a book mark Geir. You are bearing false witness Geir by continuing to repeat a falsehood that you invented and for which you have no proof. And then when the truth is pointed out, you take it, embellish your story with it and use it to create another smear of the President. But shout it from the mountain tops because now your little story is so over the top, it’s clearly looney.

    There is something very wrong with you.

  159. 11/9/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:
    November 9, 2009 at 4:57 am
    *Seems this african teenager found a certificate ruffling through his US mother’s papers and started using it as book-mark and totally devastated the thing.*

    Nice way to turn his story into a smear. You are despicable Geir.

  160. 11/9/2009misanthropicus says:

    RE qwertyman:

    [...] I have read the book, and he mentions his birth certificate as being between some old files in his attic. [...]

    Hah-hah-hah! Qwerty, why do you push dba Obama deeper in the swamp of his lies with his own reference “found in the attic”?
    Check Obama hagiograpy photos – the 6085 Kalanianaole Highway house where the Dunham-s used to live has no attic!
    So, what atttic? What house? What address?

    Hah-hah-hah! Or was that attic over his dormitory at Occidental? Or over Ayers’ house in Chicago? Over Larry Sinclair’s pad in Chicago?

    Hah-hah-hah! Help! Help! The dog ate my past!
    Obama assisting at the return of the Apollo capsule in Hawaii from ol’ Dunham’s shoulders when he was actually still in Djakarta!
    Finding his (inaccessible) BC in an inexistent attic!
    Attending Occidental on a Fulbright for foreign students during a period he was actually a US citizen! (Or at least this is what he claims, since there is no record of Obama’s re-gaining his US citizenship, citizenship anyway inexistent at his birth in the first place!)
    Mystery transfer to Columbia! (no Occidental grades record available)
    Completely unaccountable years in NYC/ Columbia! (no grades records available)
    Writing two different graduation thesis at Columbia when the school had no thesis requirement for the track he was enrolled in!
    Mystery admission at Harvard! (No grades records available)
    … and more lies, and more lies, and more fabrications, and more fabrications….
    The biography of Obama – a foggy swamp is Obama’s past, constantly bursts of lies bubbling through its gooey surface –

    “my attic in Hawaii” – lord, what a liar!
    And what a bunch of credulous fools you Obamatons, are!

    Qwerty, since you belong to Siserda’s school of mental intransigence – show us where/what/how was the attic where Obama found his BC.
    Do it buddy, Obama WAS SPECIFIC ABOUT THIS ATTIC IN HIS BOOK, so you sure can indentify it –

    Do it buddy, you sure can do it -

  161. 11/9/2009Black Lion says:

    Nathan Deal is playing the birthers for their votes…And they are falling for it…When Deal was asked specifically about his beliefs regarding signing a letter asking the President to see his birth certificate, he was a clear as mud regarding his plans…

    “On Friday, Deal elaborated with more ambiguity. Putting his signature to that incendiary question, the congressman said, wasn’t the same as endorsing it. Personally, Deal said he has “no reason” to question the legitimacy of Obama’s citizenship. And yet the north Georgia congressman expressed doubts about that birth certificate. “I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available and it leaves many things to be desired,” Deal said.”

    “Never mind that officials in Hawaii, ruled by a Republican governor, have sworn six times to Sunday that the Obama’s birth certificate exists and is legitimate. Deal’s motivation can be guessed at. He is one of seven Republicans now in the 2010 race for governor, and survival is dependent upon carving out a niche of reliable supporters.”

    “Two months ago, a national survey by Public Policy Polling of North Carolina found that nearly two-thirds of Republicans don’t believe Obama to be a citizen, or aren’t sure. (Never mind that the same poll indicated that a quarter of Obama-doubters also aren’t sure whether Hawaii is a state.)”

    http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2009/11/07/on-nathan-deal-birthers-and-georgias-hunt-for-water/

    So we have a Congressman that is obviously pandering to the birther wingnut base of his electorate. However the birthers are so desparate that they will take any kind of attention from politicans, even the ones that are using them. In other words the odds of this so called letter ever being written is a low as the odds of President Obama being removed before his term is up in 2013.

  162. 11/9/2009qwertyman says:

    “my attic in Hawaii” – lord, what a liar!
    And what a bunch of credulous fools you Obamatons, are!

    Qwerty, since you belong to Siserda’s school of mental intransigence – show us where/what/how was the attic where Obama found his BC.
    Do it buddy, Obama WAS SPECIFIC ABOUT THIS ATTIC IN HIS BOOK, so you sure can indentify it –

    Well, I must start with an admission that I was mistaken about the attic – Obama says nothing about an attic. Here’s the quote:

    “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms when I was in high school.”

    But even then – I don’t know where Obama lived while he was in high school.

    But I shouldn’t be surprised that you didn’t know about that – you thought that Obama had written in his book about a second different thesis that he wrote at Columbia. It’s clear you haven’t read either of his books and just assume that absolutely everything Obama has ever said or done is a lie. There are definitely things about Obama that I am not happy with, and was upset that he has broken some of his promises (such as to take public funds during the campaign) but to assume that he has lied about attending Columbia when several people have vouched for him – apparently you think he didn’t even attend Harvard despite the copious amount of people who knew him and contemporary news stories about his election to president of the law review.

    Frankly, you are paranoid. As opposed to coming up with a theory that matches the facts, you have a preconceived theory (everything about Obama is a lie) and have done everything you can so that you can see facts to match that theory. It results in you telling lies for months about what Obama has or hasn’t written in a book.

  163. 11/9/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    qwertyman,

    after criticizing and making stupid remarks you’ve tripped up in your attic.

    OK, let’s put this to rest.

    Before you say something stupid let’s just say we want the certificate, and we’ll do it with Nathan Deal who’ll write to freshman Obama, two years in the Senate, and get him be jailed by 17-year Congressman Rep. Deal.

    He’ll gang up with several others.

    P.S. Who’s got that quote about the worn-out certificate ?

    Not “folded”.

    Not “in the attic”.

    Used as a book-marker.

  164. 11/9/2009qwertyman says:

    P.S. Who’s got that quote about the worn-out certificate ?

    Not “folded”.

    Not “in the attic”.

    Used as a book-marker.

    How many times do you have to be told that that quote you keep talking about with the birth certificate being used as a bookmark doesn’t exist? How many different people will have to tell you that you’re completely mistaken before you believe them?

    When misanthro posted about attics, before making another post, I went back and checked my facts. Turned out I was mistaken about the attic – Obama doesn’t explicitly say he found those files and articles in an attic, but with his diction, I imagine it taking place in an attic. Maybe wherever he lived in high school had an attic.

    You on the other hand continuously refuse to make the slightest effort to check your facts. For several days now you have been making this claim that Obama said in his book that he used his birth certificate as a bookmark. Dreams from my Father is about 400 pages. It’s a pretty easy read. A reasonable person could read it in three days. It’s got a substantial, searchable preview on Google Books that you could go through.

    Instead you continue to claim that this quote was in Obama’s book but refuse to actually look for it yourself to prove your point. You seem to think that everybody who is telling you the truth is lying to you. You are engaging in gross intellectual dishonesty. You are either completely dishonest, completely lazy, or fail to have the intellectual capacity to perform even the simplest fact checking. In short, you are the personification of the birther movement.

  165. 11/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Geir:

    Who has read the book ?

    I have.

    He says something like “I liked my certificate so much I kept it with me all the time using it to mark my pages in the books I read.”

    No he doesn’t.

  166. 11/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    When Deal actually writes or signs a letter, let us know.

  167. 11/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Tminu:

    Well well, you obviously haven’t read the Constitution which specifically precludes mere citizens from being POTUS, so therefore you’re full of it totally and completely!!

    This is a lie. No such proscription can be found anywhere in the Constitution. Specifically, Article II tells us only what a President must be. In never once says what a President cannot be. The only distinction the Constitution makes between different “types” of citizenship is naturalized vs. born.

    Both are citizens (or as you put it, “mere citizens.”)

    There is actually no such thing as a “mere citizen” mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or any American Statute. The phrase cannot be found in Wong Kim Ark, either.

    WKA is exhaustive in its exploration of American citizenship. And this is what it says regarding the meaning of natural born citizen, emphasis added:

    It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

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

    What about that do you not understand?

  168. 11/9/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    qwertyman fumbled up again.
    What’s this big fuss about the attic and bookmark ?
    What do two of the Obots have an interest in getting involved in this for ?
    Two Obots.
    Strange.
    Ok Big Deal.
    You can’t produce the quote and no one else really gives a darn; so big deal.
    The fuss, what’s it all about ?
    You’re actually nervous because of Rep. Deal, right ?
    I would be if I were you.

    It can be any day now lightning in a clear blue sky.

    BOOM !

    Deal will write to the press, just keep your eyes open. As we say “No news is good news”. Keeps Obama guessing.

    Or his handlers. (I wonder, “Does Obama actually know we’re asking for his certificate. He acts like he’s not even aware of this. Like as if he’s not equipped to have any emotion and be on the defensive. His only mode is *Forward*.” It’ll be “Go to big house called JAIL” now, Obama- Antichrist.)

  169. 11/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Geir:

    You can’t produce the quote and no one else really gives a darn; so big deal.

    The fuss, what’s it all about ?

    No fuss. You lied. You got caught.

    Pretty much just another day.

  170. 11/9/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:
    November 9, 2009 at 1:03 pm
    *P.S. Who’s got that quote about the worn-out certificate ?*

    Yes, Geir, where is the quote. It’s not in either of Obama’s books. A search of Google books for “Obama birth certificate bookmark” returns NO hits. You must have MADE IT UP. And the reason you are getting such strong push-back is every time you repeat the LIE you made up about Obama and the copy of his birth certificate his mother had, you embellish it with a new smear. Like “african teenager” “rummaging through his mother’s papers?” Just what are you trying to imply Geir? You are a crank.

  171. 11/9/2009qwertyman says:

    qwertyman fumbled up again.
    What’s this big fuss about the attic and bookmark ?
    What do two of the Obots have an interest in getting involved in this for ?
    Two Obots.
    Strange.
    Ok Big Deal.
    You can’t produce the quote and no one else really gives a darn; so big deal.
    The fuss, what’s it all about ?

    The fuss is that you made an accusation that is factually untrue. Note how none of the other birthers here are even coming to your help. They know (or at least are smart enough not to try to back you up without checking facts) that the quote you keep citing doesn’t exist. That’s why nobody can “produce the quote,” because Obama never said it!

    The big deal is that you are sticking to this blatant lie instead of either making the slightest effort to check your own facts, which you could do VERY EASILY, or admit your mistake.

    But you make a prototypical birther: paranoid fantasies, religious fanaticism, intellectual laziness, intellectual dishonesty and a total inability to admit error.

  172. 11/9/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    I’ll tell you three cranks what it is
    It’s you’re freaked senseless by a 17-year veteran like Nathan Deal in Congress
    So it’s gone downhill into attics and bookmarks, which is typical of defeat
    Have you studied battle-strategies ?
    Do you know why Napoleon lost Waterloo ?
    Me neither.
    But you do. You know how it feels now to be losing Waterloo and looking at forces all around. You’re looking at Wounded Knee. You’re surrounded come out with your hands on your heads. Obama can’t produce any certificate and you know it. This will fall like dominoes now. It’ll all come out at once. Like a flood or tsunami. Break the damn-gates.

    Why do you think Deal announced it publically ? He’s got a plan. It’s primed to flood you all.

  173. 11/9/2009qwertyman says:

    I’ll tell you three cranks what it is
    It’s you’re freaked senseless by a 17-year veteran like Nathan Deal in Congress
    So it’s gone downhill into attics and bookmarks, which is typical of defeat

    You started this by bringing up some fabricated quote about Obama using his birth certificate about a bookmark until it became tattered. Without admitting that you did not check your facts before initially posting, and refusing to do the very little legwork that it would take to realize that you are dead wrong, you move on.

    With your posting, I’m not sure whether to laugh at your insanity or disturbed by it.

    You need to get off the internet and get yourself checked out by a mental health professional, because (and I’m not saying this because I disagree with your politics) what you are writing here is seriously deranged, delusional and paranoid to the extreme.

  174. 11/9/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:
    November 9, 2009 at 7:27 pm
    *Why do you think Deal announced it publically ? He’s got a plan. It’s primed to flood you all.*

    To pander to the right wing birthers. Some plan to say your going to write a letter. Get back to us when he actually writes a letter.

  175. 11/9/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    Seems you guys are excited about this.
    You losing sleep ?
    hahaha !

  176. 11/9/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    conspiracy theories…They ignore all the actual evidence…brygenon

    If we do not to ignore the actual evidence then it should be understood Hawaii DoH recently confirmed, in response to a UIPA [local FOIA] request, that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing. This would not have been the case if Obama had been born in a hospital on August 4, or if his mother had completed a form and submitted a notarized statement of the reasons for the delay anytime between thirty days and one year after Obama’s birth. Clearly the newspaper announcements, which allegedly drew their information from the August 8 filing, and recorded Obama’s birth as having occurred on August 4, are highly suspect. Given there is solid evidence that Obama’s mother was in Washington before August 19, 1961, there must also be considerable doubt whether she actually was in Hawaii on August 8 when Obama’s birth was the subject of a delayed filing at DoH — or even on August 4, the date Obama celebrates as his birthday. Furthermore, given the delayed filing is not discernible in online images of Obama’s purported COLB, this can only mean it is either a fake or the information within the purported COLB has not been accepted by Hawaii DoH as reflecting the official circumstances of Obama’s birth. If brygenon ignores the actual evidence then what brygenon is pushing is just another true believer’s kooky cringe theory.

    Here’s Obama’s birth certificatebrygenon

    brygenon links to Factcheck‘s alleged “COLB” photographs. Working only from the evidence that Factcheck itself provides: these are photographs that Factcheck claimed on August 21, 2008 were taken “recently” to counter allegations (e.g. scans of Obama’s alleged COLB have no seal, no creases etc) made by, among others, Corsi in an interview on August 15, 2008: however internal data show the digital photographs were taken between 10.40 pm and 10.50 pm on March 12, 2008, months before Obama put scans of his alleged COLB into the public domain. Judging Factcheck’s story from Factcheck‘s own self-contradictory evidence casts significant doubt on both Factcheck‘s account of when and how the photographs were taken and on the alleged “COLB” photographs themselves.

    For example, in common with the Daily Kos and Fight The Smears scans of Obama’s alleged COLB, released in June 2008, Factcheck‘s “COLB” Photograph #3 displays no official seal which can be discerned, neither when enlarged nor when using specialized software. No official seal means the alleged “COLB” in Photograph #3 cannot be genuine. If brygenon or a friend can locate the official seal and tell us where it is or how to find it in Photograph #3 and only Photograph #3 [ http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ] then brygenon may have a better chance of persuading us that the Annenberg Political Fact Check blog is a reliable source or that Obama’s alleged COLB really exists in the form purported.

    [Fukino has] seen the original vital records maintained on file verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.brygenon

    Nowhere in this form of words from Fukino’s July statement can it be said that Fukino herself is stating that Obama was born in Hawaii: that would have been easy to say but Fukino chose not to say it. Applying standard English grammar to Fukino’s July statement, it is the “records maintained on file [which] verify” the records, not Fukino, who has only “seen” them. Until we know which “records“, and what it means for them to be “maintained on file“, we cannot rely on Fukino’s “seeing” as evidence of where Obama was born. Unfortunately the public cannot expect much help from Fukino and DoH in this matter because they have been acting contrary to Hawaii law for months to protect Obama.

    Similarly, when Okubo says in a newspaper interview “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate” nowhere in that sentence has Okubo actually said “DoH issued that COLB to Obama and it’s genuine in every respect.” That would have been easy to say but Okubo chose not to say it (even though publication had obviated privacy considerations and DoH devise and police their own privacy rules). Analogously, suppose a bank official is assisting law enforcement. The bank official is shown an online image, posted at a private website, of a high value cashier’s check and asked “Is that the cashier’s check under investigation in the XYZ case?“. The bank official replies “This is the same cashier’s check everyone gets on request from the bank“. Notice the bank official has not said unequivocally this particular image of a cashier’s check is “the same cashier’s check our records show was issued by this bank to XYZ on the Twelfth of Never, 200! “. Until law enforcement come into possession of the actual cashier’s check in dispute, and unless the bank official specifically identifies that particular cashier’s check as the check at issue, authorities will not press charges. Why? No evidence.

    not only eligible to be President…he is President…brygenon

    If Obama is not eligible, he is not President. Obama’s party did not certify him as eligible in over 40 states. Obama personally supplied no proof of eligibility except his own statement where required. If Obama could produce a vital record from Hawaii it would not be presumed genuine because it was a delayed filing, and so its “probative value…shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence” (Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-17). Obama cannot be presumed eligible, and therefore it cannot be presumed Obama’s election to the Presidency was valid. An invalid candidate does not become a valid President.

    …Barack Obama has admitted that he is a British [Citizen] at birth…and followed the condition of his father…These facts are not in dispute.syc1959

    Anything Obama “admits” concerning his background is not to be trusted. Obama was not a British citizen by descent at birth (if that occurred outside sovereign British territory) because Section 32(2) of the British Nationality Act 1948 limited transmission of citizenship to the legitimate children of British citizen fathers. Given Obama Sr. had lawfully married Kezia Grace Aoko in British Kenya in 1957, under the British Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 Obama Jr. could not be the legitimate child of a British citizen. Therefore Obama could not be a British citizen by descent at birth if born outside sovereign British territory. To establish the contrary necessitates proving Obama Sr.’s Kenyan marriage was not lawful in British Kenya in 1957 and that is impossible: a legally binding marriage contract was accomplished by the exchange of livestock between the bride’s and the groom’s families [ http://tinyurl.com/64ebrq ]; in customary law, this being the local equivalent of a marriage certificate, such a marriage would have been deemed lawful by any court in 1961, whether a British government recognized Kenyan customary law court or a British colonial court, both of which enforced customary law. Even assuming hypothetically that Obama was born in Hawaii and was the legitimate son of Obama Sr., as I wrote in early September, a COLB is not enough to prove British nationality given that British authorities won’t accept it; which is why one must assume Donofrio is making exposure of Obama’s 1961 vital records the prime focus of his renewed efforts.

    Notwithstanding Obama’s father was a bigamist in British Kenya and Hawaii, Obama was considered the legitimate child of a marriage recognized under Hawaii law (between Obama Sr. and Dunham) because in Hawaii only a court can issue the decree which annuls a bigamous marriage. The marriage of Obama Jr.’s parents was never annulled by a Hawaii court decree, so Obama Jr. was considered a legitimate child in Hawaii and the US. The consequence being that if Obama was born outside the US his mother did not have sufficient residency to transmit US citizenship.

  177. 11/9/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Who Are You Kidding says:
    November 9, 2009 at 9:12 pm
    *delayed filing*

    A Complete Falsehood. Who Are You Trying to Kid?

  178. 11/9/2009rtcr says:

    SanDiegoSam, wha don’t YOU understand about the natural-born citizen clause?

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen”.

    Wong Kim Ark, while providing an expansive and controversial definition of a Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen of the United States,’ simply does not and cannot retroactively change the Founders’ definition of a ‘natural born Citizen.'”

    http://restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/forum/index.php?topic=1518.msg19125#msg19125

  179. 11/10/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    rtcr:

    SanDiegoSam, wha don’t YOU understand about the natural-born citizen clause?

    It’s a very short, simple and direct clause. What about it is possible to misunderstand? No, my friend. Nobody misunderstands it. Birthers simply lie about it.

    U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen”.

    And yet… the quotation I already provided (and that you are avoiding even as you pretend to respond) says otherwise. It says in unambiguous and direct language that the definition of natural born citizen is that of English Common Law, and it has never been any other. The decision declares repeatedly that any child of aliens (who are not foreign diplomats or occupying armies) born on American soil is a natural born citizen.

    I posted the quotation, and I will ask you again the question your are either too afraid or too dishonest to answer: What about that quotation do you not understand?

    Wong Kim Ark, while providing an expansive and controversial definition of a Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen of the United States,’ simply does not and cannot retroactively change the Founders’ definition of a ‘natural born Citizen.’

    It makes no attempt to change anything. It instead explicitly asserts that the original and only definition used by the Framers was that of British Common Law.

    There was no other.

  180. 11/10/2009richCares says:

    What, no letter yet, Nathan Deal apparently has no balls or is just pandering. This OMG moment will never happen! And if he does write it what will happen when he is shown a Birth Certificate along with affidavits from Hawaii?

  181. 11/10/2009siseduermapierda says:

    rtcr says:
    November 9, 2009 at 11:36 pm
    *Wong Kim Ark….natural born citizen clause*

    It is you that doesn’t understand. The Supreme Court found in the Wong cas that the child of non-citizen legal residents was a natural born citizen. They also used the terms ‘natural born’, ‘native born’ and ‘citizen at birth’ interchangeably in the decision. This is why no legitimate conservative constitutional law expert has come forward to challeng Obama. Read the actual decision instead of the anti-Obama “spin” of the decision. There is no ambiguity in the majority opinion.

  182. 11/10/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    who’s following the jewish link story with obama ?
    no one GIVES a rat’s ass if he’s jewish, purple or brown, but not the bible-crowd; because the antichrist will be a deceiver of the jewish people – but also will be a jew himself.
    who’s following this story ?

  183. 11/10/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    if u wonder what these racist antisemite black false-jews like obama’s cousin are check this out:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_African_diaspora#North_America

    Black Hebrews and Black Hebrew Israelites
    Main article: Black Hebrew Israelites

    excerpt:
    The term “Black Jews” is sometimes used to describe Black Hebrews, groups of people mostly of Black African ancestry situated mainly in the United States who believe they are descendants of the ancient Israelites. Black Hebrews adhere in varying degrees to the religious beliefs and practices of mainstream Judaism. They are generally not accepted as Jews by the greater Jewish community, and many Black Hebrews consider themselves — and not mainstream Jews — to be the only authentic Jews. Although cordial relationships exist between some of these groups and the mainstream Jewish community, they are generally not considered to be members of that community, since they have not formally converted nor do they have Jewish parents.[4]

    THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTED
    because they claim they’re the only real jews, they’re racist hatred-filled and crazy as hell
    they’re the crazies set up in Times Square N.Y. haranguing and provoking passersby, trying to bait them into listening to their raging deluge.

    see a video

    they’re an insult to judaism and realize perfectly the prophecy that the antichrist will be Jewish but will insult Israel and Jews.
    Thye’re a shame but Obama’s not justa sahme for the jews’ but for everyone: also Islam, Christianity Communism…whatever he dabbles in, he ruins.

    Learn more about these freaks (which Obama, the world’s most POWERFUL MAN [what a shame !] mixes with through his cousin):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hebrew_Israelites

    excerpt:

    Black Hebrew Israelites (also Black Hebrews, African Hebrew Israelites, and Hebrew Israelites) are groups of people mostly of Black African ancestry situated mainly in the United States who believe they are descendants of the ancient Israelites. Black Hebrews adhere in varying degrees to the religious beliefs and practices of mainstream Judaism. They are generally not accepted as Jews by the greater Jewish community, and many Black Hebrews consider themselves — and not mainstream Jews — to be the only authentic descendants of the ancient Israelites. Many choose to self-identify as Hebrew Israelites or Black Hebrews rather than as Jews.[1][2][3][4]

    Dozens of Black Hebrew groups were founded during the late 19th and the early 20th centuries.[5] In the mid-1980s, the number of Black Hebrews in the United States was between 25,000 and 40,000.[6] In the 1990s, the Alliance of Black Jews estimated that there were 200,000 African-American Jews, including Black Hebrews and those recognized as Jews by mainstream Jewish organizations.[7]

    Capers Funnye is not an exception, he took over an earlier church (synagogues hehehe! call it what you want !) which was one of the most militantly racist: see last article; the Commandament Keepers.

    (link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandment_Keepers)
    that’s funnye synagogue’s earlier name. The idea is always that the blacks are the only truely anointed race. It’s the same racist stuff universally with the black liberation movements. They want all other races to fold and bow down. The talk is roughly what you’ll get with Rev. Wright. Ugh !

    What they say is “heaven belongs to them and we can go eat our hearts out”.

    Thanks a lot ! That’s very *Christian* !

    The *bottom line* to this post is Obama directly insults the whole Jewish people by having this kind of family.

  184. 11/10/2009robacosta says:

    on Nov 6, Deal said he would write a letter to Obama asking for BC, it is now Nov 10 and no letter. Is he just funnin’ the birthers?

  185. 11/10/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    it’s the apocalypse so don’t lose time
    spread the message
    obama’s announced and is the antisemite jew antichrist insulting israel
    this is a message for the whole wide world so spread it

  186. 11/11/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    After the first announcement of Rep. Nathan Deal’s sending a letter to Obama to ask for his birth certificate, it’s been calm. But it’s still in the news (rep. Deal is a specialist on illegally-documented alliens.):

    http://www.charltoncountyherald.com/articles/2009/11/10/opinion/editorials/doc4af989ed69b64384024041.txt

    excerpt:

    Deal also raised the specter of undocumented immigrants getting healthcare benefits under the Democrats’ proposed plan.

    “Make no mistake about it — illegal aliens will receive government-funded healthcare under this bill because all they are required to show is a Social Security number and a name,” Deal said. “If you think identity theft is a problem now, just wait until this bill passes!”

    Deal doesn’t need the healthcare issue to make his pitch to the “birthers” who believe Obama was really born in Kenya. He disclosed last week that he and several other House members will send a letter to the president asking him to release his birth certificate.

  187. 11/11/2009robacosta says:

    hey Deal, wheres the letter?
    did you lie?

  188. 11/12/2009DCA says:

    November 12, 2009 and no letter. Not gonna happen.
    Birthers punked by one of their own again!

  189. 11/12/2009robacosta says:

    the headline says “Let the Blowback begin”
    What Blockback, where is the letter?
    Birthers heroes constantly fall flat!

  190. 11/12/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    Is this going to blow ? Nathan Deal’s going to send the “Mother of All Letters” to Obama ?
    Are we just waiting like in Rapture, while he gathers his gathering-clouds of letter-joiners of a storm ?
    Is this the end of times ?
    Is this the question which will down Obama ?
    Will this make headline news in minutes when the letter is revealed and the content is broken to the press ?
    Is Nathan Deal the hunter of Obama’s tricks ?
    His career was made hunting down illegal undocumented aliens, or busting people with fake IDs.
    Maybe he thinks Obama is just a “client” like any other, and just an ordinary day’s work.
    Just a bigger one than usual.
    This is the Forbes’ “most powerful man in the world”
    Looks like Obama would fall very far down seeing he’s reached the top – the pinnacle – the summit.
    Boom ! Kaboom !

  191. 11/13/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    I’m not a prophet, and don’t have supernatural perception, but if one still puts two and two together, Nathan Deal announced twice that he was going to send a letter to Obama asking for his birth certificate, and do so along with several other “House Members”, so what do we have ?
    Coming from a senior Congressman, that’s a clear threat.

    We’re now waiting for that letter and for it to be published simultaneously in the mainstream press.
    It’s when you want to, Rep(s) !

  192. 11/13/2009robacosta says:

    “I’m not a prophet”
    well I am, and I say no letter will appear, Deal was pandering!

  193. 11/13/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    robacosta, I’m not superstitous like you, I’m a rationalist.
    I’m betting that Deal is a 17 year veteran of Congress and when he threatens Obama with a whammer, Obama the 2-year freshman Senator, it sounds like a dressing-down of the youngster by the old dinosaur who won’t take any jive-fast-talking.

    I’m looking at good old-farm attitude-studying. It’s like the dog and cock facing down in the farm-yard and fun to be looking at.

    Your “Letter won’t come” comes off as not being possible. We’re talking about coming from a vet like Deal, because no one in the rag-tag Team Obama has the wherewithall to have the guts to go to a Congress vet’s office and tell him to back off. They’re street thugs, hustling on corners in Harlem and they’ll be bar-b-qued alive if they go up to those offices.
    Congressmen of two decades soon, like Rep. Deal, don’t have ANYONE IN THEIR CORRIDORS
    No FBI, no CIA, no SECRET OPS. Go there and you fry alive in the lift.

  194. 11/13/2009robacosta says:

    “I’m betting that Deal is a 17 year veteran of Congress”
    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington lists Deal as one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress.

    this corrupt guy won’t do that letter, sorry no OMG moment here! 8 days have passed and no letter, good luck on this!

  195. 11/13/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    >good luck on this!>

    oh thanks robacosta, what are you planning to do ?

    If the letter comes it’ll be like the Revelation seeing the press will open all the facts about who he really is like a Pandora’s box.

    Have you prepared to go to the mountains ?

    It’ll be evil ! I’ve got a poem by obama on my U Tube page which speaks about clear incest – sodomy and abomination.

    The world will fall down on it’s face if Deal sends the letter. Deal said this to gain fame, because he’s in an uphill fight. if he stays behind, he’ll send it anyways seeing he has nothing to lose. If he is winning he can negotiate with obama about not sending it. He’s in a win win.

    If Obama makes a deal with Deal, then he can be again blackmailed by anyone. They’ll line up.

  196. 11/13/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    robacosta, check out my U Tube page about the incest-sodomy abomination poem written by young Obama:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/Birwapa

    It’s WICKED:

    I wrote:
    Obama sexually “took” Grandpa

    Grandpa “took” him, ejaculated inside him
    Sperm-shit stains flowed out of Obama and made the stains, which Gramp makes Obama smell in Obama’s poem
    He had the shamelessness to publish it in the Village Voice. This is the poem:
    “Pop” By Barack Obama
    .. Pop takes another shot, neat,
    Points out the same amber
    Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine, and
    Makes me smell his smell, coming
    From me;…

    Sodom and Gomorrah

    See that at this other page among the eleven pages that all link together: WICKED !

    http://www.youtube.com/user/ObamasTheBeast

  197. 11/13/2009robacosta says:

    “If the letter comes”
    if it doesn’t come will that end your delusions?
    (don’t think so, hating Obama causes brain damage)

  198. 11/13/2009richCares says:

    8 days and no letter.
    What if letter is sent and Deal is shown Obama’s BC with affidavits from Hawaii Dept of Health verifying Obama is Hawaiian born? (they have done this already)What then?

  199. 11/13/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    u guys interested in other things than stupid stuff ?
    Nathan Deal will blow up in your faces I think.

  200. 11/14/2009robacosta says:

    “Nathan Deal will blow up in your faces I think.”

    Sure it will, by the way I have a bridge for sale real cheap, send me your email address and I’ll forward details.

  201. 11/14/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    u got a dime bro ?

  202. 11/14/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    What’s the latest with Nathan Deal ?

  203. 11/14/2009robacosta says:

    “What’s the latest with Nathan Deal ?”
    10 days and no letter, what do you think? Still delusional?

  204. 11/14/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    didn’t know u were delusional roba,
    is it painful ?
    u taulk about the topics ?
    i wanted to talk about the topics
    the quesitn of obama is jewish
    talk about it
    i’m not talking about something else
    huh !

  205. 11/14/2009robacosta says:

    “i’m not talking about something else”
    you asked ““What’s the latest with Nathan Deal ?”
    Since nothing is occuring on Nathan’s letter, you want to drop that topic, I see! You fell for his pandering now you want to drop it!

  206. 11/14/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    no u drop it
    i’ve got time
    the antichrist only rules three and half years
    the rise to power was a bit over three years ago
    he’s ripe to fall any time now

  207. 11/14/2009richCares says:

    hey rob
    forget responding to Gier, he has very serious mental problems, it’s quite obvious his mind is gone.

  208. 11/15/2009KENNETH says:

    This non letter by Representative Deal has all the hallmarks of a politician replying to one voter what he thanks the voter wants to hear.
    In other words he really had no intention of writing or sending such a letter in the first place.
    He has been in House for how long? what actions has he taken to date?
    Now all of a sudden he starts “thinking of sending a letter to Obama while running again” for another office.
    I am NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR ANY CANDIDATE THAT HAS STOOD BY THIS LONG AND ONLY TO DO THE RIGHT THING NOW.
    ANY member of congress does not get my vote ever again even if they are running for city dogcatcher or city sanitation engineer.
    WE DO NOT NEED THESE PEOPLE IN ANY GOVERNMENT OFFICE CITY, STATE,FEDERAL, or ANY APPOINTED OFFICE OF OUR GOVERNMENT.
    IF you have not upheld the oath of office WHY SHOULD WE VOTE FOR YOU????????????

  209. 11/16/2009DCA says:

    November 16, 2009. Rep. Deal fails agian to deliver on the delusion.
    In unreported birther news two birther cases had actions:

    Phil Berg’s Berg vs. Obama appeal was denied by UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. That is the end of the road – nowhere to go, the SCOTUS already denied cert. Mario’s case that just got dismissed has been appealed to the same court so that will disapear the same way in a few months.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Berg-Obama-Appeal-Decision.pdf

    Meanwhile a court in Indiana actually addressed the pet birther theory of the two parent rule to bed.

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

    http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
    Read it and weep.

  210. 11/16/2009richCares says:

    “Rep. Deal Wants Obama’s Birth Certificate; Let the Blowback Begin!”

    well it’s the 16th and no Blowback, now did he pander or lie? Another birther story down the drain. Maybe we should call the birthers “drainers” as they seem to hype these go nowhere stories.

  211. 11/16/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Hey!!! Where’s that letter!!!!

  212. 11/16/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    apocalypse is ruling the world
    i’m at latest comments now
    out of here this is too far back

  213. 11/16/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=4377#more-4377

    Georgia and California candidates meet this weekend: where’s the birth certificate?

    Gubernatorial candidates were working the bleechers this weekend which is not unusal. What was unusual — Nathan Deal in Georgia and Chelene Nightingale in California really had the citizens going when they attacked Obama’s administration over critical issues and get this, eligibility!Chelene of course is very much against Illegal Immigration and Amnesty. She reminds me a little of Sarah Palin in her conservative and aggessive nature. American Grand Jury has talked to Chelene a number of times. She is defintely onboard with American Grand Jury in demanding that Obama prove his eligibility, ie: where’s the birth certificate.. are you sir a “natural born” citizen? The Patriots all know the answer to that. We all know Obama is guilty as sin and has violated the Constitution many times over.

    Now Representative Nathan Deal in Georgia is really stoked up over the birth certificate issue. Deal has publically announced he is going to press Obama for the truth. The fans at the Tea Party in Georgia on Saturday were ready to elect him on the spot I feel as he added emphasis to the eligibility question.

    As reported by Jim Seigfreid, one of our Jury members, who was at the Tea Party in Georgia: Rep. Nathan Deal, Rep. of the 9th Congressional District in Georgia, is relinquishing his seat to run for Governor of Georgia. He made it to the meet at the last moment, but what he said was monumental, and had the crowd cheering.

    He spoke at great length about the eligibility issue we are focused on. Now Bob, this to me, was earth-shaking, to have a gubernatorial candidate speak at length about that which concerns us, so adamantly.
    Earlier this month Nathan Deal was asked on an instant message blog about the issue:

    Do you believe that Barack Obama is a native-born American citizen who is eligible to serve as president? I am asking because your comments on this issue have been a little ambiguous. I would appreciate your clearing this up.

    Deal replied:

    I am joining several of my colleagues in the House in writing a letter to the President asking that he release a copy of his birth certificate so we can have an answer to this question.

    Jim asked Rep. Nathan Deal if we could send the Grand Jury Presentments to him and he seemed quite receptive. Wait till this guy sees the criminal TREASON charges against Obama. That should really light his fire!

    Nathan Deal press release by Jim Seigfreid

    Chelene Nightingale press release by Neil Turner

    Both Neil (CA) and Jim (GA) are American Grand Jury members.

    Thanks Guys.. great stuff here!

  214. 11/18/2009DixHistory.com says:

    Obama has to be a Natural Born Citizen to be POTUS. Obama is not that.

    You don’t need a BC to know that and all these people in Congress so on and the media are playing word games with our lives.

    DixHistory.com

  215. 11/26/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Phil thinks,

    FactCheck and Politifact (corrected), they are blogs on the Internet. There’s nothing especially special about them, save a few folks who have advanced degrees behind their names outside the purview of forensic analysis.

    FactCheck is run by the University of Pennsylvania, which U.S. News and World Reports ranks (tied for) 4′th among the nation’s universities. Politifact won the 2008 Pulitzer prize for national reporting.

    http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings

    http://www.google.com/search?as_q=politifact+Pulitzer

    I think we’ve both made pretty clear that the folks over at the FactCheck.org blog are credentialed in things other than document forensics. You still haven’t addressed how a blog such as FactCheck.org whose purveyors have no background in such analysis can be relied upon to produce respectable work concerning forensics analysis.

    -Phil

  216. 11/26/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Phil wrote:

    I’d like to see the receipt of the transaction that procured Mr. Obama’s HI COLB and I would like to see someone with credentialed forensic background to actually inspect the physical document.

    That’s how fringe conspiracy theories work. They ignore all the actual evidence and obsess over unanswered trivia and anything they have not seen in exactly the form they demand.

    The problem with this line of logic of yours is that there is no evidence that shows that the physical document allegedly on hand by the FactCheck.org blog is, in fact, a legitimate document. There is nothing that says that any seals or other artifacts of authenticity could not be forged. Nobody has inspected the actual physical document except unqualified staffers at the blog.

    I’m not exactly sure what’s “fringe” about such an observation; maybe someone is aware of appropriate, professional background credentials of the promulgators of the FactCheck.org blog that prove that they have the expertise to do forensic document inspections that hasn’t been released yet…?

    -Phil

  217. 11/30/2009Elmo says:

    People believe what they want. Mostly … what they see on the tele/MSM (Muslim State Media). And difficult for them to believe we aren’t loons. And guess what … we ain’t. Bellee dat. Though yes, yes we do spit on Buraq the Magic Pony.

    http://anechoicroom.blogspot.com/2009/08/point-of-no-return.html

  218. 12/4/2009uberVU - social comments says:

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by michaeljohns: Cong. Nathan Deal echoes @SarahPalinUSA: Mr. Obama, release the documents: http://tinyurl.com/yfd34xu #tcot #gop #rs…

  219. 12/22/2009DCA says:

    So what ever happened to Rep. Deals’ letter?

    Its been over six weeks. As a minority member of congress Rep. Deal has plenty of time to handle requests. But no letter.
    Does that mean that Rep. Deal actually knows that BHO was born in HI? What is Rep. Deal hiding? Why won’t he produce the letter has he suggested?