Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH SoS and Certificates; British Policeman on Eligibility

by Phil on 11/24/2009

TheObamaFile reports on what readers here have seen me promulgate all along regarding the FactCheck.org blog’s credentials on making any sort of forensic document determination RE: Mr. Obama’s Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth — they don’t have the right background (update: see bios here):

FactCheck.org identifies their anal-ists as Jess Henig and Joe Miller.  OK, that’s fine, but who and what are Jess Henig and Joe Miller?  Are they qualified to perform an analysis of ANY document, or are they just a couple of guys hanging around FactCheck.org’s office, or are they political operators?  What are their bona fides?  FactCheck.org doesn’t say.  Wonder why?

Well, I found out.  The two FactCheck.org employees who were granted access to Obama’s bogus Certification of Live Birth (COLB) are NOT document examiners or experts.  Joe Miller has a Ph. D. in Political Philosophy — so he’s a political operative — while Jess Henig has an M.A. in English Literature — I’m not sure her dye-job is a political or esthetic statement.

They are a couple of partisan Obots — just what you’d expect — Jess took the photos presented on their webpage and did all of the writing, while Bob basically held the COLB open for Jess to photograph — suitable work for a Ph. D.

Those two are completely unqualified to perform any kind of forensic examination of any document, and FactCheck.org knows it — and so do Henig and Miller.

FactCheck does say their, “representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ‘birth certificate,’ and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.”  In my mind, that clearly shows they were working with and for the Obama Campaign and that Obama and his people are involved in this lie.

Again, as I’ve said before, these individuals may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics — like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been — could possibly have a trained opinion of the document’s legitimacy.

Further, as certain opposition commenters have pointed out many times over, the page that allegedly speaks to the authenticity of the document can lead the casual observer to believe that quotes from the HI Department of Health are directly related to the certification allegedly on hand with FactCheck.org. This is very much of a conclusory lead, as the HI DoH has never made any direct connection between what they have on file versus what FactCheck.org claims to have on hand. There is no receipt of any such transaction ever having occurred back in 2007 and nobody but the above two individuals have come forward to actually physically handle the document (regardless of FactCheck.org’s supposed willingness to allow such an inspection).

Remember — this is the only direct evidence that has ever been claimed to be originally sourced to speak on anything regarding Mr. Obama’s background. And even this is hardly a direct source; it is a “short-form” version of a “long-form” birth certificate that could very well indicate a birth registration of an immigrant (see Sun Yat-sen for such an example).

Following up on a story concerning New Hampshire State Rep. Lawrence Rappaport inquiring with the Secretary of State regarding Mr. Obama’s legitimate candidacy on the ballot in the State, The Post & Email reports on some additional details:

In an email to supporters, Rappaport reports what transpired:

“Well, here’s the sad news. Representative Vita, her husband and I met with New Hampshire Attorney General Michael Delaney and his assistant yesterday

(Friday) at 10 am. We wanted an investigation for potential fraud on either Obama or the Democratic Partly based mostly on our contention that since Obama ran for President in New Hampshire when we believe he was not eligible, we believe fraud was committed on the citizens of New Hampshire.

We based our suspicions and allegations on:

1. The Supreme Court’s definition of “natural born citizen” and subsequent affirmation of that definition by the US Congress last year, along with his admission that his father was Kenyan.

2. Questionable birth certificates, and an affadavit by a doctor that he delivered Mr. Obama as a baby in Kenya.

3. Multiple use of different Social Security numbers and a signed affidavit to that effect.

4. Attending a school in Indonesia which claimed to accept no foreign students.

Mr. Delaney still declined to prosecute saying that he thought this was a federal matter and that we should complain to the Federal Election Commission. (I most certainly will).

Disappointed, New Hampshire State Representative Laurence M. Rappaport issued this statement:

“Since I have presented evidence to both Mr. William Gardner, the New Hampshire Secretary of State, and Mr. Michael Delaney, the New Hampshire Attorney General, and neither has investigated, I am left to conclude that New Hampshire does not concern itself with the validity of candidates running for public office. Since it is too late for legislation in this session, I plan to introduce legislation next term forcing the Secretary of State’s office to confirm eligibility of all candidates running for office.

Needless to say, I am disappointed.

Another State Representative is, however, taking legislative action, according to Rappaport:

I have since learned that Representative Lars Christiansen will introduce legislation requiring the Secretary of State to verify the birth certificates of anyone running for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency in federal elections. While it is too late to sign on as a co-sponsor, I will certainly vote for that and urge my fellow Representatives to vote for it as well.

This legislation does not, however, address the natural-born-citizenship requirement, though, since that necessitates not only birth in the U.S.A., but also that the parents were citizens at time of the birth.  The proposed legislation would merely confirm Obama’s legitimacy, if he can produce the semblance of an American birth certificate.

The truth of the matter is (and as I’ve been saying all along) that not only is there no defined-in-law enforcement mechanism for Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 in the Constitution nor anywhere else, there is also no law that says what must be used nor to what extent such enforcement is to be manifested.

And, really, this is the reason why it continues to mystify me that individuals such as myself continue to be castigated for questioning this President’s eligibility. After all — what’s not specifically spelled out in the Constitution necessarily flows down to the States and/or the People via the 10th Amendment. That means that the People, no matter how few or many, have every right to bring such questions to the fore and to speak out against those who effectively wish to silence voices such as my own via such cleverly-used politically-correct tactics as claiming that individuals such as myself are racists or bigots, merely because of the melanin in Mr. Obama’s skin.

And from the Telegraph.co.uk, Neil Sankey, a former British policeman, continues his quest to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility:

Neil Sankey, who has almost 20 years experience serving in Special Branch and the Bomb Squad, is now devoting his energies to proving that Mr Obama is not a natural born US citizen. …

Over the past year, Mr Sankey has been integral in some of the most aggressive efforts to remove him from office by claiming that his presidency is illegitimate. …

Mr Sankey, who moved to California in the 1980s to set up his own private detective agency, told the Guardian: “The objection is not Obama’s colour but his politics.

“I like him as a person, I just wish he was genuine.

“It’s quite obvious to me — America is heading towards a socialised state just as has happened in Europe. Socialised medicine, everyone on the dole, and when everything collapses you tip the scales into Marxism.” …

He told the Guardian that his fascination with Mr Obama’s heritage began with the realisation “that this man wasn’t what he said he was. He wasn’t an ordinary Democrat — he was far more extreme than that.”

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

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

Photo courtesy Telegraph

There are 477 comments in this article:

  1. 11/24/2009siseduermapierda says:

    An anti-Obama site refers to Factcheck writers as “anal-ists” and mocks the woman’s hair color. “Just what you’d expect.”

  2. 11/24/2009siseduermapierda says:

    “but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics — like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been — could possibly have a trained opinion of the document’s legitimacy.”

    This is a non-story. The reason copies of legal documents are certified with a seal is so the person receiving them does not need training in “the science of document forensics” to determine they are authentic. The people at the DMV who “examine” your birth certificate copy when you bring it in to get a driver’s license aren’t trained in the “science of document forensics”. Yet every day they are able to determine copies of birth certificates are authentic. They do this by noticing the document has a raised seal and a signature, just like the factcheck folks did. Just like a Secretary of State’s office would, just like you would if you by chance someday held Obama’s COLB in your hands.

  3. 11/24/2009Black Lion says:

    Remember — this is the only direct evidence that has ever been claimed to be originally sourced to speak on anything regarding Mr. Obama’s background. And even this is hardly a direct source; it is a “short-form” version of a “long-form” birth certificate that could very well indicate a birth registration of an immigrant (see Sun Yat-sen for such an example).
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Sun-Yat Sen is a red herring or straw man for the birthers. He never had a Certificate of Live Birth, he had a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. In other words he had a COHB and not a COLB. So it is not even the same program. It is very disingenous to compare the document he received to the certified document that President Obama received. Additionally the document Sun Yat-sen received was issued long before Hawaii was a state. This is comparing apples and oranges. If you can find someone that was issued a Certificate of Live Birth from the State of HI, then this would be an issue. Until then the comparison is not the same.

    Secondly sourcing the Post and Fail. Amazing. So they were wondering why the AG declined to investigate. Maybe is was because the so called issues they detailed were a joke. Lets look at them…

    We based our suspicions and allegations on:

    1. The Supreme Court’s definition of “natural born citizen” and subsequent affirmation of that definition by the US Congress last year, along with his admission that his father was Kenyan.

    What SCOTUS definition? You mean the ruling in Wong Kim Ark? Which affirms that the Constitution was written in English Common law so anyone born within the borders of the US is a natural born citizen regardless of the citizenship of that persons parents? Secondly what affirmation by Congress. Do they mean the John McCain resolution, which stated that if you were born outside of the US to 2 US citizen parents? President Obama was born in HI so how is the relevant? Again do the birthers actually have reading comprehension ability?

    2. Questionable birth certificates, and an affadavit by a doctor that he delivered Mr. Obama as a baby in Kenya.

    What affidavit? What questionable birth certificates? Are they referencing the Bomford Australian fake Kenyan BC? Or the fake Kenyan BC that the convicted felon and forger Lucas Smith got from the Dominican Republic?

    3. Multiple use of different Social Security numbers and a signed affidavit to that effect.

    And this is evidence of what exactly? The problem with using Orly as a source is that the evidence is a joke at best.

    4. Attending a school in Indonesia which claimed to accept no foreign students.

    Look at that sentence. It said “Claimed to accept no foreign students.” They don’t even know for sure if it did or not. And no evidence has ever been presented to support that claim.

    “Since I have presented evidence to both Mr. William Gardner, the New Hampshire Secretary of State, and Mr. Michael Delaney, the New Hampshire Attorney General, and neither has investigated, I am left to conclude that New Hampshire does not concern itself with the validity of candidates running for public office. Since it is too late for legislation in this session, I plan to introduce legislation next term forcing the Secretary of State’s office to confirm eligibility of all candidates running for office. Needless to say, I am disappointed.”

    Why? No credible legally admissible evidence was presented to the SOS or AG. What did you expect them to do. Act on speculation? That is the problem with armchair lawyers. They have no idea what is legally admissible and what exactly is evidence. As long as they follow Orly they will never get clue.

    “I have since learned that Representative Lars Christiansen will introduce legislation requiring the Secretary of State to verify the birth certificates of anyone running for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency in federal elections. While it is too late to sign on as a co-sponsor, I will certainly vote for that and urge my fellow Representatives to vote for it as well.”

    This is political speak for pandering to the wingnuts. This is like Deal’s infamous letter to the President. Lets wait to see if it actually happens. The birthers will hang on to any shred of hope in order to believe that their cause has a chance.

  4. 11/24/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    Phil, I was first on the English Scotland Yard police officer investigating the birth issue.

    Look back at the post:

    “Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:
    November 22, 2009 at 5:23 pm

    The birth issue is written of kindly first time by big UK paper: the Guardian.People can get very UPSET reading through the paper “drinking their morning tea” ! It looks like Scotland Yard is investigating him by the looks of the article.

    YUP ! Let’s see where this goes.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/22/barack-obama-british-conspiracist

    You’ll find it on the “9/11 Terrorists to Have Criminal Case; Holder to Graham: “It Depends””. It had a link from the Guardian.co.uk

    Hehehe ! Pride ! I’m proud ! Seeking recognition hehehe !

  5. 11/24/2009Sue says:

    Phil,

    Why didn’t you include this statement by Sankey from the article you referenced?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/22/barack-obama-british-conspiracist
    “Most recently, he carried out an exhaustive search of databases that he claims threw up 140 different identification numbers and addresses for “Barack Obama”. He admits the findings prove nothing — there is nothing to link the entries to the president”

  6. 11/24/2009Black Lion says:

    And while we are at it let’s address Mr. Neil Sankey. The article above says the following…

    And from the Telegraph.co.uk, Neil Sankey, a former British policeman, continues his quest to determine Mr. Obama’s eligibility:

    And if you read the link to the article from the Guardian, you find the following excerpt…

    “Over the past year, Mr Sankey has been integral in some of the most aggressive efforts to remove him from office by claiming that his presidency is illegitimate. He tried to block Obama’s inauguration last year by contacting all 538 electoral college representatives who formally elect the president. Mr Sankey has also carried out an investigation into Mr Obama’s personal identification history which he claims shows a suspicious number of social security numbers.”

    However in the same article he says the following…

    “Most recently, Mr Sankey carried out a search of databases that he claims produced 140 different identification numbers and addresses for “Barack Obama”. He admits the findings prove nothing — there is nothing to link the entries to the president — but he believes it raises further doubts that need investigating.”

    So which is it. Does it prove something or not? The birthers can’t even make up their minds on what is actually eivdence and what is not evidence.

    The situation is the same with Susan Daniels. She was one of the individuals that found the so called multiple SS numbers…But in July of 2008 here is what she had to say about multiple SS numbers…

    “According to Susan Daniels, of Daniels and Associates Investigations, Inc. in Chardon Ohio, when searching through database aggregators such as IRB, it is common to find a subject referenced with two or three Social Security Numbers (SSN). Here are some of the reasons a person may show-up with multiple SSN’s:

    * a wife’s or child’s SSN could end up with father’s name
    * a parent’s SSN could show up with a child
    * the subject bought something with someone else and the SSNs could end up with each other’s name
    * the database producer is relating several SSN’s to one address
    * an error by whoever entered the data

    Susan Daniels of Daniels and Associates Investigations, Inc. (9754 Thwing Road Chardon, OH 44024, Tel.:440.286.4072) has been a Private Investigator for 15 years.”

    In other words this is not news and there is no need to even reference this. Multiple SS numbers is only evidence in the world of Orly. However in the real world it doesn’t mean a thing.

  7. 11/24/2009Sue says:

    “I have since learned that Representative Lars Christiansen will introduce legislation requiring the Secretary of State to verify the birth certificates of anyone running for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency in federal elections.”

    I don’t believe the Secretary of State is a “forensic expert” either. I have certainly never had anyone require a “forensic examination” of the “certified copy of my birth certificate.”

    “This legislation does not, however, address the natural-born-citizenship requirement, though, since that necessitates not only birth in the U.S.A., but also that the parents were citizens at time of the birth.”

    Where does this definition of natural born citizenship come from? Certainly not SCOTUS, Congress or real “constitutional lawyers or experts.” Oh yes, I recall. This “definition” was introduced by Donofrio in 2008 and Donofrio is certainly NOT a “constitutional lawyer.”

    “The proposed legislation would merely confirm Obama’s legitimacy, if he can produce the semblance of an American birth certificate.”

    Already has but can easily produce the document again.

    It would be interesting to know Rep. Lars Christiansen’s definition of natural born citizen.

  8. 11/24/2009Sue says:

    “Again, as I’ve said before, these individuals may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics — like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been — could possibly have a trained opinion of the document’s legitimacy.”

    Four “credentialed examiners?” Not even close. There is only one “credentialed examiner.”

  9. 11/24/2009Black Lion says:

    Sue says:
    November 24, 2009 at 11:47 am
    “Again, as I’ve said before, these individuals may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics — like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been — could possibly have a trained opinion of the document’s legitimacy.”

    Four “credentialed examiners?” Not even close. There is only one “credentialed examiner.”
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Sue, good point. I was wondering who are the so called “four credentialed examiners in their chosen fields” happen to be? I am assuming that one is the discredited Polarik, or as he is really known as Ronald Jay Polland. Not only is he not an expert he is not even close to being one. The other seems to be some “genealogist” that basically uses the same misguided logic as Polarik. I am wondering if one of the others is the infamous “Techdude”. If I recall his so called analysis was eviserated by real science just like Polariks was. And if the fourth is the only one that used their name, Sandra Lines, she said that she could not make a determination regarding the issue without examining the actual document. Which is what any real examiner would have said. Also it looks like Miss Tickly is an expert also. I know this is the dubious at best Obama file that is being sourced, but come on. It looks like they are using the FOX theory of being an expert. If you show up then you are one.

  10. 11/24/2009Sue says:

    Black Lion,

    Here is Phil’s source for the “four credentialed examiners.”

    http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaCOLB.htm#Examiners

    1. Dr. Ron Polarik
    2. Sandra Ramsey Lines
    3. A third investigator, a genealogist
    4. MissTickly — aka TerriK

  11. 11/24/2009Sue says:

    “And if the fourth is the only one that used their name, Sandra Lines, she said that she could not make a determination regarding the issue without examining the actual document. Which is what any real examiner would have said.”

    The “actual document” of the online COLB would be the certified copy of the COLB.

  12. 11/24/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Sue says:
    * What’s his definition?*

    It says “I have since learned that Representative Lars Christiansen will introduce legislation requiring the Secretary of State to verify the birth certificates of anyone running for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency in federal elections. ” So if the legislation required verification of birth certificates, it would appear his definition is the same as all the members of the US Congress: if you can show you were born here, it proves you’re a natural born citizen.

  13. 11/24/2009Black Lion says:

    Sue says:
    November 24, 2009 at 12:32 pm
    Black Lion,

    Here is Phil’s source for the “four credentialed examiners.”

    http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaCOLB.htm#Examiners

    1. Dr. Ron Polarik
    2. Sandra Ramsey Lines
    3. A third investigator, a genealogist
    4. MissTickly — aka TerriK
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Wow…Talk about a rogues gallery of non expertiese…We have an unknown “genealogist”, a discredited guy using a fake name in Polarik, who science and findings were discredited also, an unknown blogger, and a real Dr. that said she needed the actual document to make a determination. Yes that is some real evidence. What a joke. With “experts” like that I doubt you could even indict a ham sandwich.

  14. 11/24/2009Phil says:

    siseduermapierda,

    “but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics — like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been — could possibly have a trained opinion of the document’s legitimacy.”

    This is a non-story. The reason copies of legal documents are certified with a seal is so the person receiving them does not need training in “the science of document forensics” to determine they are authentic.

    At least you’re being creative with the issue. Besides, nobody would ever think about manufacturing a document that claims to have a seal from a State DoH, now, would they (I question both sarcastically and rhetorically)?

    It is amazing how much you trust what’s posted on the Internet.

    The people at the DMV who “examine” your birth certificate copy when you bring it in to get a driver’s license aren’t trained in the “science of document forensics”.

    Two things:

    1. We’re talking about presidential eligibility, not the ability to get a driver’s license;

    2. I’d challenge the FactCheck.org folks to take the physical document and get an opinion from a State or federal agency on whether or not it’s legite.

    They do this by noticing the document has a raised seal and a signature, just like the factcheck folks did. Just like a Secretary of State’s office would, just like you would if you by chance someday held Obama’s COLB in your hands.

    A very convenient argument when only two individuals are ever said to have actually examined the physical document.

    I still want to see a receipt of the transaction that procured the document. At least that would dissipate most doubts as to the document’s authenticity, because you can actually trace that.

    Or, short of that, why didn’t FactCheck.org confirm with the HI DoH that the document is, in fact, legitimate? The web page to which I referenced shows that it has been updated over time; why not simply step up and do that?

    Such simple steps could completely do away with any doubt. FactCheck.org should simply ask HI DoH, “Regarding the COLB we have with certification number blah, is this document, in fact, the document that was previously requested on such-and-such date in 2007?”

    Really, really simple. And we don’t have to take FactCheck.org’s word for it. And there would therefore be a direct link between what they claim to have on hand versus what the HI DoH has on hand.

    -Phil

  15. 11/24/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    Phil,

    Why didn’t you include this statement by Sankey from the article you referenced?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/22/barack-obama-british-conspiracist
    “Most recently, he carried out an exhaustive search of databases that he claims threw up 140 different identification numbers and addresses for “Barack Obama”. He admits the findings prove nothing — there is nothing to link the entries to the president”

    Take your pick:

    1. With you being such an astute reader of my blog, you were probably going to comment on it anyway;

    2. I’m not so sure how relevant the SS number issue is;

    3. I needed to provide something that would stoke you into thinking that I’m not fair and balanced.

    -Phil

  16. 11/24/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    “Again, as I’ve said before, these individuals may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics — like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been — could possibly have a trained opinion of the document’s legitimacy.”

    Four “credentialed examiners?” Not even close. There is only one “credentialed examiner.”

    Unless you have actually seen something “in real life” that can subsequently corroborate what you see on the Internet, I’m not so sure that you can be so sure about what anyone claims or disclaims on the Internet.

    It continues to amaze me how some individuals will pick and choose what they’re going to filter off the Internet.

    I shall refer you (and everyone else) to what radio personality Neal Boortz has to say regarding what you read on the Internet:

    Don’t believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as “doing your homework.”

    In other words, whether it’s my blog, someone else’s site, or whatever, treat all things with a very large grain of salt until such things can be independently verified.

    More specifically, regarding “forensics examiners” (or what not), they claim to have a background that allows them to potentially see things that “untrained eyes” might not see. And always remember: since the only thing that is available for public view is an image of a document, well, just look at the other images of documents that have so far been debunked.

    -Phil

  17. 11/24/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    “And if the fourth is the only one that used their name, Sandra Lines, she said that she could not make a determination regarding the issue without examining the actual document. Which is what any real examiner would have said.”

    The “actual document” of the online COLB would be the certified copy of the COLB.

    Certified according to whom? In this case, has the alleged COLB ever been directly verified by the HI DoH? Or are you relying upon a third-party blog such as FactCheck.org?

    -Phil

  18. 11/24/2009Sue says:

    Phil,

    So, anybody who is placed on the Presidential ballot in the future, in your opinion, needs to have the certified copy of their birth certificate verified by a forensic expert? Is this what you are saying?

  19. 11/24/2009Sue says:

    Phil,

    “Certified according to whom? In this case, has the alleged COLB ever been directly verified by the HI DoH? Or are you relying upon a third-party blog such as FactCheck.org?”

    You missed the point. The underlying document to the online COLB is the certified COLB from Hawaii DOH, certified by the Hawaii DOH.

    If the document was ever released to a judge directly from Hawaii DOH via subpoena, I doubt if a forensic examination would be required by the judge.

  20. 11/24/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Phil says:
    November 24, 2009 at 3:01 pm
    *Really, really simple. *

    Yes, the states have made it really, really simple for regular people to know whether a birth certificate copy is authentic: they put a raised seal and signature on it. The reason they do this is so people don’t have to call and confirm if a document with a seal is authentic. The system of placing a raised seal and signature accomplishes the same thing for a Presidential candidate, as an applicant for a passport as an applicant for a driver’s license, as an applicant for Social Security: it tells the person examining it that it is authentic. Can you imagine how many phone calls the states would have to field if everyone thought like you did, that in spite of the seal and signature, authenticity still must be confirmed? Ridiculous. They would tell you, if it has a raised seal and a signature, it’s authentic. Documents with seals and signatures are self-authenticating and continuing to say it’s not so doesn’t make it not so. It is so. Anyone who challenged a document with a seal and a signature would have the burden of proving it’s not real.

  21. 11/24/2009RobL says:

    While this blog presents some interesting material, thanks to Phil, it has become a mouthpiece for Black Lion, Sue, and, siseduermapierda. Their comments repeat and rehash ad nauseum, seldom adding little that is new. There are fewer and fewer comments from anyone else, I would guess people have moved on out of boredom. Too bad.

  22. 11/24/2009qwertyman says:

    There are fewer and fewer comments from anyone else, I would guess people have moved on out of boredom. Too bad.

    I would guess people have moved on out of realization that the entire birther movement is based on a false premise, and/or that Geir’s insanity is completely indefensible and incomprehensible.

  23. 11/24/2009Black Lion says:

    RobL says:
    November 24, 2009 at 4:17 pm
    While this blog presents some interesting material, thanks to Phil, it has become a mouthpiece for Black Lion, Sue, and, siseduermapierda. Their comments repeat and rehash ad nauseum, seldom adding little that is new. There are fewer and fewer comments from anyone else, I would guess people have moved on out of boredom. Too bad.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Or more likely they have moved on to a moderated blog that only allows their wrong opinions to be posted with no sort of opposition or contrary view allowed. The reasons that the same comments are repeated are because the birthers seem to try and recycle the same disproven arguments. If you don’t want to hear a dissenting opinion, then go blog over at Orly’s or at Oilforimmigration. You will find all of the wingnuts over there that are calling for the people to “rise up” and “take our country back.” The fact of the matter is that most of the time this blog presents the side that is adventageous to the birther point of view. I can respect that because I respect the time and effort that Phil puts into his blog although obviously I don’t agree with his conclusions. But the downside to quoting sources like the Post and Fail, WND, and other one sided sites like that is that they do not do any research so it is easy to disprove the wild statements they make.

    Rob, what are you adding that is new? Do you have some new evidence? Do you know of some ruling that disproves what Sise, Sue, Bry, Q, and I are saying, or are you just venting because you are upset with the lack of evidence or success that the birther movement has provided?

  24. 11/24/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue

    Allow me to state, that the existence of multiple versions of the COLB, negate the authenticity of the document in question.

    The original posted was ‘CREATED’ in Photoshop CS3, not altered.
    The FactCheck one, was ‘PRINTED’ out, photographed, and when the SEAL was not there, they [FactCheck] applied an embossed SEAL to make it appear legimate. However since they did not have access to an official State of Hawaii, Department of Health seal [as noted in my blog] their forgery was discovered. I have the e-mails from the State of Hawaii proving that fact. [also posted on my blog]

    The simple reality is that ANY document without the ‘seal’ [forgery #1 - Fight the Smears] and [forgery #2 - FactCheck] could never have been released by quote ‘any’ official State of Hawaii agency, regardless of it being 2007 or 2008.

    The date stamp in the Obama COLB was never applied seperately to the image. It was on the template, they used to create the forged document. [again, on my blog]

    Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro might like to explain why he claims to have his original Birth Certificate. As mentioned in “Dreams of My Father” he claims finding his birth certificate.

    On Page 26 of “Dreams of My Father”, Obama writes:

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

    While this brief quote does not state WHAT article it is that Obama found, it does mention that he found it WITH his BIRTH CERTIFICATE. This would have been in the mid 70’s, so this birth certificate would not have been a computer generated document. So where is this original?

  25. 11/24/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    See this video: calls for Obama’s jailing, trying and executing for/if found guilty of High Treason for frauding ID in gaining top Army nuclear access (Obama can destroy us 1000 times pressing just one single button, awesome.) It’s Rev. Mannings’ video of being bumped from U Tube for proferring the exact same kind of statement.

    But the facts remain despite all that. The facts are there that, by law, Obama would face grave penalties and sentences if found guilty of false deceit, frauding and trickery.

    This is going to be the new story PHIL, and it’s going to grow with time and not just GO AWAY.

    The dead rat behind the wall is going to stink more and more.

  26. 11/24/2009elspeth says:

    Way to go, Phil! Keep the Obots busy. They have nothing better to do than repeat the same arguments. Keep ‘em from getting a life. I love it!

    Full disclosure!

  27. 11/24/2009siseduermapierda says:

    elspeth says:
    November 24, 2009 at 6:30 pm
    *Keep ‘em from getting a life.*

    We’re like Obama, we can multi-task. Can’t you do more than one activity at a time?

  28. 11/24/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 24, 2009 at 5:52 pm
    *so this birth certificate would not have been a computer generated document. So where is this original?*

    Why would you assume what was in with his mother’s papers in the 70s would be available to Obama today? Steve, NO ONE has their original birth certificate. It was a copy. Everyone has just a copy. And the way copies of birth certificates work is that no copy is better than any other. Older isn’t better. A copy in a group of papers in the 70s is not a better copy than one requested in 2007. Typewritten, old style is not more authentic than a computer-generated version. It’s the seal and the signature that makes it authentic. Not the age or the font or the paper. You know this, but you parse and twist and insinuate to mislead people who don’t have the same knowledge you do. You’re playing with all those 50s and 60s year olds who were given a typewritten copy that their mother saved for them from their birth and told ” now keep this in a safe place.” They don’t realize the computer copy they can get to replace that “special” copy if it’s every lost or ruined is every bit as valid. The only thing they’ve lost is the sentimental value. But you know, and still you mislead people to smear Obama. You should be ashamed.

  29. 11/24/2009Sue says:

    syc1959,

    Please post the link to your blog.

  30. 11/24/2009MGB says:

    Sise said, “NO ONE has their original birth certificate” Wrong. I have an original birth certificate from the hospital in which I was born, complete with a doctor’s signature and my little footprints. An original. Of course, there’s another legal birth certificate at the state. I have a certified copy of that one, too.

    Sise, next time you go to get a driver’s license, try showing the DMV a digital image of your birth certificate, displayed on their computer or on your laptop, if you have one. See if they accept that.

    Phil, my only question for Beckwith is how does he know that Henig took the photos and Miller held the document? The photographer is never shown and the person holding the document is not shown, either. Just his or her hands. There’s no proof that anybody from FactCheck took those photos. FactCheck says so. But is THAT proof, given their record? I think not.

  31. 11/24/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    Phil,

    So, anybody who is placed on the Presidential ballot in the future, in your opinion, needs to have the certified copy of their birth certificate verified by a forensic expert? Is this what you are saying?

    I think a better question should be, why shouldn’t a presidential candidate be subject to as much scrutiny as possible, no matter the party affiliation? After all, we are talking about the highest office in the land, where even the Constitution sets it apart as unique from all other federal offices.

    So, yes. I think any birth certificate or any other background documentation ought to pass at least a cursory forensics screening as a part of its being substantiated for anyone ambitious enough to want to go after the presidency.

    I don’t trust the government any more than the government trusts me.

    -Phil

  32. 11/24/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    Phil,

    “Certified according to whom? In this case, has the alleged COLB ever been directly verified by the HI DoH? Or are you relying upon a third-party blog such as FactCheck.org?”

    You missed the point. The underlying document to the online COLB is the certified COLB from Hawaii DOH, certified by the Hawaii DOH.

    Cite me the source that says that the Hawaiian Department of Health has specifically certified the actual, physical document that the FactCheck.org blog has on hand has been procured from the State.

    If the document was ever released to a judge directly from Hawaii DOH via subpoena, I doubt if a forensic examination would be required by the judge.

    While you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, if I wanted a mere unqualified individual to tell me how a Court would rule on this document, I would have already trusted FactCheck.org.

    -Phil

  33. 11/24/2009Phil says:

    siseduermapierda,

    Phil says:
    November 24, 2009 at 3:01 pm
    *Really, really simple. *

    Yes, the states have made it really, really simple for regular people to know whether a birth certificate copy is authentic: they put a raised seal and signature on it. The reason they do this is so people don’t have to call and confirm if a document with a seal is authentic. The system of placing a raised seal and signature accomplishes the same thing for a Presidential candidate, as an applicant for a passport as an applicant for a driver’s license, as an applicant for Social Security: it tells the person examining it that it is authentic. Can you imagine how many phone calls the states would have to field if everyone thought like you did, that in spite of the seal and signature, authenticity still must be confirmed? Ridiculous. They would tell you, if it has a raised seal and a signature, it’s authentic. Documents with seals and signatures are self-authenticating and continuing to say it’s not so doesn’t make it not so. It is so. Anyone who challenged a document with a seal and a signature would have the burden of proving it’s not real.

    Well, golly gee! I guess that’s going to have to work for me, huh?

    I’ll just have to keep my birth certificate/certification generator in my basement that produces the raised seal quiet from everyone — oops! I guess I left the cat out of the bag.

    As I’ve said to Sue, if I wanted an unqualified individual to tell me that a piece of paper is legitimate, I would have already trusted FactCheck.org without question.

    -Phil

  34. 11/24/2009Phil says:

    elspeth,

    Way to go, Phil! Keep the Obots busy. They have nothing better to do than repeat the same arguments. Keep ‘em from getting a life. I love it!

    Full disclosure!

    And all I can do is cut through the crap and get to the bottom line.

    Show me the receipt that procured the document that FactCheck.org allegedly has on hand; that would go a long way in determining the document’s legitimacy.

    Show me the substantiated quote from the HI DoH where they specifically state that the document that FactCheck.org has on hand is, in fact, from the Department and is for Mr. Obama; this, too, would go a long way in determining the document’s legitimacy.

    And as far as the staffers at FactCheck.org are concerned, as I’ve said before, while their credentials are great for other disciplines, they don’t mean squat for determining a document’s legitimacy.

    And yet, other individuals who claim to be forensics experts are brow-beaten because they dare make a forensics inspection of the image of the alleged document. This is not to say that these individuals are legitimate in their backgrounds. Yet, while everyone has already seen forged documents from other images, why not get the original document inspected?

    Very, very simple questions that appear to continually hit up against a “yes, but” from the opposition.

    -Phil

  35. 11/24/2009Phil says:

    MGB,

    Phil, my only question for Beckwith is how does he know that Henig took the photos and Miller held the document? The photographer is never shown and the person holding the document is not shown, either. Just his or her hands. There’s no proof that anybody from FactCheck took those photos. FactCheck says so. But is THAT proof, given their record? I think not.

    Excellent question. I don’t know.

    What I do know is that the staffers at the FactCheck.org blog continue to be held up by the opposition as some sort of authority in legitimately recognizing an alleged document as having come from the HI DoH.

    -Phil

  36. 11/25/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    …they put a raised seal…on it [a COLB]….It’s the seal…that makes it [a COLB] authentic.siseduermapierda

    siseduermapierda tells us that “it’s the seal…that makes [a COLB] authentic ” so siseduermapierda must be able to see a raised seal in Factcheck’s image of Obama’s alleged COLB, otherwise it would not be claimed to be authentic. OK: where is that raised seal in http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ?

    There is an oddly cropped and extremely distorted image with a purported raised seal at Factcheck’s blog but no visible evidence that seal is from Obama’s alleged COLB. In the single image which purportedly identifies Obama’s COLB no raised seal can be observed. No person nor any specialized software can see it. Unless siseduermapierda is able to explain where or how to find that absolutely essential raised seal in Factcheck’s single identifiable image, readers can dismiss Factcheck’s “authentic” COLB as a figment of siseduermapierda‘s overactive imagination. And a fake.

    Where is the raised seal in http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ? How does anyone find it?

  37. 11/25/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    Now calls for Obama’s execution are resounding

    The end is here for Obama

    Rev. Mannings has been investigated and he had called for Obama being “shot”.

    When citizens start calling for the president’s head it means the end is there like with French King Louis XVI and Queen Marie-Antionette who both got their heads cut off.

    The calls are for him to be dealt the “full extent of the law”;
    the death sentence, for the FBI, CIA, HOMELAND SECURITY to arrest him, to be tried for frauding nuclear safety clearance etc… it goes on and on and it’s not over yet.

    This is a video going viral.

    PHIL POST IT AS A PHENOMENON OF THE TIMES. thks friend, Obama’s time has come. He’s history now.

  38. 11/25/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Phil says:
    November 24, 2009 at 11:12 pm
    *if I wanted an unqualified individual to tell me that a piece of paper is legitimate*

    You’re assuming it is you who gets to decide who is qualified to look at a document with a raised seal and a signature and inform people that it is authentic. It’s not you. I challenge you, any of you, to call the office that issued your copy of your birth certificate and ask them how you know it’s authentic. Tell us what answer they give you. The whole of point of issuing documents with the seal and the signature is so no special training is necessary and no verification from the issuing authority is needed to determine the document is authentic. Happens millions of times a day in this country, every day – someone without special training in “document forensics” looks at a birth certificate copy with a seal and a signature and accepts it as authentic proof of place and date of birth. It happens at the DMV in each of the several states, at the bank, at the Social Security office, in personnel offices of private companies when an employee starts work, or applies for his pension. It happens at the Dept of State Passport office. With a seal and a signature we have a way of verifying people’s age and citizenship and issuing driver’s licenses, passports, SS benefits, pensions, loans and paychecks without having to train thousands of clerical workers in the science of document forensics. Non story.

  39. 11/25/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:
    November 25, 2009 at 6:38 am
    *Now calls for Obama’s execution are resounding

    The end is here for Obama*

    You have crossed the line. I have reported you to the Secret Service.

  40. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda says:

    “””It’s the seal and the signature that makes it authentic.”””

    The COLB on FTS and one off FactCheck have NO SEAL and signiture.
    They are forged. Not authentic and invalad as legal documents.
    The seal is not from the State of Hawaii, therefore the State of Hawaii Department of Health could not have issued it. Forgery.

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/obama-supporter-responds/

    “””They don’t realize the computer copy they can get to replace that “special” copy if it’s every lost or ruined is every bit as valid.”””
    However with three versions, Obama’s is NOT valid.

    Why were people that went to Obama’s headquarters in Chicago denied the opportunity to verify the FactCheck Birth certification after they posted the following;

    FactCheck does say their, “representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ‘birth certificate,’ and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.”

    What happened to is since the campaign?

    “””but you parse and twist and insinuate to mislead people who don’t have the same knowledge you do.”””

    An admission that I know what I am talking about and not one of my points has even to be false. See the first link to the COLB that I created, on video and see how they match up.

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/create-your-own-b
    arack-obama-hawaiian-birth-cetification/

    Where is the ‘State of Hawaii’ and ‘Department of Health’ on Obama’s COLB as required and verified that if it was valid would be there.

    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sealsidebyside21.jpg

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/obamas-lawyers-caught-in-lies/

    Facts not Obama fiction.

  41. 11/25/2009reality checkmate says:

    Phil,

    You should be proud that your site has it’s own dedicated bunch of trolls. With the release of the ‘global warming emails’ just the latest nail in the coffin of the democratic party. 2010 will be the year of the conservative independents and republicans. Whether Obama gets thrown out or not, he is done politically. Let’s not forget that every tyrant in the last century has come from the left. (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Chavez, Pol Pot, Kim Jon Il ect…)

  42. 11/25/2009Sue says:

    Phil,

    “Certified according to whom? In this case, has the alleged COLB ever been directly verified by the HI DoH? Or are you relying upon a third-party blog such as FactCheck.org?”

    You missed the point. The underlying document to the online COLB is the certified COLB from Hawaii DOH, certified by the Hawaii DOH.
    Cite me the source that says that the Hawaiian Department of Health has specifically certified the actual, physical document that the FactCheck.org blog has on hand has been procured from the State.

    If the document was ever released to a judge directly from Hawaii DOH via subpoena, I doubt if a forensic examination would be required by the judge.
    While you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, if I wanted a mere unqualified individual to tell me how a Court would rule on this document, I would have already trusted FactCheck.org.

    -Phil”

    So, you are saying that if one of these lawsuits ever got to the actual discovery stage and the certified COLB was obtained directly from Hawaii DOH, you do not believe a judge is qualified to examine the document and would not take the judge’s ruling as to the authenticity of the document?

  43. 11/25/2009Sue says:

    Phil,

    “As I’ve said to Sue, if I wanted an unqualified individual to tell me that a piece of paper is legitimate, I would have already trusted FactCheck.org without question.”

    Hmm, and you consider Miss Tickly, Polarik and an unidentified genealogist to be qualified?

  44. 11/25/2009Sue says:

    Phil,

    “So, yes. I think any birth certificate or any other background documentation ought to pass at least a cursory forensics screening as a part of its being substantiated for anyone ambitious enough to want to go after the presidency.

    I don’t trust the government any more than the government trusts me.”

    So, what other documentation would you require?

  45. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    Hate to break the news, but the State of Hawaii has already stated that the Obama COLB is not authentic.

    Per the State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Vital Records.

    Quote “The state seal is imbedded in the certificate by machine and the back of the certificate would have the printed signature of the State Registrar. The lettering is imbedded in the seal.”

    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/hawaiireply.jpg

    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sealsidebyside21.jpg

    What more does the State of Hawaii have to say.
    Fact – Forgery proven.

  46. 11/25/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 25, 2009 at 11:43 am
    *Hate to break the news, but the State of Hawaii has already stated that the Obama COLB is not authentic.*

    If the State of Hawaii had stated that the COLB is not authentic, it would have been national news and you would link us to a news story about it. Instead you linked us to YOUR anti-Obama blog. Not to a statement from Hawaii but to an email from Hawaii that tells where the seal should appear and two pictures. Hawaii said nothing to you about the authenticity of Obama’s COLB. You Lie Steve.

  47. 11/25/2009Mick says:

    Not that it matters, since Obama has already admitted that his citizenship was “governed” by Great Britain at his birth (due to his father’s Kenyan citizenship), and is thus Not a Natural Born citizen, who in their right mind is taking the word of a biased unsworn website as proof of Obama’s birth in Hi.? It is patently silly on it’s face.

  48. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    So I guess a statement by the State of Hawaii Department of Health
    Vital Records that states, that the legal embossed seal has the words ‘State of Hawaii’ and ‘Department of Health’ on it, whereas Obama’s does NOT, means nothing.

    Again, you can’t dispute facts.

    Per the State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Vital Records.

    Quote “The state seal is imbedded in the certificate by machine and the back of the certificate would have the printed signature of the State Registrar. The lettering is imbedded in the seal.”

    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/hawaiireply.jpg

    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sealsidebyside21.jpg

    What more does the State of Hawaii have to say.
    Fact – Forgery proven.

  49. 11/25/2009Roderick says:

    Good evening everybody and thanks for tuning in. Latest poll shows America is against the imposters stance on the war. Not only did the imposter lie (promise) to bring the troops home as part of [his] campaign pledge but now [he] is sending more troops to their deaths and dismemberment. See ya imposter. Time for the yardarm for crimes against the people.

  50. 11/25/2009MGB says:

    syc1959: Notice how you shut them up EVERY time you point out that the embossed seal on the FactCheck blog digital image is NOT an authentic seal of the State of Hawaii? Anybody with eyes and brains can SEE that for themselves.

    Notice, also, how sincerely Sue wants to figure out who you are and where you are? She wants a link to your blog, old friend.

  51. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    MGB

    Thanks, There are several other sites that I am on and they attempt the samething, my material is being used, and they hate it. The word is getting out and they are going nuts, because they can’t runaway from the facts.

    The only thing siseduermapierda can say, is that I lie! Totally disregarding what the official State agency has stated regarding what is on their official documents and why if Obama’s was valid, authentic, wouldn’t it be the same.

    Here is an updated Blog entry showing the Obama COLB and the one that I created in a overlay showing how they match up.

    http://wp.me/pkW2J-8a

    Boo hoo,

    Sue can click on my name here and get to my blog.
    As for my blog being anti-Obama… HURRAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I am against an illegal undocumented alien USURPER. COOL!

    I also happen to be ex-Military, a member of Oathkeepers among others. WAY COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  52. 11/25/2009qwertyman says:

    syc1959: Notice how you shut them up EVERY time you point out that the embossed seal on the FactCheck blog digital image is NOT an authentic seal of the State of Hawaii? Anybody with eyes and brains can SEE that for themselves.

    Nah, he’s simply factually incorrect about the embossed seal. It’s there. Sorry you can’t see it.

    http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

    http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/210-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis.html

  53. 11/25/2009MGB says:

    We’re not saying that something’s not there. But the something that IS there is NOT the seal of the State of Hawaii.

  54. 11/25/2009Roderick says:

    The [imposter] has to pipe in fake noise of cheers when the [imposter] speaks. That’s a good idea I think Joe Biden ought to do the same thing after the [imposter] is lead out to the yardarm.

  55. 11/25/2009MGB says:

    syc1959: You’re welcome. Thanks for your continued service to America, the country we love.

  56. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman

    You still disregard the ‘simple’ fact that the official State agency that maintains the Vital Records for the State of Hawaii, in plain english states what the SEAL should have on it.

    Please tell me why Obama does not have what the State of Hawaii constitues an OFFICIAL seal from the Department of Health, State of Hawaii?

    and

    Why Obama appears like it does on ONLY one of the three versions presented?

    Please review my “security features” blog article and explain WHY the rattan pattern ONLY appears broken on ONE of the COLBs, whereas other ‘Birth Certificates’ even handheld ones, the lines are clearly broken and the Hawaiian seal is clearly present and distinguishable? Unlike two of the three, even with the high resoluion images and scans.

  57. 11/25/2009qwertyman says:

    Please tell me why Obama does not have what the State of Hawaii constitues an OFFICIAL seal from the Department of Health, State of Hawaii?

    It does. You are wrong.

  58. 11/25/2009Phil says:

    siseduermapierda,

    Phil says:
    November 24, 2009 at 11:12 pm
    *if I wanted an unqualified individual to tell me that a piece of paper is legitimate*

    You’re assuming it is you who gets to decide who is qualified to look at a document with a raised seal and a signature and inform people that it is authentic. It’s not you. I challenge you, any of you, to call the office that issued your copy of your birth certificate and ask them how you know it’s authentic. Tell us what answer they give you. The whole of point of issuing documents with the seal and the signature is so no special training is necessary and no verification from the issuing authority is needed to determine the document is authentic.

    In the first place, you have broken the quote from which you’ve pulled. I had said that if I merely wanted someone with no credentials to give me their opinion of the physical document, then I would rely upon such a blog as FactCheck.org to spoon-feed me the information.

    Secondly, speaking of Court opinions, I do believe that Judge Robertson (was that who it was?) in Hollister v. Soetoro who stated that Mr. Obama’s eligibility had been “twittered” (and so on), so apparently it is up to we, the People, to help make a decision as to a candidate’s eligibility. Therefore it is apparently partially up to me, as a class of we, the People, to make such demands if we so choose.

    And thirdly, once again, my point on the seal and signature is that they are not outside the bounds of being forged. This is akin to saying that since the FactCheck.org staffers have advanced degrees behind their names, that necessarily means either they only tell the truth or they’re more inclined to tell the truth. And furthermore, the page upon which FactCheck.org shows the image of the alleged COLB makes a leading conclusion that somehow the HI DoH has spoken specifically about the alleged document that FactCheck.org has on hand, which they have not.

    Again and again: show me the receipt confirming the transaction that procured the alleged document and/or show me anywhere that the HI DoH has specifically stated that the document that FactCheck.org has on hand is, in fact, Mr. Obama’s COLB and has, in fact, come from their Department.

    Then we can lay to rest the question of the COLB’s legitimacy. I would then have a number of other questions beyond that.

    -Phil

  59. 11/25/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    So, you are saying that if one of these lawsuits ever got to the actual discovery stage and the certified COLB was obtained directly from Hawaii DOH, you do not believe a judge is qualified to examine the document and would not take the judge’s ruling as to the authenticity of the document?

    I don’t know what the theoretical Judge would do in such a theoretical suit and it would depend on the nature of the petition.

    But again, I think we’re veering off the main thread of discussion. I still have a question on the table for you.

    Cite me the source that says that the Hawaiian Department of Health has specifically certified the actual, physical document that the FactCheck.org blog has on hand has been procured from the State.

    Remember that it’s always OK to say, “I don’t know,” just like I did in this comment. It doesn’t mean that I have necessarily won the argument; it would simply mean that we don’t have that information at this time. And, if true, it would show that you’re being intellectually honest.

    -Phil

  60. 11/25/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    Phil,

    “As I’ve said to Sue, if I wanted an unqualified individual to tell me that a piece of paper is legitimate, I would have already trusted FactCheck.org without question.”

    Hmm, and you consider Miss Tickly, Polarik and an unidentified genealogist to be qualified?

    Perhaps you’ve missed my comment on this point. I never claimed that any of the “forensics examiners” (or whatever the du jour term is at this point) were legitimate. However, not only should their credentials be reasonably easy to verify (assuming that they are released and that someone has done the actual homework to verify the credentials; if they’re not verifiable, then they should be treated with a grain of salt), but even if they weren’t, the point still remains:

    Nobody but a blog still has the actual, physical document that nobody but a couple of uncredentialed (for the purposes of forensic investigation) staffers have actually handled the document.

    -Phil

  61. 11/25/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    Phil,

    “So, yes. I think any birth certificate or any other background documentation ought to pass at least a cursory forensics screening as a part of its being substantiated for anyone ambitious enough to want to go after the presidency.

    I don’t trust the government any more than the government trusts me.”

    So, what other documentation would you require?

    Great question. That’s something I’ve only cursorily considered. However, since I don’t believe we should include anything beyond what the Constitution already calls for, such verifiable documentation that would substantiate the origins of the person should be included.

    -Phil

  62. 11/25/2009Phil says:

    siseduermapierda,

    syc1959 says:
    November 25, 2009 at 11:43 am
    *Hate to break the news, but the State of Hawaii has already stated that the Obama COLB is not authentic.*

    If the State of Hawaii had stated that the COLB is not authentic, it would have been national news and you would link us to a news story about it.

    A “post hoc ergo propter hoc” argument.

    Remember, virtually every press account — and every constituent response from nearly every federal official that went into such detail — has stated that the Internet image of the alleged HI COLB is, essentially, “good enough” for them. I have documented some of this on my site, and others have done a better job.

    Further, as I’ve said before, while FactCheck.org has allowed themselves to be questioned by the press or other third parties (according to some), nobody has stepped forward to do such homework.

    Therefore, to say that if such a statement were made that “it would have been national news” is really inconsistent with the evidence. In fact, based on what’s already been documented by the press, they appear to be so sufficiently satisfied with an Internet image that they’re simply not willing to press the issue forward.

    -Phil

  63. 11/25/2009Sue says:

    Phil,

    “Cite me the source that says that the Hawaiian Department of Health has specifically certified the actual, physical document that the FactCheck.org blog has on hand has been procured from the State.”

    “Actually, it would be impossible for the Hawaiian Dept. of Health to “certify” a image on a website/blog. Which is what was stated here.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
    When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

    “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.”

    “Okubo says she got a copy of her own birth certificate last year and it is identical to the Obama one we received.

    And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification? “When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.”

    Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

    • • •
    “And there’s the rub. It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible.

    But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over.

    There is not one shred of evidence to disprove PolitiFact’s conclusion that the candidate’s name is Barack Hussein Obama, or to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn’t authentic.

    And that’s true no matter how many people cling to some hint of doubt and use the Internet to fuel their innate sense of distrust.”

  64. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman says:
    It does. You are wrong

    Really, a side by side comparison.

    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sealsidebyside21.jpg

    Now the Official State of Hawaii is on the left. What is on the right?

  65. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    I know I have posted this before, but lets go around the track again.

    And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification? “When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.”

    ////Thought he could see – Pieces of WHAT embossed image??? The date stamp that was already on the Blank template? Which one of the three versions were they shown?////

    Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

    ////so the State agency that is in charge of these documents admits they have doubts, about the image that is posted? That they recieved or “what the image on the site represents”///

  66. 11/25/2009qwertyman says:

    ////so the State agency that is in charge of these documents admits they have doubts, about the image that is posted? That they recieved or “what the image on the site represents”///

    You really are thick.

    Perhaps it’s all true that there was some giant conspiracy to have Obama be born in a foreign country and then was brought over here within days so that there was a birth announcement and birth certificate generated by a local hospital. Is that a reasonable conclusion? No.

  67. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman says:

    Perhaps it’s all true that there was some giant conspiracy to have Obama be born in a foreign country and then was brought over here within days so that there was a birth announcement and birth certificate generated by a local hospital. Is that a reasonable conclusion? No.

    No qwertyman, the reasonable conclusion is that if aka Barack Obama had nothing to hide, then he would have shown his Birth Certificate long ago instead of fighting any lawsuit. As per my blog article; WHY IS OBAMA FIGHTING THE LAWSUITS IF HE HAD ALREADY SHOWN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE

    But in reality Stanley Ann and Barack Sr went back to Kenya after the school year ended in June 1961, so he could show off his bride to the tribe. During that fateful trip, Barack Jr was born in Kenya as his grandmother stated, the US Embassy was notified and the long voyage back home was arranged. Were upon the birth was registered when they arrived back home in Hawaii, sec 7c allowed for a foreign birth, registered in Hawaii. That data along with the other births were sent to the newspspers as announcements. But once again, even ‘TINGLES’ Matthews, had to admit that newspaper announcements are not legal documents. Just like the ‘Prima Facie’ COLB, they state a birth took place, not to where or when. Who attended the birth, were there any others siblings born or stillborn, et?
    The hospitals has no record of either his mother or father ever being a patient. The Dr Rodney west story was debunked in hours. I being one of the debunkers. So as I have stated there is nothing about the claims of Obama’s past that has been verified or confirmed. Even 400 students that were at Columbia when Barack Obama was there, do not recall or remember him. WHY?

  68. 11/25/2009brygenon says:

    Phil says:

    What I do know is that the staffers at the FactCheck.org blog continue to be held up by the opposition as some sort of authority in legitimately recognizing an alleged document as having come from the HI DoH.

    They sure debunked the myths you’ve been spreading, Phil. So now you spread the lie that the FactCheck reporters are political operatives working for the Obama Campaign. When people express the appropriate disgust with the eligibility deniers, it’s not for questioning this president. It’s for the dishonesty.

  69. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    brygenon

    When the multiple versions of the FactCheck were revealed, and investigators went to verify the document why were they denied the opportunity to verify the FactCheck document after they posted the following;

    FactCheck did state their, “representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ‘birth certificate,’ and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.”

    What happened to is since the campaign? It maybe a real piece of paper, but that does not validate what is on it. Why did it need to disappear so quickly? Why has it never been seen again?

  70. 11/25/2009Sue says:

    “The hospitals has no record of either his mother or father ever being a patient.”

    Please cite your source.

    “So as I have stated there is nothing about the claims of Obama’s past that has been verified or confirmed. Even 400 students that were at Columbia when Barack Obama was there, do not recall or remember him. WHY?”

    Hmmm, do you recall this controversy regarding Bush?

    http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=171
    Bush Aides Possibly Altered
    National Guard Records
    To Conceal Grounding and Missed Duty
    by Bob Fertik
    November 4, 2000
    excerpt
    “An official report issued on April 30, 1973 says “Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report,” from May 1 1972 to April 30, 1973. Rewards for proof that Bush reported for duty have been offered in Alabama and Texas and on the Internet, but no one has claimed the rewards.”

  71. 11/25/2009Sue says:

    “When the multiple versions of the FactCheck were revealed, and investigators went to verify the document why were they denied the opportunity to verify the FactCheck document after they posted the following;”

    Who were the “investigators” who went to verify the document?

  72. 11/25/2009Sue says:

    “So now you spread the lie that the FactCheck reporters are political operatives working for the Obama Campaign.”

    Was Factcheck accused of being political operatives working for the Bush Campaign when they published this?

    http://www.factcheck.org/new_evidence_supports_bush_military_service_mostly.html
    “New Evidence Supports Bush Military Service (Mostly)
    February 11, 2004
    Updated: February 15, 2004
    Newly released records reflect payments and credits for Air National Guard service meeting minimum requirements, despite a six-month gap.”

  73. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue asked ‘Please cite your source.’ regarding – The hospitals has no record of either his mother or father ever being a patient.”

    Indivual investigators.
    All of these were called or visited from November 20 – December 2nd 2008. It is confirmed, OBAMA was not born in any hospital in Honolulu County! NONE AS A FACT!
    Hospital employees were bribed, some gave info for free.
    Hospitals you can check yourself (Hint on the process: Most of the following Hospitals didn’t exist in Honolulu County at time of Obama’s birth so this was an academic exercise) The main two hospitals claimed that definitely existed are above and both have no record of Obama or Mother Ann in either of them.

    The Queen’s Medical Center – Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital

    Kapi’ olani Medical Center Obama’s sister claims Barack Obama born here
    Honolulu Shriners Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Straub Clinic & Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Hawaii Health Systems Corporation – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Cancer Institute of Maui – Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment ???

    Kuakini Hospital – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii – Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Straub Heatlh – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Tripler Medical Center – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Wahiawa General Hospital – Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Wilcox Memorial Hospital – Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama

    Even the address listed in the Hawaiian newspapers, peopel who lived in the area, do not RECALL an inter-racial couple, independent investigation.

  74. 11/25/2009qwertyman says:

    No qwertyman, the reasonable conclusion is that if aka Barack Obama had nothing to hide, then he would have shown his Birth Certificate long ago instead of fighting any lawsuit. As per my blog article; WHY IS OBAMA FIGHTING THE LAWSUITS IF HE HAD ALREADY SHOWN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE

    Because every single birther suit alleges Obama is ineligible for other reasons. Not a single birther suit would end with the production of any documents. In all of Taitz’s lawsuits, she then goes on to her unwarranted interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause. She has said many times “It wouldn’t matter if he was born in the Lincoln bedroom.” Berg has his bogus Indonesia gambit. Donofrio stipulates on the outset that he doesn’t care where Obama was born. Again, there is not a single birther suit looking for nothing except a birth certificate

    Even if there were such a case, something every first year law student learns is that a defendant’s first response to a civil complaint should be to file a motion to dismiss. There are several grounds on which a case can be dismissed, and to date, not a single birther suit has proceeded past that stage. It is extremely unlikely that one ever will.

    But in reality Stanley Ann and Barack Sr went back to Kenya after the school year ended in June 1961, so he could show off his bride to the tribe. During that fateful trip, Barack Jr was born in Kenya as his grandmother stated, the US Embassy was notified and the long voyage back home was arranged.

    His step-grandmother said that Obama was born in Hawaii and that it was obvious. Everything else you’ve written is backed up solely by your paranoid imagination.

    The hospitals has no record of either his mother or father ever being a patient.

    False, the hospitals have never publicly disclosed records of his mother or father ever being a patient. This is due to state and federal privacy laws. That certainly doesn’t mean that no records exist. You just can’t see them.

    The Dr Rodney west story was debunked in hours. I being one of the debunkers.

    Nothing that was revealed changed the story, that Nelson was told by West about the birth of a boy in Hawaii named Barack Obama in 1961.

    Even 400 students that were at Columbia when Barack Obama was there, do not recall or remember him. WHY?

    Columbia has thousands of students. Several of his former classmates have talked about their personal remembrances of Obama at Columbia, as well as professors. Phil’s posting of that rumor was one of his most shameless moments in a long time.

  75. 11/25/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    It’s there. Sorry you can’t see it.qwertyman

    The questions asked: Where is the raised seal in Factcheck’s image [ http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ] of Obama’s alleged COLB and how does one find it? qwertyman‘s response “It’s there. Sorry you can’t see it ” is a refusal to answer the questions. Reasonable people understand that refusal to answer reasonable questions usually indicates that truthful answers must go against the refuser’s interest.

    For example, I may buy stock in the Lost Dutch Gold Mine, when I am told where it is and how I find it; until then I would be wise to treat assurances that what is claimed to be there “really is there” with utmost caution, if not complete suspicion, when questions that allow a means of independent verification of the claim are refused an answer.

    Unless qwertyman answers the questions Where is the raised seal in Factcheck’s image and how does one find it? there is no more credibility to the legend of the raised seal on Factcheck‘s image of Obama’s alleged COLB than there is to the legend of the Lost Dutch Gold Mine.

    qwertyman references Krawetz’s articles: apart from unfortunate departures from objective analysis and other inadequacies, they do not concern themselves with the (missing) seal in Factcheck‘s image of Obama’s alleged COLB, therefore qwertyman has not answered the questions: Where is the raised seal in Factcheck’s image and how does one find it?

    It’s up to true believers in both the Lost Dutch Gold Mine and the missing seal on Factcheck‘s image to show reasonable people how to independently verify each claim. When Krawetz writes “The whole thing comes down to trusthe’s asking us to become true believers.

    I challenge you, any of you…call the office…ask them how you know it’s authentic.siseduermapierda

    Heartfelt, I’m sure, but still not an answer to the questions: Where is the raised seal in Factcheck’s image [ http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ] of Obama’s alleged COLB and how does one find it? If Factcheck‘s image of Obama’s alleged COLB represents an authentic COLB then siseduermapierda should be able to see or find its raised seal and answer the questions: Where is the raised seal in Factcheck’s image and how does one find it?

    If siseduermapierda can’t or won’t answer the questions then reasonable people will conclude the authenticity of Obama’s alleged COLB as represented by Factcheck‘s image is a figment of siseduermapierda‘s overactive imagination and Factcheck‘s image or what it purports to represent is a fake. To prevent this reasonable conclusion siseduermapierda must answer the questions. If siseduermapierda does not answer these reasonable questions the only reasonable conclusion is that Factcheck‘s image or what it purports to represent is not authentic and a fake.

    …not one shred of evidence…to support allegations that the birth certificate he released isn’t authentic.Sue

    Janice Okubo Hawaii DoH PRO: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.

    In Sue‘s quote from Politifact i) Okubo admitted Hawaii DoH could not go beyond doubt when speaking of the image of Obama’s alleged COLB she was sent by Politifact; and ii) the image of Obama’s alleged COLB Okubo comments upon is not this image [ http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ] as posted by Factcheck.

    This image [ http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ] was posted (according to Factcheck) to counter allegations that scans of Obama’s alleged COLB (such as Politifact sent Okubo) have no seal, but Factcheck‘s image itself has no raised seal that can be detected by the unaided eye or specialized software.

    siseduermapierda, qwertyman, and Sue must answer the questions Where is the raised seal in Factcheck’s image and how does one find it?, otherwise reasonable people must conclude Factcheck‘s image or what it purports to represent is not authentic and a fake.

  76. 11/25/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    Phil, check out oilforimmigration.com they say Philip Berg, not U ! will represent Rev. Manning.

    I didn’t hear there was any litigation yet but anyways.

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=4571

  77. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    Poor poor qwertyman;

    Qoute: “Nothing that was revealed changed the story”

    Changed the story is corect. The fictional tale of Obama. Per his own words: ‘Both of his books by Obama’s own words can NOT be taken literally.’

    So it appears that qwertyman is working overtime attempting to spread the inuendo’s when faced with reality.

    The COLB is forged, the facts are undeniable from the State of Hawaii.

  78. 11/25/2009brygenon says:

    syc1959 says:

    When the multiple versions of the FactCheck were revealed,

    That was just a myth on some kook blog. FactCheck reporters inspected and photographed one Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth, which is now the official birth certificate issued by the state of Hawaii. Obama might have more than one COLB — they cost just $10 for the first and $4 for each additional copy — but FactCheck reported on just one copy.

    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
    http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html
    http://www.hi5deposit.com/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html

    and investigators went to verify the document why were they denied the opportunity to verify the FactCheck document after they posted the following;

    FactCheck did state their, “representatives got a chance to spend some time with the ‘birth certificate,’ and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago.”

    There were no press reports of being denied access to the document. Even World Net Daily reported on August 23, 2008: “A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic.” They’ve since edited the story to say, “certification of live birth” in place of “birth certificate”, but it’s the same document.
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=73214.”

    What happened to is since the campaign? It maybe a real piece of paper, but that does not validate what is on it. Why did it need to disappear so quickly? Why has it never been seen again?

    Obviously the time to fight the smears is *before* the election, not after.

  79. 11/25/2009Sue says:

    syc1959,

    “Indivual investigators.
    All of these were called or visited from November 20 – December 2nd 2008. It is confirmed, OBAMA was not born in any hospital in Honolulu County! NONE AS A FACT!
    Hospital employees were bribed, some gave info for free.”

    “Individual investigators” is not a source. However, I’d call these “individual investigators” liars because hospitals will not give out that information to anyone and “hospital employees” that someone could “bribe” would not have access to that information. HIPAA laws.

  80. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue the same tactics used to expose Obama, that allowed the Pentagon Papers leaked, The Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the CBS document forgeries, now Climategate. The fact remains that no hospital has any record of either Barack Obama Sr, Stanley Ann Obama, Stanley Ann Dunham, or any other name combonation in their records.
    Regardless of how Obama supporters hate teh same tactics being used against the illegal undocumented alien, tough.
    The fact remains O’s approval ratings are going in the dump and people are begining to ask the questions that were being asked last year, even before the election: WHO IS THIS GUY!

    They are not liking the answer. And his handlers are getting very upset at his lack of ‘win’

    They selected him, because they rhought he was slick enought to be able to sell this crap to the public. However his usefulness is not lasting as long as they expected.

  81. 11/25/2009brygenon says:

    syc1959 says:

    the reasonable conclusion is that if aka Barack Obama had nothing to hide, then he would have shown his Birth Certificate long ago

    Obama did show his birth certificate long ago. That’s why eligibility deniers write articles such as this one and lie about about the FactCheck reporters.

    instead of fighting any lawsuit.

    He gets sued and he’s not supposed to fight the lawsuit? That makes no sense.

    As per my blog article; WHY IS OBAMA FIGHTING THE LAWSUITS IF HE HAD ALREADY SHOWN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE

    He’s fighting the lawsuits because they name him as a defendant, obviously. The question is why the kooks keep filing these losing lawsuits after the matter is so well resolved.

    But in reality Stanley Ann and Barack Sr went back to Kenya after the school year ended in June 1961, so he could show off his bride to the tribe. During that fateful trip, Barack Jr was born in Kenya as his grandmother stated, the US Embassy was notified and the long voyage back home was arranged.

    Understand syc1959, we don’t need to get you to stop telling these lies. That’s not the goal. You just get exposed for what you are.

    But once again, even ‘TINGLES’ Matthews, had to admit that newspaper announcements are not legal documents. Just like the ‘Prima Facie’ COLB, they state a birth took place, not to where or when.

    Here’s legal document, — an order from a federal court: “Counsel makes these allegations although a ‘short-form’ birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”
    http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.13.0.pdf

    Got that? The Court says that the birth certificate has been publicly available, and that it does say where and when the President was born.

  82. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    brygenon, please send in the backup team, your losing all the arguments.

    Understand syc1959, we don’t need to get you to stop telling these lies. That’s not the goal. You just get exposed for what you are.

    Tell me ONE lie that I have said.

    You can’t. The State of Hawaii has stated that if they issued the COLB, that it would have the following. “State of Hawaii” “Department of Health”. Obama’s does not. Plain and simple.
    Thats shows an altered document that calls into question the validity of the entire document. The short form does not say, where the birth took place, who attended, the witness, and other information as required by the CDC Standard Birth Certificate being used since 1900. Does it?
    Therfore in requesting a legal and valid document, you hid behind an image posted on the internet and heresay statements that are NOT proof of any claim submitted by Barack Hussein Obama.
    None of his claims have been proven to be substantiated by any independent investigation. The only evidence that been seen contradicts his claims.

  83. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    But the ‘Birth Certificate’ is not the issue, it is the smoke screen. Barack Obama is NOT a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as required by the law of this nation, the United States Constitution. It is that simple.

    A Natural Born Citizen = Citizenship + Jurisdiction + Allegiance.

    Title 8 of the US Code and the 14th Amendment require jurisdiction regardless of being born ‘anywhere’ in the United States.

    Obama admitted being a British subject under the British Nationality Act of 1948 at birth.

    Obama = British Subject [Citizen] + the British Nationality Act of 1948 [Jurisdiction] + as a British subject his [Allegiance] was to the British Crown

  84. 11/25/2009Sue says:

    syc1959,

    “The fact remains that no hospital has any record of either Barack Obama Sr, Stanley Ann Obama, Stanley Ann Dunham, or any other name combonation in their records.”

    You consider the above a “fact” when you cannot cite your source? Too funny. The above is a false allegation, nothing more.

  85. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    The eligibility issue ‘IS’ only a distraction for those who refuse to listen to the truth.

    The Constitutional eligibility requirement.

    The forged COLB versions posted on the Fight the Smears and FactCheck web-sites are in no way what Barack Hussein Obama claimed to discover in that box, along with his vaccination forms. [Which by the way, I still have mine, along with my other documents that have been posted in my video’s on Youtube].
    As Alan Keyes stated on CNN, segment included in my ‘Media and the Birthers Pt1 video, Barack Hussein Obama and legal crew are directing you to a photograph on the internet and hearsay statements that would not be accepted as evidence in any court of law.
    Remember that a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ only certifies that a birth took place [prima facie as stated on the COLB] not to where or when, same as the Hawaiian newspaper announcements [only that a birth took place, not to where or when].
    Herein lays the point, Prima Facie meaning a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts at first glance. The burden of proof when presented based on prima facie is need not be conclusive or irrefutable, the introduction of prima facie evidence is often called ‘making a case or building a case.’ Such evidence [prima facie] might not stand or fall on its own; if an opposing party introduces other evidence or asserts an affirmative defense it can only be reconciled with a full trial.
    Now why is it significant that Obama had a real birth certificate – presumably the kind we’re all familiar with that discloses the name of the hospital in which the birth took place, the names of the parents, notes and signatures of attending physicians, etc.?
    Based upon the Prime Facie evidence on the forged COLB, one might believe Barack Obama was born in the United States. However, first glance evidence is not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt where the birth took place. With other evidence that contradicts a Hawaiian birth [Obama’s forged COLB’s, Kenyan Birth certificates, statements from other media sources, newspapers, and relatives], Obama’s defense can only be reconciled with a full trial. To date no trial has taken place,

  86. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue, somethings can not nor will not be devulged until Court is in session.
    Also there is more that is being let on.
    Loose lips sink ships.

  87. 11/25/2009Sue says:

    syc1959,

    “Title 8 of the US Code and the 14th Amendment require jurisdiction regardless of being born ‘anywhere’ in the United States.”

    False. SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark held that the 14th Amendment citizenship clause had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory. The majority held that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction).

  88. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue, Sue, Sue

    A flawed decision, often overlooked by the other opinions that actually back up a correct interpretation.

    “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…

    This one often over looked.

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

    “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘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 indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

    In both Title 8 and the 14th Amendment Jurisdiction is required.
    It’s denying the other part of the equation, it does not work.

  89. 11/25/2009Sue says:

    “Sue, somethings can not nor will not be devulged until Court is in session.
    Also there is more that is being let on.
    Loose lips sink ships.”

    I look forward to the lawsuit being filed. Bring it on!

  90. 11/25/2009Sue says:

    syc1959, syc1959, syc1959,

    Same old BS, different day. SCOTUS did not agree with you and that opinion/decision is the one that matters, not yours.

  91. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    Yes Sue, Obama BS.
    Unemployment over 17%. 34% for minorities. No new taxes. Yea right on that one. Transparency – fooled ya.

    you post one flawed case, and I can post a whole bunch showing how flawed WKA is.

    So by the numbers.

    1. All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
    -Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)
    http://www.thecommentary.net/1861-circuit-justice-swayne-defines-na…

    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.

    2. 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…

    where is that resort. Vattel’s Law of Nations, used by the Continental Congress and even quoted in the United States Constitution; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;.

    3. “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…

    4. “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

    Note again, parents [plural] please state the names of BOTH United States citizen parents of Barack Hussein Obama

    5. 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
    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. -110th Congress, SR 511 http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text

    Again, parents [plural] please state the names of BOTH United States citizen parents of Barack Hussein Obama

    I have already stated Venus 1814. Should I continue to the Dredd Scott decision? or others?

  92. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    Yes Sue, Obama BS.
    Unemployment over 17%. 34% for minorities. No new taxes. Yea right on that one. Transparency – fooled ya.

    you post one flawed case, and I can post a whole bunch showing how flawed WKA is.

    So by the numbers.

    1. All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.
    -Circuit Justice Swayne, in United States vs Rhodes (1866)

    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.

    2. 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)

    where is that resort. Vattel’s Law of Nations, used by the Continental Congress and even quoted in the United States Constitution; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;.

    3. “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)

    4. “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)

    Note again, parents [plural] please state the names of BOTH United States citizen parents of Barack Hussein Obama

    5. 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
    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. -110th Congress, SR 511

    Again, parents [plural] please state the names of BOTH United States citizen parents of Barack Hussein Obama

    I have already stated Venus 1814. Should I continue to the Dredd Scott decision? or others?

  93. 11/25/2009qwertyman says:

    4. “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)

    Note again, parents [plural] please state the names of BOTH United States citizen parents of Barack Hussein Obama

    You are committing a grade school logical error.

    If you have two citizen parents, then you are a natural born citizen.
    If you are in New York, then you are in the US.

    If you do not have two citizen parents, you are not a natural born citizen.
    If you are not in New York, then you are not in the US.

    What you have done is called denying the antecedent.

    If A then B
    does not mean
    If not A then not B

  94. 11/25/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman is the one committing a grade school logical error.

    Natural Born Citizen = Citizen + Allegiance + Jurisdiction.

    Natural Born Citizen of the United States = sole Citizenship + sole Jurisdiction + sole Allegiance to the United States.

    Any alteration in this is naturalization, and is not Natural Law on natures God, as defined during the Age of Enlightenment by several authors, namely E. Vattel’s Laws of Nations as used by the Founding Fathers and Framers of the United States Constitution.

    Now, lets look at Barack Hussein Obama.

    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.

    Obama admitted being a British subject under the British Nationality Act of 1948 at birth.

    Obama = British Subject [Citizen] + the British Nationality Act of 1948 [Jurisdiction] + as a British subject his [Allegiance] was to the British Crown

    Does Barack Hussein Obama have sole Citizenship/Allegiance/Jurisdiction of the United States? NO.
    Therefore he fails to meet the Constitutional requirement of office.

    But nice try in attempting to mislead, by substituting a state for a country.

  95. 11/25/2009Phil says:

    Sue,

    Phil,

    “Cite me the source that says that the Hawaiian Department of Health has specifically certified the actual, physical document that the FactCheck.org blog has on hand has been procured from the State.”

    “Actually, it would be impossible for the Hawaiian Dept. of Health to “certify” a image on a website/blog. Which is what was stated here.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/
    When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

    “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.”

    “Okubo says she got a copy of her own birth certificate last year and it is identical to the Obama one we received.

    And about the copy we e-mailed her for verification? “When we looked at that image you guys sent us, our registrar, he thought he could see pieces of the embossed image through it.”

    Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

    First of all, the author of the article did not quote, verbatim, exactly the question that they asked the DoH.

    Secondly, even if we did know this actual question, obviously the last line of the quote pretty much does away with the entire argument: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

    Thirdly, given that the image of the alleged document continues to be in doubt, even by the DoH (as has just been quoted), we still don’t know anything about the legitimacy of the actual, physical document in hand, which is what I’ve been asking about all along.

    -Phil

  96. 11/25/2009Phil says:

    brygenon,

    Phil says:

    What I do know is that the staffers at the FactCheck.org blog continue to be held up by the opposition as some sort of authority in legitimately recognizing an alleged document as having come from the HI DoH.

    They sure debunked the myths you’ve been spreading, Phil. So now you spread the lie that the FactCheck reporters are political operatives working for the Obama Campaign. When people express the appropriate disgust with the eligibility deniers, it’s not for questioning this president. It’s for the dishonesty.

    Exactly what “myths” has the FactCheck.org blog debunked? As can be seen by their otherwise respectable credentials, they don’t have the background to be able to determine anything about any sort of documentation.

    Again, if I wanted to take the word of someone who has no professional background to properly examine documentation, I would have already simply let FactCheck.org spoon-feed me what they already have posted on their blog.

    -Phil

  97. 11/26/2009qwertyman says:

    qwertyman is the one committing a grade school logical error.

    Natural Born Citizen = Citizen + Allegiance + Jurisdiction.

    Yes, that’s your interpretation of what natural born citizen means. That’s not what Chertoff said, and that’s not what the Senate resolution says.

    Chertoff said if you have two citizen parents, then you’re a natural born citizen. To infer from that alone that not having two citizen parents means that you’re not a natural born citizen is a very basic logical error.

    Also, I love the irony in you wanted to cite Dred Scott, a case used to uphold slavery, (and widely considered the worst case in Supreme Court history and overturned by the 13, 14th and 15th Amendments) to make an argument against Obama’s eligibility for the presidency.

    You would literally use arguments used to justify slavery to oppose the first black president of the United States.

  98. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    When FactCheck attempted to blindside the State of Hawaii, they refused to authenticate the image they were presented.

    Quote ‘image’

    Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

    ////so the State agency that is in charge of these documents admits they have doubts, about the image that is posted? That they recieved or “what the image on the site represents”///

    Also which one of the three versions were they presented to verify.

    So there have been ONLY two people who have claimed to have held a physical document and this document disappeared right afterwards and has never been seen again. However we do have physical evidence that there were atleast two versions at the same time. Both held by FactCheck, one without a seal and the other with a non-State issued seal.

    So again, the State Agency refused to authenticate or validate the document they were presented.

  99. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman this is geting fun, when do you go on break.

    qwertyman: Chertoff said if you have two citizen parents, then you’re a natural born citizen. To infer from that alone that not having two citizen parents means that you’re not a natural born citizen is a very basic logical error.

    Course it is, based on your stance of an illegal undocumented alien, who has no past. Who has done everything to hide his past, no records, documents to support his even existence, let alone his lies and fictional story of his past. The Framers and Founders believed that if you were a citizen at birth, under the jurisdiction of the United States, your allegiance would be the same. These were God fearing men with a deep rooted sense of God and God given rights bestowed upon the Citizens of the United States. Not haveing a foreign father, under British Law, whom they just won their independence, ao Obama’s allegiance to the British crown. Obama, the un-natural born citizen who bows before kings and prime ministers.

    qwertyman; You would literally use arguments used to justify slavery to oppose the first black president of the United States
    Here you agaiin, reverting to the racist comment, when you have nothing to support your claims.

    Personally, I believe and back Alan Keyes. So teh racist remark only shows your ignorance, not mine.

  100. 11/26/2009qwertyman says:

    .

    Course it is, based on your stance of an illegal undocumented alien, who has no past. Who has done everything to hide his past, no records, documents to support his even existence, let alone his lies and fictional story of his past. The Framers and Founders believed that if you were a citizen at birth, under the jurisdiction of the United States, your allegiance would be the same. These were God fearing men with a deep rooted sense of God and God given rights bestowed upon the Citizens of the United States. Not haveing a foreign father, under British Law, whom they just won their independence, ao Obama’s allegiance to the British crown. Obama, the un-natural born citizen who bows before kings and prime ministers.

    Just like any good birther, you seem to revel in showing your ignorance to the world. You used a quote from Chertoff to attempt to back your argument.

    Using that quote, and the inference that you made from that quote, was a fundamental error of formal logic.

    Of course, maybe your total ignoring of what I’ve said is intentional. Maybe you realize that your use of the Senate resolution and Chertoff’s statement was a basic error of logic. Course, you don’t want to admit that you made grade school logic errors.

    qwertyman; You would literally use arguments used to justify slavery to oppose the first black president of the United States
    Here you agaiin, reverting to the racist comment, when you have nothing to support your claims.

    Personally, I believe and back Alan Keyes. So teh racist remark only shows your ignorance, not mine.

    You said you would cite Dred Scott to support your argument. Dred Scott is a case that upheld slavery. Citing Dred Scott to support your argument would be citing arguments used to uphold slavery to oppose the first black president. There’s an irony to that. I didn’t call you a racist, though your protestations of “I back Alan Keyes,” sounds quite a bit like “Some of my best friends are black!” I will say, that you are an ignorant fool who doesn’t understand fundamental aspects of basic logic or the law. This combination of traits, of course, makes you an ideal birther.

  101. 11/26/2009Sue says:

    Happy Thanksgiving eveyone. Hope everyone has an enjoyable day.

  102. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman says: Just like any good birther, you seem to revel in showing your ignorance to the world.

    Thank God for that. First off, Unlike your quote ‘birther’ argument. It does not matter where Barack Obama was born, he fails the United states Constitutional requirement. This requirement for Office of the Presidency is a requirement, not a suggestion. Therefore, Obama could have been born in the Washington monument, teh Oval Office, the Lincoln Memorial, The St Louis arch, Mt Rushmore, Mombassa Kenya, Nirobi, the gobi desert, the fact remains that he fails based on
    A president must:
    *be a natural born citizen of the United States;
    *be at least thirty-five years old;
    *have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

    Obama is a British subject at birth, under the British Nationality Act of 1948, and sujbect to the British crown.

    Far from the ‘Free from Foreign influence’ stated by the first Supreme Court Justice John Jay. “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen”

    The grandfather provision of the “natural born Citizen” clause provides an exception to the “natural born” requirement for those persons who were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Most of these citizens had been born as British subjects before the American Revolution (or were born after the Revolution, but before 1787). Without this exception, ten subsequent presidents would have been constitutionally ineligible to serve.

    But again unlike the ‘Citizen of the World’ Barack Hussein Obama, I am a Natural Born citizen of the United States. I don’t revel in the world, I revel in the fact that I am a United States ‘Natural Born Citizen’, ex-military and an OathKeeper.

  103. 11/26/2009qwertyman says:

    syc, there is not one judge, not one member of Congress, and not a single current legal scholar who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause.

    You may think that Wong was wrongly decided, but it is a leading case on citizenship and is still good law. You would either need a constitutional amendment or five justices who would overturn it.

  104. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman;

    Here are some additional cases that bear reference.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): In this case, the majority of the Court held that a child born in U.S. territory to parents who were subjects of the emperor of China and who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship, but who had “a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China” was a U.S. Citizen.

    Again, a US Citizen, but NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

    Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872): The Court discussed the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:
    the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the United States.

    Now, please refersh the facts, was Barack Obama’s father a subject of where? Kenya, which was a British colony, so he was a subject of a foreign state, as stated in “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.

    Notice that it also states ‘born within the United States’

    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.”

  105. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman, do you ever look at reality?

    as you stated the following…You may think that Wong was wrongly decided, but it is a leading case on citizenship and is still good law. You would either need a constitutional amendment or five justices who would overturn it.

    I would encourage you to look at the real meaning of SR511.
    As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of 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.

    “Simple resolutions do not require the approval of the other house nor the signature of the President, and they do not have the force of law.”

    The reason I make this point is that for the chance that John Mccain would have actually won the 2008 Presidential election. The issue of his eligibility not only would have been brought up, but would have stated congressional hearings, the likes of Watergate all over again. The Congress would have in no time instituted articles of impeachment and the motion would have been approved. Then the Senate would have their chance to remove John McCain, however since they already have voted with their ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’, regardless how the vote went. A non-binding, non-lawful resolution that trumps the United States Constitution could be waved in front of the American public, and John McCain, could go back in the corner, stick his thumb in his pie, and exclaim “Oh, what a good boy am I.”

  106. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman
    again you mis-represent facts…syc, there is not one judge, not one member of Congress, and not a single current legal scholar who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause.

    there are Congressmen who are questioning the fact that Obama refuses nto provide the simplest of documents. The latest was just posted here a few days ago. So do you contuinue to lie.

    Atty Mario Apuzzo, a Constitutional scholar is among a host that question the eligibilty of Obama.
    Leo Donofrio, Phil berg, Orly Taitz, Walter Fitzpatrick, Carl Swenson, no need to list everyone that has has doubts about the illegal undocumented alien Usurper.

    Judge Carter stated the case had merits, but that was before he hired an atty from Perkions Coie, who appears to be the strongarm of the Democratic Socialist party. Head Atty Robert Bauer now White House Counsel hails from them.

    Perkins Coie has served as
    1. counsel of record for the Democratic Party and its candidates;
    2. its political law group is headed by top campaign lawyer Bob Bauer.
    3. Perkins Coie represented John Kerry’s presidential campaign
    4. represented the Presidential campaign of Barack Obama, and continues to represent President Obama.
    5. The firm represented Christine Gregoire in the prolonged litigation surrounding her 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election where again voter fraud has been not only discovered, but well documented. ,
    6. a team of Perkins lawyers headed by Marc Elias successfully represented Al Franken in his legal battle over the 2008 Senatorial election in Minnesota.
    7. The firm also represents the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

    8. again in 2006, Perkins Coie represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the alleged driver and bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden. The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the Bush Administration’s Military Commissions were held unconstitutional.

    The United States Supreme Court in ruling the Military Comissions illegal, have thrown in the towel and now the circus courts for KSM will be another travesty of judicial rulings, like in Wong Kim Ark.

    Perkins Coie appears to be the legal strong arm of the Democratic Party, or in reality the Democratic Socialist Party. Perkins Coie currently has 15 offices in the United States and in China.

    qwertyman, you really need to get your facts straight instead of reading the playbook.

  107. 11/26/2009qwertyman says:

    Again, a US Citizen, but NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

    The question was whether Wong was a citizen. Under the logic of the majority, Wong is clearly a natural born citizen.

    Go to the description of this Headnote.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.

    This quote is why the Ankeny court, citing Wong, immediately concluded that anybody born in the US is a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of parents.

    I would encourage you to look at the real meaning of SR511.

    And now we see that you change your mind about the significance of the Senate resolution. Just a couple of hours ago you said it was evidence that the Senate believed that Obama was not eligible. Now you’re saying it’s part of a corrupt bargain to defraud the public.

    In reality, they were stating what the current state of American law is. After all, if you have two citizen parents, then you’re a natural born citizen. If you are born on US soil, you are also a natural born citizen.

    There is not a single judge, not a single member of Congress, and not a single current legal scholar who agrees with your interpretation of the natural born citizen clause.

  108. 11/26/2009qwertyman says:

    there are Congressmen who are questioning the fact that Obama refuses nto provide the simplest of documents. The latest was just posted here a few days ago. So do you contuinue to lie.

    Do you intend to completely misrepresent everything I say, or are you just that dimwitted that you lack all powers of reading comprehension? What I said is that your legal theory, the “you need to be born on US soil AND have two citizen parents to be NBC” is supported by no member of Congress, no judge and no current legal scholar.

    There are members of Congress who are pandering on the “where’s the birth certificate” shit, but none have said that you NEED two citizen parents to be NBC.

    Atty Mario Apuzzo, a Constitutional scholar is among a host that question the eligibilty of Obama.

    He’s a DUI attorney who has never published any literature, never taught, and is not constitutional scholar.

    Leo Donofrio,

    Poker player who has never written or taught.

    Phil berg,

    Professional conspiracy theorist, 9/11 truther who has been repeatedly sanctioned by the courts for lunatic pleadings.

    Orly Taitz,

    A woman who will go down in history as perhaps the most incompetent lawyer in American history.

    Walter Fitzpatrick,

    A retired Navy officer with no legal experience.

    Judge Carter stated the case had merits,

    Affirming a motion to dismiss is dismissing on the merits of the case. According to the merits of Orly’s complaint, there is no claim for which she could obtain relief even if every one of her allegations were true. Judge Carter properly reached the merits of the case and made the correct ruling.

    but that was before he hired an atty from Perkions Coie, who appears to be the strongarm of the Democratic Socialist party. Head Atty Robert Bauer now White House Counsel hails from them.

    Perkins Coie is one of the largest and most prestigious firms in the country. It is absolutely not unusual that a recent graduate of one of the best law schools in the country would wind up being hired as a clerk for a federal judge.

    The United States Supreme Court in ruling the Military Comissions illegal, have thrown in the towel and now the circus courts for KSM will be another travesty of judicial rulings, like in Wong Kim Ark.

    Perkins Coie appears to be the legal strong arm of the Democratic Party, or in reality the Democratic Socialist Party. Perkins Coie currently has 15 offices in the United States and in China.

    qwertyman, you really need to get your facts straight instead of reading the playbook.

    Wow, I’ve seen that exact same list before, word for word. I’m wondering where you copypasta’d this from.

  109. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman you are a fool.
    I have dealt with Perkins Coie and they are the bottom dwellers in the ethics department.
    Leo Donofrio, case went to te Supreme Court, they dismissed not on the merits, but because they are cowards.

    Orly Taitz, case went to te Supreme Court, they dismissed not on the merits, but because they are cowards.

    Walter Fitzpatrick, Carl Swenson, the Americam Gran Jurys, ALL returning GUILTY verdicts on TREASON against Barack Hussein Obama.
    All of them, see the same evidence presented. Mind you even my material is being used.

    So regardless of what you are believe, just like the illegal undocumented resident alien. The facts are the facts.
    He has lied to the American public, his deception and TREASON is being seen and discovered.

    Just like, and here is a tidbit for you. Just like the Univ. of Texas documents that revealed the North Viet Nam influence and direction on John Kerry’s Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and the lies that he told including Winter Soldier material, so is the smae regarding your TRAITOR in CHIEF Barack Hussein Obama. So fear not, but let your heart TREMBLE, cause it is coming.

    So continue to deny the facts and ‘May GOD have mercy on your soul’.
    Eternity is an awful long time.

  110. 11/26/2009qwertyman says:

    I have dealt with Perkins Coie and they are the bottom dwellers in the ethics department.

    [citation needed]

    Leo Donofrio, case went to te Supreme Court, they dismissed not on the merits, but because they are cowards.

    Just because you disagree with the decision the Supreme Court made does not make them cowards.

    Orly Taitz, case went to te Supreme Court, they dismissed not on the merits, but because they are cowards.

    I’m sure another reason the Supreme Court dismissed was that Orly’s pleadings are perhaps the most incompetently drafted motions they’ve ever seen. It took her almost a year to realize she needs to sign her name on her pleadings.

    Walter Fitzpatrick, Carl Swenson, the Americam Gran Jurys, ALL returning GUILTY verdicts on TREASON against Barack Hussein Obama.
    All of them, see the same evidence presented. Mind you even my material is being used.

    Those are not grand juries. Those are groups of like minded people who want to feel like they’re doing something. None of them were drawn from a representative sample of people in the area. When you recruit your “jurors” from tea parties like Swensson has, the outcome is predetermined.

    So regardless of what you are believe, just like the illegal undocumented resident alien. The facts are the facts.
    He has lied to the American public, his deception and TREASON is being seen and discovered.

    As much as you may enjoy ranting (maybe it’s cathartic for you) unfortunately none of what you say is correct.

    Just like, and here is a tidbit for you. Just like the Univ. of Texas documents that revealed the North Viet Nam influence and direction on John Kerry’s Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and the lies that he told including Winter Soldier material, so is the smae regarding your TRAITOR in CHIEF Barack Hussein Obama. So fear not, but let your heart TREMBLE, cause it is coming.

    So continue to deny the facts and ‘May GOD have mercy on your soul’.
    Eternity is an awful long time.

    And a happy Thanksgiving to you too. Maybe you should enjoy it, because you’re clearly getting so upset over this that you’re making repeatedly basic grammatical and spelling errors, as well as your totally idiotic error in formal logic (remember to avoid the denying the antecedent flaw next time you go on a rant).

  111. 11/26/2009Sue says:

    syc1959,

    “I have dealt with Perkins Coie and they are the bottom dwellers in the ethics department.”

    Ethics? Wow. Your blog is loaded with outright lies and misleading information. You are the bottom dwellers in the ethics department in my opinion.

    “Walter Fitzpatrick, Carl Swenson, the Americam Gran Jurys, ALL returning GUILTY verdicts on TREASON against Barack Hussein Obama.
    All of them, see the same evidence presented. Mind you even my material is being used.”

    Waltr Fitzpatrick, Carl Swensson and AGJ-offshore jobs Bob are the ones who are guilty of treason. Your so called “evidence” is a joke and the CGJ/AGJ is unlawful and unconstitutional. Nothing more than a kangaroo court. Why don’t you try actually reading the Constitution that you profess to uphold.

    “So fear not, but let your heart TREMBLE, cause it is coming.

    So continue to deny the facts and ‘May GOD have mercy on your soul’.
    Eternity is an awful long time.”

    I am really sick of the veiled and not so veiled threats on these blogs. Why don’t you just bring it on? I think all of you “patriots” are going to discover that there are many American’s who do not agree with or support your racism and bigotry. Put up or shut up!

  112. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    Boo hoo Sue

    Obama is the one that needs to put up or shut up.

    Why spend $1.8 million instead of producing a $12 document.
    OH, that’s right – IT DOESN’T EXIST!

    The crack is growing. What is ‘The One’s’ approval numbers….

    Whats’s the unemployment numbers….

    Whats is the economic outlook…..

    As for my blog, I will stand by what is written in a court of law.
    You are the one denying what the State of Hawaii states about the ‘alleged’ Obama COLB. It’s contains falsified and misleading items. So where is the ‘CORRECT and LEGAL’ State SEAL from the State of Hawaii, Department of Health, SUE. Where is it….

    You, Sue [No pun to Dr Suess] are one of the botom dwellers of the Obot league trollers.
    But again, fear not. Vengence is mine, says the LORD.
    Let us pray a few Psalm’s for Obama

  113. 11/26/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 26, 2009 at 11:12 am
    qwertyman you are a fool.
    I have dealt with Perkins Coie and they are the bottom dwellers in the ethics department.
    Leo Donofrio, case went to te Supreme Court, they dismissed not on the merits, but because they are cowards.

    Orly Taitz, case went to te Supreme Court, they dismissed not on the merits, but because they are cowards.

    Walter Fitzpatrick, Carl Swenson, the Americam Gran Jurys, ALL returning GUILTY verdicts on TREASON against Barack Hussein Obama.
    All of them, see the same evidence presented. Mind you even my material is being used.

    So regardless of what you are believe, just like the illegal undocumented resident alien. The facts are the facts.
    He has lied to the American public, his deception and TREASON is being seen and discovered.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Amazing. You think that the fake fantasy grand juries mean anything? They are a modern day lynch mob and a joke. And run by a bunch of seditious idiots. For instance you seem to give a lot of support to the convicted embezzler the former Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick. He was passed over for promotion due to his conviction and forced out of the Navy. He was never in the JAG Corps and has no knowledge of the law.

    What is amazing that the birther movement is filled with convicted felons like Larry Sinclair, Lucas Smith, The Rev, Manning, Charles Lincoln III, and Fitzpatrick. These are the people that the so called movement think have some sort of greater moral standing than the President of the US.

    There is no evidence that the President is anything but a citizen of the US. However these fake grand juries, who have no knowledge of the law, believe that they somehow have the abiility to charge and arrest the President. Actually I would love to see if Fitzpatrick and Swennson try and go to the White House and “enforce” their presentment. That would be hilarious. Especially when they get sent to jail for an attack on the President of the US.

    And then to cap things off you think that Leo Donofrio, the poker player has some sort of legal knowledge that real constitutional lawyers don’t have. Or Orly, who is the biggest joke. The birther numbers are small and getting smaller because the movement is filled with felons and incompetent lawyers. And Obama remains the President for the next 3 years at least. That is why the President gets 4 years….No matter what happens in the first year, there is more time to do what is necessary to be a successful President. As the time goes on and the President remains in power, the birther movement will fade and hopefully go away.

  114. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    Looks like the Politijab team is working over-time.
    Maybe Neonzx aka JimBot will drop in.
    During today, among giving thanks to the God fearing Founding Fathers and people who gave us this day to celebrate, let us be reminded of George Washington’s 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

    Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to “recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

    Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

    And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

    Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

    Let us pray a few Psalm’s for Obama the un-Godly, the un-Natural Born Citizen of the United States, the un-Godly ‘Citizen of the World’, the Un-Constitutional illegal undocumented resident alien Usurper, the Apostate Obama.

  115. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    Black Lion you posted the following “There is no evidence that the President is anything but a citizen of the US.”

    In reality there is NO evidence that Barack Obama IS a US Citizen.

    Please tell us, what passport he used to travel to Pakistan, Indonesia, and Kenya on in 1981. Regardless of travel restrictions, what did he travel on.

    Matter of fact, also provide the Passport/Visa that re-entered the United States as a 10 year old.

    There is NO legal evidence that he is a United States citizen, even as he claimed off FTS, that he is ‘NATIVE’ born citizen. Clear admission that even as a ‘NATIVE’ he is not a ‘Natural Born’ as required by the United States Constitution. So even as late as 2006 SARAH P. HERLIHY’s AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE

    The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly un-American,” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Consti-tution’s worst provision.

    and even S. 2128: Natural Born Citizen Act

    A bill to define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President never became law.

    Again, no amendment has ever been passed to alter the Founding Fathers and Framers definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”. However Obama and his supporters have continued to attempt to not only disregard the United States Constitution, but to alter it’s meaning.

    So how does ‘Native” become ‘Natural Born” when any alteration of the “Natural Born status” is naturalization?

    Birth to an underage mother in a foreign country.

  116. 11/26/2009brygenon says:

    Phil says:

    brygenon [wrote:],

    Phil says:

    What I do know is that the staffers at the FactCheck.org blog continue to be held up by the opposition as some sort of authority in legitimately recognizing an alleged document as having come from the HI DoH.

    They sure debunked the myths you’ve been spreading, Phil. So now you spread the lie that the FactCheck reporters are political operatives working for the Obama Campaign. When people express the appropriate disgust with the eligibility deniers, it’s not for questioning this president. It’s for the dishonesty.

    Exactly what “myths” has the FactCheck.org blog debunked?

    You should try reading the article, Phil. No, Obama’s COLB is not just just a digital image. Obama produced the actual document complete with seal.

    As can be seen by their otherwise respectable credentials, they don’t have the background to be able to determine anything about any sort of documentation.

    They’re FactCheck reporters. They went and checked the facts. The facts are not what you wanted them to be, so now you spread this lie about FactCheck reporters being political operatives working for the Obama campaign.

    Again, if I wanted to take the word of someone who has no professional background to properly examine documentation, I would have already simply let FactCheck.org spoon-feed me what they already have posted on their blog.

    What you want is obvious. You want to smear President Obama and you don’t really care about the truth. We now have an official news release directly from the department of the Hawaiian government that maintains the vital records and prints the authentic birth certificates:

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

  117. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    brygenon, please breathe some air.
    You like spreading opinion as fact, but refuse to accept an OFFICIAL inquiry and response form the State of Hawaii.

    So let’s break this dowm.

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai‘i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    By the numbers.
    1. have seen the original vital records.
    This does not state what these RECORDS [note the plural] are. Most people ONLY have one birth record, not RECORDS, indicating more then one. They are ONLY born once, not multiple times. So how does one get multiplr birth records?

    Are these records like the Nordyke twins, registered long forms with the Dr, witinesses, et. Or are they a late filing, a foreign birth.

    2. Obama was born in Hawai‘i.

    Again, regardless of where he [Obama was born] he fails to meet the US Constitutional requirement.

    3. and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    Fukino’s personal opinion, not legal evidence in a court of law. And conflicts directly with case law, SR511, and other documented opinions and evidence that requires a minimum two US parents and Jurisdiction.

    Based on her admission of multiple records, Obama could have been born anywhere, including Kenya, brought into the marriage by Obama Sr, who had multiple wifes and the adoption created the record that she is refering to.

    Obama has not provided any documentation supporting his birth anywhere.

  118. 11/26/2009Sue says:

    syc1959,

    “But again, fear not. Vengence is mine, says the LORD.
    Let us pray a few Psalm’s for Obama”

    Your religious verbage will not cover up what you are. You are using “religion” to promote hate, racism, bigotry and violence. You and Hassan are very similar as you are both religious fanatics.

    I feel very sorry for you.

  119. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    No Sue, I feel sorry for you. Your denial has closed your eyes.
    Unlike you and ‘YOUR’ god Obama, I don’t try and cover-up a clear terrorist attack upon our military. I don’t go around screaming Allah Akbar, nor do I try and hide my faith, again unlike Barack Hussein Obama. His Muslim past, his Muslim faith, nor that his grandmother now in Mecca.

    So before you use your religion of hatred, racism, and race baiting, look into the miooro and you’ll see who the real racist is.

    Again, let us pray Psalm’s for Obama. Not Fatwa’s like the Muslims.
    Who by the way have their own way to deal with the apostate Obama.
    What is Islam’s way of dealing with apostates.
    It is their law not mine.

  120. 11/26/2009ch says:

    Sue, Calling people nasty names like racist is not the way to win your argument. Alan Keyes and Dr. Manning have the same shade of skin Obama has, and darker. Is it racist for them to both want a qualified president? You are just scared of the truth and use name-calling to belittle others. Why not just show us the full birth certificate and explain to us why we have a person claiming to be eligible when his father is Kenyan. Now they are having trouble finding anybody at Columbia who even knew him…so his claim to fame there is under suspicion. Two private investigators find him using other social security numbers. All you can come up with is bogus “racist”……yell “racist” all you want. If that is what you are. But it is embarrassing to see you try to bully other people out of their rights by slandering them.

  121. 11/26/2009Sue says:

    ch,

    “Sue, Calling people nasty names like racist is not the way to win your argument. Alan Keyes and Dr. Manning have the same shade of skin Obama has, and darker. Is it racist for them to both want a qualified president? You are just scared of the truth and use name-calling to belittle others.”

    Keyes and Dr. Manning are religious bigots President Obama is qualified to be president and both of them know it.

    “Why not just show us the full birth certificate and explain to us why we have a person claiming to be eligible when his father is Kenyan. Now they are having trouble finding anybody at Columbia who even knew him…so his claim to fame there is under suspicion.”

    President Obama has published his COLB and is eligible according to the Constitution, SCOTUS and Congress to be eligible to be POTUS. You keep posting false statements. The Columbia issue has been debunked quite well on this very blog.

    “Two private investigators find him using other social security numbers.”

    Wow, and both of these “private investigators” have not linked any of these social security numbers directly to President Obama. False info and misrepresentation.

    “But it is embarrassing to see you try to bully other people out of their rights by slandering them.”

    Bully? You so called “patriots” have cornered the market on being bullys. It is embarrassing to see “patriots” continue to spread false and misleading information, trash the Constitution and now trash the Bible.

  122. 11/26/2009Sue says:

    syc1959,

    “Again, let us pray Psalm’s for Obama”

    You misrepresent the Bible the same way you misrepresent the Constitution. Very sad indeed.

  123. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue;
    How is praying for Obama to turn from is wicked ways, misrepresenting the facts about his lying?

    As for the Constitution, you know that what I state in sound and backed up by the Founding Fathers and material in the Library of Congress.

    You, Sue are a sad individual, but you might think is being a racist.

  124. 11/26/2009brygenon says:

    syc1959 says:

    brygenon, please send in the backup team, your losing all the arguments.

    Found your happy place? Judging your own cause is so pleasant — you just win every time. Thing is, your jurisdiction is your own head.

    I enjoyed that list of champions you cited in another comment: Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio, Phil berg, Orly Taitz, Walter Fitzpatrick, and Carl Swenson. On their blogs and in Carl’s make-believe courts they do great, just like you. In their many attempts in real courts, they’ve achieved 100% failure.

    Understand syc1959, we don’t need to get you to stop telling these lies. That’s not the goal. You just get exposed for what you are.

    Tell me ONE lie that I have said.

    The ones I had quoted right above that part. I thought that was obvious. The point again, is that we don’t need you to stop; your lies reflect on you, not on President Obama. Even President Obama’s serious political adversaries, such as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and arch-conservative Obama-hating pundit Ann Coulter call you guys “cranks” and “crazy”.

    Ann Coulter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfTHQUYvwBM
    Lindsey Graham: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP_DMTbfbdE

    Therfore in requesting a legal and valid document, you hid behind an image posted on the internet and heresay statements that are NOT proof of any claim submitted by Barack Hussein Obama. None of his claims have been proven to be substantiated by any independent investigation.

    Actually I cited a federal court order. *The Court* says that the birth certificate has been publicly available, and that it does say where and when the President was born. Snipping it just means it doesn’t appear in your comment; it’s still a real order of a real court in the real world.
    http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.13.0.pdf

  125. 11/26/2009syc1959 says:

    brygenon, time for your meds.

    My only judge is the Lord Jesus Christ. Not you nor any mortal.
    You have exposed nothing.

    “what you cited was an opinion, written by a clerk and not the judge, which will be dealt with””

    But again, Perkins Coie being involved, nothing is as it seems.

  126. 11/27/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 26, 2009 at 2:43 pm
    Black Lion you posted the following “There is no evidence that the President is anything but a citizen of the US.”

    In reality there is NO evidence that Barack Obama IS a US Citizen.

    Please tell us, what passport he used to travel to Pakistan, Indonesia, and Kenya on in 1981. Regardless of travel restrictions, what did he travel on.
    ________________________________________________________________________
    I disagree. To me there is substantial evidence that the President was born in the United States. I have not seen any evidence otherwise. The President as a young man used a US Passport to travel to Pakistan, and Indonesia. He never traveled to Kenya. And there was no restriction on US Citizens traveling to Pakistan so again he used his US passport.

    Why do I know this? Because when he was 6 years old, he traveled with his mother to Indonesia to live on a US passport. What other passport could he have used at that young an age? None. And in his book he specifies that when he returned from Indonesia as a boy he had a US passport. There has never been any evidence of the President having a passport of any other country nor has there been any evidence that he was ever a citizen of another country.

    Now if you could just find some real admissible that the President was born in another country to an underage mother, you would be in business. Just because you believe it might have happened, doesn’t mean that it did. He was born in HI. Prove otherwise.

  127. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    Black Lion says: “I disagree. To me there is substantial evidence that the President was born in the United States. ”

    This is YOUR opinion, backed up by nothing. An image created on the ineternet.

    Black Lion also stated “Why do I know this? Because when he was 6 years old, he traveled with his mother to Indonesia to live on a US passport.”

    Again, totally disregarding the facts. I was speaking when Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro was 20 years old, when he traeled to Pakistan, Indonesia, and Kenyan. You on the other hand refer to when he was 6 years old. Again two completely different time periods, attempting to blend the two togather to make it plausible. However BL, please note that during the 1981 time period. Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro admitted to having Kenyan citizenship:

    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.”

    If you use the Indonesian School registration as proof of born in Hawaii, but totally disregard the same for the Nationality, listed as Indonesian. Proof of Obama’s Real name Barry Soetoro Citizenship- Indonesian. Religion – Muslim. They will also use the FactCheck forgey as proof of an embossed Seal on the “second” COLB, and disregard the fact that the origional posted on Fight the Smears, does not have one. Therfore it could never have been released by the State of Hawaii.

    If the person in the White House is Barry Soetoro, then the Indonesian school registration is proof of Indonesian citizenship, and not American, again, disqualifing Obama. Not only that, but the COLB produced is for another individual Barack Obama. However Barach Obama has stated that he has NO other name, or gone by any other name. If Obama did go by Barry Soetoro, then he is also guilty of re-entering the US and not going through the US Customs and Naturalization process. Thereby again becoming a “Naturalized” citizen, and again in no way can be “Natural Born”.

    Obama and his supporters can’t have it both ways. Either he is Barack Obama born with a foreign father and admitted British at birth, or he is Barry Soetoro who entered the US without going through the US Customs and Naturalization process and is an illegal alien.

    Either way Black Lion, your attempt to twist the truth is failing, just like Obama and his numbers.

  128. 11/27/2009brygenon says:

    syc1959 says:

    brygenon, time for your meds.

    My only judge is the Lord Jesus Christ. Not you nor any mortal.

    Much as you dislike the U.S. Constitution — with those unholy Article III courts — it is the law of our land. The judge I cited [ http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.13.0.pdf ] was nominated by our 43′d President, George W. Bush, and confirmed by the Senate of the 107′th U.S. Congress, in accordance with our Constitution.

    You have exposed nothing.

    “what you cited was an opinion, written by a clerk and not the judge, which will be dealt with””

    But again, Perkins Coie being involved, nothing is as it seems.

    What a mess… You’ve gotten your myths all confused. The false witness you’re reciting is about another federal court and judge: David O. Carter of the Central District of California. I cited Judge Clay D. Land of the Middle District of Georgia. You guys made up different stories about Judge Land’s court — someone thought he saw a down-sized version of Eric Holder in a local coffee shop, and the fables went wild from there.

    Kind of a bad sign when you’ve told too many lies to keep track.

    One more thing: Even though there is no evidence for what you, syc1959, claimed about Judge Carter’s ruling, suppose we accept your implicit premise and discount opinions written by clerks rather than the judge. Where does that leave you? Of the opinions ascribed to He whom you name as your only judge, the judge himself wrote not a single word.

  129. 11/27/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 27, 2009 at 1:03 am
    Black Lion says: “I disagree. To me there is substantial evidence that the President was born in the United States. ”

    This is YOUR opinion, backed up by nothing. An image created on the ineternet.

    Black Lion also stated “Why do I know this? Because when he was 6 years old, he traveled with his mother to Indonesia to live on a US passport.”

    Again, totally disregarding the facts. I was speaking when Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro was 20 years old, when he traeled to Pakistan, Indonesia, and Kenyan. You on the other hand refer to when he was 6 years old. Again two completely different time periods, attempting to blend the two togather to make it plausible. However BL, please note that during the 1981 time period. Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro admitted to having Kenyan citizenship:

    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.”

    If you use the Indonesian School registration as proof of born in Hawaii, but totally disregard the same for the Nationality, listed as Indonesian. Proof of Obama’s Real name Barry Soetoro Citizenship- Indonesian. Religion – Muslim. They will also use the FactCheck forgey as proof of an embossed Seal on the “second” COLB, and disregard the fact that the origional posted on Fight the Smears, does not have one. Therfore it could never have been released by the State of Hawaii.
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Sync, you are missing the point. If he as a young child traveled as Barack Obama to Indonesia on a US Passport, why would he in 1981 have a different passport? That makes no sense. When he returned from Indonesia, he came on a US passport. But even taking that away for a moment, he could never have lost his US citizenship as a child in Indonesia so it doesn’t matter what the alleged school record says. But lets discuss that for a second. Besides the unauthenticated record you discuss, which as you admit says Obama was born in Hawaii, the he had to have US citizenship by virtue of being born in the US. So how could he have lost it? There was never any trave ban. He lived in the US for most of his life. There was never any evidence that he went by the name Soetero in the US. Contrary to your statements, as was proven on Phil’s blog a month ago there was any article from his roommate regarding his time at Columbia.
    When did he admit to having another citizenship? He by birth was eligible for citizenship but never made effort to affirm this citizenship. Again if you have evidence or proof otherwise please link us to it.
    In other words you have not provided any proof that he ever went by any other name, was a citizen of another country, or had a passport of any other country. If there is some real proof other than your beliefs, then link us to it? You claim that we “obots” have been brainwashed, so provide us with some proof or legally admissible evidence. I am curious to see what you have to support your claims other than hatred of the President.

  130. 11/27/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    Lou Dobbs is going all-out for the Oval Office, it’s no rumor.

    This is just the wind-up because he’s angry as hell at Obama for the birth certificate – we all know that. This is a bomb-in-waiting. It’s a matter of time now if he pulls out the certificate card DURING the campaign, or waits; till just before the campaign starts. That’s strategy and depends on how the voters react to testing them on the issue. If the voters react well to talking about the birth issue, then Dobb’s camp will USE IT, or else they’ll wait to pop it at the moment when the race is getting near the end-line.

    It’s a ticking clock now. No turning back now. Obama is done for – well before 2012. He’ll be in jail now, this year.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/nyregion/25dobbs.html

    Thank heaven for Lou Dobbs and Orly Taitz. They got the mainstream on board and talked to the masses. Without them, Hitler could have made it back today. They have protected us against Satan. Obama is now appearing as the Second Beast, “The Lamb”, “The False Prophet”, the Great Deceiver; he’s both the horrid First Beast, the mixed up “I’m from anywhere”, and Satan as well: the unholy trinity. From Wikipedia: “The Beast (Bible)”

  131. 11/27/2009Black Lion says:

    If you use the Indonesian School registration as proof of born in Hawaii, but totally disregard the same for the Nationality, listed as Indonesian. Proof of Obama’s Real name Barry Soetoro Citizenship- Indonesian. Religion – Muslim. They will also use the FactCheck forgey as proof of an embossed Seal on the “second” COLB, and disregard the fact that the origional posted on Fight the Smears, does not have one. Therfore it could never have been released by the State of Hawaii.

    If the person in the White House is Barry Soetoro, then the Indonesian school registration is proof of Indonesian citizenship, and not American, again, disqualifing Obama. Not only that, but the COLB produced is for another individual Barack Obama. However Barach Obama has stated that he has NO other name, or gone by any other name. If Obama did go by Barry Soetoro, then he is also guilty of re-entering the US and not going through the US Customs and Naturalization process. Thereby again becoming a “Naturalized” citizen, and again in no way can be “Natural Born”.

    Obama and his supporters can’t have it both ways. Either he is Barack Obama born with a foreign father and admitted British at birth, or he is Barry Soetoro who entered the US without going through the US Customs and Naturalization process and is an illegal alien.
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Another thing. You neglect the fact that he returned to the US on a US passport. Since he was born in the US he never had to worry about being naturalized. He entered the US as a citizen.

    Second I prefer to go by the statement by Dr. Fukino that said “Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, HI”. Period. Born in Hawaii. I don’t care if you say that one copy had a seal and the other did not. That is semantics. The bottom line is no matter how you want to discredit the statement, she stated that he was born in Honolulu.

    He has never claimed to be anyone but Barack or Barry Obama. High School and College friends remember him with the last name Obama. What do you have as Soetero other than some Indonesian record that is unauthenticated. He has stated that he has gone by no other name. If you can find some record that he went by Soetero in the US or as an adult, then you could make that claim. If not then all of your beliefs are just speculation. No real evidence.

  132. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    BL;
    regardless of any travel ban, that is not the point. Under what passport did he travel.

    BL: When did he admit to having another citizenship? Again if you have evidence or proof otherwise please link us to it.

    Off the ‘OFFICIAL’ FST web-site.

    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.”

    So therefore are you saying he was a triple national. Kenyan, Indonesian, and US. WOW, thanks for the clarification…That means even further away from the ‘free of foreign influence’ that John Jay [First supreme Court Justice] and George Washington were refering to.

    many many thanks for moving the bar even further away for his eligibility.

    BL:In other words you have not provided any proof that he ever went by any other name

    In school he went by Barry. Wait a second. Is Barry a different name? What does the shool year book have. Oh that’s right ‘Barry Obama’

    Again, you BL have proven you inability to see anything, other then you warped and twisted logic.

    brygenon, as for MY myths. Why are you denying the facts from the State of Hawaii. I did not state what should be on a valid COLB Seal, the State of Hawaii has. I have posted everything, and unlike Barack Hussein Obama who has NOT produced one supporting piece of evidence on anything regarding his past.

    Want to state that the COLB is real. OK, which one. Please state which one is the REAL one, and we’ll go from there and tear that one down. So please pick one forgery to debunk.

  133. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    In honor of the racist bigots posting on several blogs, such as Sue, Black Lion, brygenon over on the Right Side of Life, who call anyone that has anything to say against “their” Obama a racist. I have decided to have a little fun and make the following illustration poking fun at their inabilty to see facts. Mind you that unlike them, I do not revert and call people racists. I for one, standby Alan Keyes and Pastor Mannin, who also question the illegal undocumented alien, Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility as POTUS.

    So here’s to you Sue, Black Lion, and brygenon

    http://wp.me/pkW2J-8i

  134. 11/27/2009Loren says:

    Black Lion said: “Talk about a rogues gallery of non expertiese…We have an unknown “genealogist””

    Phil said: “However, not only should their credentials be reasonably easy to verify (assuming that they are released and that someone has done the actual homework to verify the credentials; if they’re not verifiable, then they should be treated with a grain of salt)”

    It shouldn’t be too hard to obtain the credentials of the “genealogist”, becauase he’s posted in this comments thread a few dozen times already.

    syc1959 could easily provide these forensic “credentials” that you say he possesses (he instead claims, twice, only ex-military status and Oathkeepers membership as credentials), but so far he doesn’t seem prone to even acknowledging that he is the “anonymous genealogist.”

    If the unverifiable credentials of a supposed “expert” should be treated with a grain of salt, how then should we treat the unverifiable credentials of a supposed “expert” who declines to give any credentials at all?

  135. 11/27/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Black Lion says:
    November 27, 2009 at 10:48 am
    *In other words you have not provided any proof that he ever went by any other name, was a citizen of another country, or had a passport of any other country.*

    Of course they know they have no proof, they delude themselves into believing they just haven’t found it yet, and oh, if they could just find a judge who would allow a trial to proceed without cause of action and let them discover the proof that they just know is there somewhere.

    Just the fact that they have at least 4 tales of why Obama isn’t eligible, that they alternate through when something emerges that tends to discount one of the tales, shows they know this is a bunch of mularkey. Pick a reason Obama isn’t eligible and go with it. Oh, right, they picked “two citizen parent” until the Indiana court of appeals straightened that one out. During the summer they were running with “born in Kenya”, until the State of Hawaii disclosed they have a vital record of the birth of one Barack Hussein Obama II in Hawaii. There’s only two left: “he’s Barry Soetoro, adopted by Soetoro, renouncer at age 6 of his US citizenship” or “he was born in Kenya and the Hawaii vital record is a fake”. Oh, wait, “he’s Barry Soetoro” is null too! Muslim law forbids adoption! And if a Muslim family takes in an orphan, it is forbidden to change his last name! Lolo Soetoro is a Muslim, Indonesia is a Muslim, sharia law country! Soetoro couldn’t have adopted Barack in Indonesia, and he would never have changed his name! 3 down, and the 4th requires such an elaborate conspiracy requiring so many people to remain silent for 48 years, it defies all logic. Birtherism is dead. ( Obviously since Steve feels the need to cross-post everything here at the only active birther site left.)

  136. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda aka nolu chan aka ‘if you snooze, you lose’

    Obot central is recalling you.

    siseduermapierda aka nolu chan aka ‘if you snooze, you lose’ stated the following; Oh, wait, “he’s Barry Soetoro” is null too! Muslim law forbids adoption! And if a Muslim family takes in an orphan, it is forbidden to change his last name! Lolo Soetoro is a Muslim, Indonesia is a Muslim, sharia law country! Soetoro couldn’t have adopted Barack in Indonesia, and he would never have changed his name!

    In reality it is NOT against Islam to adopt another Muslim. Nor was Obama an orphan, was he. Again mis-representing the facts. Therefore your point is mute. Why do the divorce documents clearly indicate thet Lolo and Stanley Ann, have two [again notice the plural - two] children. Even to go as far as stating one is a minor Maya, and the other an adult [already in college] Barry.

    I could respond to your entire tirade, but am getting a belly laugh already with your dribble.

    You must hate the notion of being caught in your lies, and the truth [facts] being brought to light.

    scurry little roach, scurry. Your snoozing! nolu chan

  137. 11/27/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 27, 2009 at 12:57 pm
    *scurry little roach, scurry*

    Right back atcha Steve! Wassamatta, things so slow at your blog you have to come hijack Phil’s readers to your blog? No, Barack wasn’t an orphan was he? So why would Lolo Soetoro adopt him? Muslims don’t adopt other people’s kids and re-name them. You folks made a HUGE mistake when you tried to project a uniquely American practice onto people living in an Asian, Muslim country. Why haven’t you called a divorce attorney in the State of Hawaii to ask why someone lists an adult child in a divorce complaint? Because you already know the answer – Barack was the financial dependent of the Soetoros. There is nothing in the complaint about Barack’s legal status. He’s not even named. But of course, you depend on people believing you without checking and without giving it a good hard think because they want to believe. Insinuate something in a convincing way, and you’ll get some believers. You are a prevaricator, and you know that one of the most important components in promoting and perpetuating a lie is that the person hearing the lie wants to believe the lie is true. What’s in it for you Steve to fabricate and promote lies about the President? Ad revenue? Donations from the believers?
    As for thinking I’m Nolu Chan, I am flattered immensely.

  138. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    Poor little roach, scamper siseduermapierda, scamper into the darkness, the light is coming.

    I don’t need to hijack Phil’s readers. I rather enjoy dropping in once and a while and scurring the Obot pests here. Just doing a bit of Pest Extermination. Stopping the vermin in their tracks and ridding the area of rats for a while.

    Standard operating procedure is for a gaggle of Obots to flood false information in replies to people questioning the illegal undocumented resident alien. I just bring in a can of RAID or two and have fun.

    BTW; lil roach, as you mentioned “There is nothing in the complaint about Barack’s legal status. He’s not even named.”

    Nor is the COLB posted on FTS a legal document and the two off FactCheck either. Nor is the school registration from Indonesia for anyone named Obama.

    Again, an un-named undocumented illegal alien.

    Better run, the light is coming.

    scurry little roach, scurry

  139. 11/27/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 27, 2009 at 2:24 pm
    “There is nothing in the complaint about Barack’s legal status. He’s not even named.”

    So you realize the mention of him in the divorce complaint has no meaning other than Barack’s financial dependence and you changed the subject back to the COLB. Talk about scurrying out of the light. You’re a funny guy. It’s fun to have you here. It shows the believers that you are happy to spread lies that smear the President. When pressed for proof, you’ve got nuthin. The slightest pressure and you fold like a cheap tent.

  140. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda says: “So you realize the mention of him in the divorce complaint has no meaning other than Barack’s financial dependence and you changed the subject back to the COLB.”

    The COLB is a forgery. Which one have you decided in is the legitmate State of Hawaii issued one? You have three forgeries to pick from.

    I thought you mentioned that HE WASN”T EVEN NAMED, SO HOW DID YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DIVORSE PAPERS WERE REFERING TO BARRY SOETORO [THE ADOPTED SON BARACK OBAMA]

    As for spreading lies, Obama himself has stated that HIS autobiographies can’t be taken literaly, so who is spreading lies and falsehoods. Obama and his supporters it appears. You deny in one statement and cling to in the next.

    Who’s past is an imaginary pile of heresay statements that have no supporting documentation?

    In your mind I fold. But better a tent, then a scampering lil roach feeding off Obama garbage.

  141. 11/27/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 27, 2009 at 3:31 pm
    *The COLB is a forgery.*
    You have presented no proof of that.
    *SO HOW DID YOU COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DIVORSE PAPERS WERE REFERING TO Barack Obama*
    How did you? You’re the one who said it names him. Now you admit you have no proof the child over 18 referred to in the complaint is Barack Obama II. Glad to know you admit you lied – it doesn’t name him as “Barry Soetoro” either. No way to know for sure to whom it actually refers, so your lie that it proves he was adopted by Soetoro falls apart too. All lies fall apart when examined closely. Birther tall tales never stand up to scrutiny. You squelch all close examination or challenge of your tall tales at your highly moderated blog. But when challenged in the open, like here at Phil’s, your stories are shown for what they really are – lies about the President and his background to people who want to believe and won’t look too closely. Thanks for making my point for me. For anyone who hasn’t seen the divorce complaint, here it is. Read it yourself and decide if you think there’s any proof there is a “Barry Soetoro” adopted by Lolo Soetoro.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9657528/Soetoro-Divorce-p-15
    You will also notice it consists of 3 documents:
    A 2 page complaint, a one page Summons and a 2 page divorce decree. There is no “missing page” as is often written. You will also notice the complaint was filed Aug 20,1980 and the decree was issued Aug 28,1980.

  142. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda says; You have presented no proof of that.

    Three different versions presented.
    Forgery #1 – The COLB posted on ‘Fight the Smears’ – No Stamp, No Seal, evidence of tampering and forgery. Sandra Ramsey Lines, Ron Polirak, and myself, among others.

    Forgery #2 – FactCheck – Two different COLB’s one with a SEAL, however NOT an Official State of Hawaii Department of Health SEAL

    Forgery #3 – FactCheck – COLB without a SEAL, image of COLB being held up. High resolution and NO indicating of a SEAL.

    Even with limited graphic abilities, the detection that the 1st one was created in Photoshop CS3, the absence of ANY detectable ‘security line [ratan pattern] breakage’ where the SEAL should be on two versions and the incorrect SEAL [AS stated by the State of Hawaii, in an official response] to the third, would indicate what. That all three versions are a fabrication. Two physical copies and one image only.

    You stated “There is no “missing page”. Who stated anything about a missing page. Are you cutting from the playbook again. Because you can’t back up any of your falseified statements?

    You might ask yourself the following question, “WHY IS OBAMA FIGHTING THE LAWSUITS IF HE HAD ALREADY SHOWN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?”

    What does your talking points say about this.

  143. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    Even if you look at the Sunday Standard, from Sunday June 27, 2004, what does it state from the AP. Kenyan-Born. Don’t you think, it would have said; “Hawaiian-Born’ US Senate hopeful Barack Obama, but what DOES it say. Kenyan-Born, not African-American, not Kenyan-Born Father, but in plain and simple language ‘KENYAN-BORN’

    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/kenyannews2.jpg

    or why does another ‘FOREIGN’ newspaper with nothing to hide

    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/kenyannews1.jpg

    Another article released just this week, states that “It seems Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America (via a sleepy village in Kenya called Nyang’oma K’Ogelo)”

    Obama supporters have a hard time excepting that the reality that he was born in Kenya, thereby eliminating all possibilty that he can even claim ‘native’ American citizenship under Title 8 of the US Code. As being born in a foreign country to an underage mother is not covered by US Jurisdiction. One must wonder how easily his supporters aer decieved, as even the Kenyan Parliment, the Government of Kenya has stated that Barack Obama is Kenyan,

    NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT

    Wednesday, 5th November, 2008

    The House met at 9.00 a.m.

    Dr. Khalwale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. You have heard none other than the Leader of Government Business acknowledge that because of Obama’s win in the United States of America (USA), the House is crippled.

    Could we allow him to move a Motion for Adjournment so that we could also continue the celebrations of having a Kenyan ruling the USA? I humbly request! *****[note - "having a Kenyan ruling the USA"!]

  144. 11/27/2009siseduermapierda says:

    November 27, 2009 at 5:07 pm
    *WHY IS OBAMA FIGHTING THE LAWSUITS IF HE HAD ALREADY SHOWN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?”*

    So you admit there is no proof that Soetoro adopted Barack and that the divorce papers say nothing of the sort. Good. So now you’re teeing up another birther lie to be driven into oblivion? Amazing.

    It seems like most birthers have been lucky enough to have never had a lawsuit filed against them. If you or any other birther had ever had a civil complaint filed against you, you would know that as the defendant, there are really only three things you can do when someone files suit against you. But first, you should retain counsel:

    - You could ignore the complaint and have a default judgement made against you. Which you probably don’t want to do, and if you wisely retained counsel, he would advise you not to do.
    - You could answer the complaint. Which would lob the ball back into the plaintiffs court, but also move the process toward discovery and trial. Your attorney would probably advise you not to simply answer the complaint or make a counter complaint.
    - You could file a motion to dismiss that outlines the reasons the plaintiff has no cause of action on which to base a lawsuit. Which, amazingly enough, is what has been done by defendants’ counsel in every birther case. If this is what you call “fighting a law suit”, Ok. Who wouldn’t defend himself against a lawsuit? Which we all have a right to do in this country Steve. Is there some reason why you think Barack Obama is not entitled to defend himself? Why do you try to make it seem like something unique, people defend themselves against lawsuits every day. Generally because the accusation is not true.
    - What you would definitely NOT do is file evidence, like say a certified COLB, as your answer. Anyone who knows anything about civil procedure knows the “why doesn’t he just show the thing” meme is completely disingenuous. You’d never do that in answer to a civil complaint. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove his claim, not on the defendant to produce proof the claim is without merit. That’s the way it works here in America. Do you think some other system should apply to Barack Obama just because you don’t like him? If you don’t like our system, you should work to change the law, knowing it would change it for everyone. You don’t get to change the rules just for Obama. But you know this, and your huffing and puffing is all for show and to convince the ignorant to believe something that isn’t true.

    So upon examination, another one of your lies disintegrates. I think you know all this and you are conning people who don’t know and don’t have the intellectual curiosity or resources to look it up. Which takes us right back to the fact that one of the reasons a lie works is the person being lied to wants to believe and will pretend not to see the cracks in the lie.

  145. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda, your snoozing lil roach.

    No siseduermapierda; you stated So you admit there is no proof that Soetoro adopted Barack and that the divorce papers say nothing of the sort.’

    They state legal responsibility, however in your simplist terms, “Why would Lolo Soetoro, have any legal responsibility if he was not adopted?”

    Matter of fact, your talking points on the adoption angle, all state an orphan. Was Bararck/Barry an orphan? Since you like to mis-quote Islamic law. IE: Kafala Better go back and tell the office crowd, that angle got sunk.

    Then might you also disregard that Obama lied about NOT being a practicing muslim, having said the ‘Call to prayer, that once a Muslim always a muslim’

    or this tidbit;

    Michelle and I would like to send our best wishes to all those performing Hajj this year, and to Muslims in America and around the world who are celebrating Eid-ul-Adha. The rituals of Hajj and Eid-ul-Adha both serve as reminders of the shared Abrahamic roots of three of the world’s major religions.

    During Hajj, the world’s largest and most diverse gathering, three million Muslims from all walks of life – including thousands of American Muslims – will stand in prayer on Mount Arafat. The following day, Muslims around the world will celebrate Eid-ul-Adha and distribute food to the less fortunate to commemorate Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son out of obedience to God.

    This year, I am pleased that the Department of Health and Human Services has partnered with the Saudi Health Ministry to prevent and limit the spread of H1N1 during Hajj. Cooperating on combating H1N1 is one of the ways we are implementing my administration’s commitment to partnership in areas of mutual interest.

    On behalf of the American people, we would like to extend our greetings during this Hajj season – Eid Mubarak.

  146. 11/27/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 27, 2009 at 5:07 pm
    *Birth Certificate 1,2,3 *

    This is like playing “Whack a Mole”! The COLB isn’t important anymore. Hawaii has the index data for a birth vital record for Barack Hussein Obama II. You know that’s why Leo withdrew – Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. Why havent’ you had anyone go to the records office in Hawaii and ask for the index data?

    Still referring to “Dr Polarik” as an expert? HAHAHAHA!!! Polarik was unmasked as Ron Polland, a PhD, but with no expertise in document forensics.

    You forgot to mention TechDude, who was the one who said the COLB was a forgery fabricated on a computer, was unmasked as a nobody who stole someone else’s CV and was never heard from after July 2008. Recalling your birther lore, Tech Dude said the COLB was forged from Maya Soetoro’s Hawaiian COLB. Maya was born in Indonesia, she doesn’t have a Hawaiian COLB. Hawaii recently confirmed they have no vital record for Maya Soetoro.

    The only “real” document examiner was Sandra Line and she said the authenticity of a document cannot be determined from a picture. The “It’s a forgery” tale was debunked long ago. Only your ignorant sheep would still fall for Polarik and TechDude stories.

    Why haven’t you had anyone go to the records office in Hawaii and request the index data? Because it definitively shows Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug 4, 1961 and then you couldn’t cry about the COLB anymore.

  147. 11/27/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 27, 2009 at 6:23 pm
    * “Why would Lolo Soetoro, have any legal responsibility if he was not adopted?”*

    The papers clearly show he didn’t have legal responsibility, and Ms Dunham wasn’t asking for any. When one reads the papers, one finds they don’t say what you try to convince your sheep they say. Which means you lie.

    You are starting to embarrass yourself, Steve.

  148. 11/27/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 27, 2009 at 6:23 pm
    ” that once a Muslim always a muslim’”

    Well, if you judge whether someone is a muslim because he wishes muslims well, Bush must also be a muslim. He had a Ramadan dinner at the White House! Who hosts a Ramadan dinner except a fellow muslim!

    http://islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=38&sub_cat_id=1984

  149. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    actually you embarrass yourself, siseduermapierda

    The divorce was filed in 1980, the seperation was in 1974.
    Barack Obama was laready in college at this point, therefore no need for finincial support, as Stanley Ann [mattress matron] was getting by with 2 domestic servants. Oh the poor thing.

    So once again, reading things that aren’t there and creating things, when they convienient for an Obot point of view.

    scurry lil roach, back to your hole.

    You still refuse to answer, which one of the three COLB’s posted is a legitimate legal one?

  150. 11/27/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 27, 2009 at 7:05 pm
    *So once again, reading things that aren’t there and creating things*
    Yes that’s exactly what you did. You claimed the divorce papers proved that Lolo Soetoro had adopted Barack. An obvious lie when one reads the papers. Thanks for admitting it.

    *which one of the three COLB’s posted is a legitimate legal one?*

    You can’t tell from those pictures that it’s even 3 different documents. And why would that mean anything anyway? I have more than one copy of my birth certificate. How’s about you or one of your minions go get a copy of the index data of the vital record of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama II at the Hawaiian offices and post a picture of that.

  151. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda You claimed the divorce papers proved that Lolo Soetoro had adopted Barack. WRONG.

    *which one of the three COLB’s posted is a legitimate legal one?*

    You can’t tell from those pictures that it’s even 3 different documents.

    When in the absence of required data and items, the question of the validity comes into question. When McCain was asked to provide his documentation, he did.

    Obama has provided an image, not a document, and even when asked for his medical records, provided a ‘NOTE’ from his doctor.

  152. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda just to refresh your two min memory I said and I quote:
    * “Why would Lolo Soetoro, have any legal responsibility if he was not adopted?”*

    Why such as in “IF’, is a conditional statement. But however why would he go by Barry unless it was in with the name Barry Soetoro, so are you going to deny the school yearbook picture as Barry.

    Nite lil roach!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! better go back before the big bugs start coming out.

  153. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda maybe this article will spawn some thought.

    When Barry Became Barack
    It didn’t happen overnight. But in college, the young Barry took to being called by his formal name. What this evolution tells us about him.
    Barry Obama decided that he didn’t like his nickname. A few of his friends at Occidental College had already begun to call him Barack (his formal name), and he’d come to prefer that. The way his half sister, Maya, remembers it, Obama returned home at Christmas in 1980, and there he told his mother and grandparents: no more Barry.

    But what happened to the Ill. bar when it asked if he [Obama] went by any other name? Is barry another name. Is Barry and Barack the same.

    So if he was Barry Soetoro, that peron has Indonesian citizenship and withouty going through the naturalization process is an illegal undocumented alien in this country, as even Chris Matthews had to admit to G Gordon Liddy – Correct?

    So when did Barry become Barack, or when did Soetoro become Obama AGAIN?

  154. 11/27/2009Loren says:

    Black Lion said: “Talk about a rogues gallery of non expertiese…We have an unknown “genealogist””

    It shouldn’t be too hard to obtain the credentials of the “genealogist”, because the genealogist is syc1959.

    And he could easily provide these forensic credentials that he supposedly possesses (he instead claims only ex-military status and Oathkeepers membership as credentials), but so far he doesn’t seem prone to even acknowledging that he is the “unknown genealogist.”

    If the unverifiable credentials of a supposed expert should be treated with a grain of salt, how should we treat a supposed “expert” who declines to give any credentials at all?

  155. 11/27/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 27, 2009 at 11:03 am
    BL;
    regardless of any travel ban, that is not the point. Under what passport did he travel.

    BL: When did he admit to having another citizenship? Again if you have evidence or proof otherwise please link us to it.

    Off the ‘OFFICIAL’ FST web-site.

    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.”

    Sync, again what is your point. Like I said before no one denies that President Obama was ELIGIBLE for Kenyan citizenship. However that doesn’t mean anything. You keep bringing it up like it matters. Obama was born in the US. So according to US law, no other country’s citizenship laws matter. Why is that so difficult for you to realize. Now if I am wrong pleas show us relevant US law that states that the US has to refer to other countries in order to decide who is a US citizen.

    So therefore are you saying he was a triple national. Kenyan, Indonesian, and US. WOW, thanks for the clarification…That means even further away from the ‘free of foreign influence’ that John Jay [First supreme Court Justice] and George Washington were refering to.

    I am saying nothing of the sort. All I am saying is that Obama was born in the US. So that makes him an American, or US citizen. If he was born an mostly raised in the US, he was free of foreign influence.

    many many thanks for moving the bar even further away for his eligibility.

    I did not such thing. You are the one that keeps bringing up issue without any sort of proof to support your claims. All I have asked if you are claiming that he was born elsewhere or was adopted, let us see the proof. As usual the birthers make a lot of claims without any sort of evidence to support these claims.

    BL:In other words you have not provided any proof that he ever went by any other name

    In school he went by Barry. Wait a second. Is Barry a different name? What does the shool year book have. Oh that’s right ‘Barry Obama’

    You are a funny guy. Let me be more specific. There is no proof that President Obama went by any other LAST name other than Obama. And Barry was a nickname for Barack.

    Again, you BL have proven you inability to see anything, other then you warped and twisted logic.

    I was thinking the same thing. You would rather ignore evidence and believe that the President was born in another country or somehow as a child renounced his US citizenship than accept that the President was born in the US. I understand you dislike him and his policies. That is OK. That is what makes this country great. If you don’t like someone you can vote them out in 4 years…

    brygenon, as for MY myths. Why are you denying the facts from the State of Hawaii. I did not state what should be on a valid COLB Seal, the State of Hawaii has. I have posted everything, and unlike Barack Hussein Obama who has NOT produced one supporting piece of evidence on anything regarding his past.

    The President doesn’t have to. He supplied what was necessary. The electoral college was satisfied. Congress was satisfied. The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS was satisfied. So the only people that were not satisfied were Steve and the birthers. So which group really matters? I think we all know it is not the birthers.

    Why should the President produce anything else? We didn’t see any so called supporting evidence from any other President. If you don’t agree with what he has produced, how about providing some legally admissible evidence that contradicts what has been presented? You are making the accusation so you need to support your contention.

    Want to state that the COLB is real. OK, which one. Please state which one is the REAL one, and we’ll go from there and tear that one down. So please pick one forgery to debunk.

    This is a red herring. All of your so called COLB’s are the same. Either way the statement by Dr. Fukino where she states that President Obama was born in HI is all most people need to hear.

  156. 11/27/2009bob strauss says:

    sise,Your assertion that Leo has withdrawn from the NBC issue is more BS. Leo Donofrio is perfecting a quo warranto action against the usurper as we speak, as are other attorneys. Fraud charges are being delivered to State Attorney Generals charging Nancy Pelosi and the DNC with election fraud in the 2008 election.

    Your assertion that the DOH in Hawaii has provided index data for the birth of Obama is also false. Hawaii is, right now, breaking their own open government laws to keep hidden the truth about Obama’s origins. Hawaii also will not release the information they supposedly used to determine Obama to be a NBC, even though their laws say the info must be released to the public.

    Maybe you can tell us why this information is being hidden if it proves your assertion. The truth is the Obama COLB is a forgery, Hawaii has no such document, they never issued the phoney document Obama would have people believe is his “birth certificate” and Polarik is your worst enemy.

    Also, for the one millionth time, no certificate on earth is going to qualify Obama as an NBC, his father was a Kenyan, British citizen. Foreigners don’t go traipsing around the United States depositing natural born citizens in their wake. Your BS about Obama being eligible to be President is strictly designed to mislead and and confuse people.

  157. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    BL, your blowing it out, your you know what.

    Obama has NOT met the qualifications. Pawning off an illegal document is a criminal offense. Providing three versions is multiple criminal charges.

    BL claims, that the President doesn’t have to. He supplied what was necessary.

    What makes him above the LAW?

    No he hasn’t. Even stealing delegates from a State where he wasn’t on the ballot.

    As for the triple citizenship, you stated it, admitted it and brought it out. Again thanks.

    What makes you think, that someone can produce an image on the internet, while another candidate has to produce a legal valid copy in a court to satisfy questions raised, and then having a Senate Committee vote an illegal non-lawful, non-binding resolution, that states John McCain having two (2) US parents, again the plural, but being born OUTSIDE the Jurisdiction of the United States, an the other candidate (Obama) an illegal undocumented alien, haveing a foreign father with an unknown birth location, who can’t possibly meet teh same requirements as the other (McCain) being equal.

    That in a nutshell is your bullsh** stance.

    As for “any other name” That was done by Newsweek. Again with material provided by BS Obama. So are you calling Obama a liar, when he states that he went by Barry?

  158. 11/27/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    Obama is a British subject at birth… It does not matter where…Obama was born [because] he fails the…Constitutional requirement for…the Presidency…syc1959

    1 Place Barack Obama Sr.’s legal first marriage to Kezia Grace Aoko under the laws of British Kenya in 1957 [ http://tinyurl.com/64ebrq ] in the context of Section 32(2) of the British Nationality Act 1948 [ http://tinyurl.com/5dfoj ] (which precluded illegitimate children, such as British law defined Barack Obama Jr., from British citizenship by descent at birth) and it is clear that Obama Jr., if born in Hawaii, is not ineligible to the Presidency on the basis of dual nationality. Obama never inherited British nationality through his father: to rebut this conclusion it has to be demonstrated that Obama Sr.’s 1957 marriage was not legally recognized in British Kenya or that Section 32(2) of BNA 1948 did not apply to Obama Sr. as a British citizen – both expedients are quite frankly impossible.

    2 The American colonies held that English common law, as it stood at their separate foundings (e.g. 1607), had followed the original colonists; after Independence state law and courts continued to maintain this position. Consequently, the English common law definition of “natural born” citizen in American states applied to any person, except a slave or Indian, born within the sovereign territory of any American state; no child in this category was “foreign” in the birth-state, or was “foreign” to other American states, or could be deemed to have allegiance to any foreign state. If born in Hawaii Obama is eligible to the Presidency on these grounds.

    3 Counter-claims that the common law of nations (e.g. Vattel) define US citizenship fail on the ground that common law was never federal law. Furthermore, the decision of SCOTUS in Erie v. Tompkins (1938) requires federal courts to identify the sovereign American legislative or constitutional instrument for every rule of decision: the opinions of legislators or scholars of any era, whether on paper or in debate, do not have the force of a legislative or constitutional instrument and so cannot define in law “natural born citizen”. The only available definition and instrument is that used by the states based on their assuming the precedent of English common law. Again, if born in Hawaii Obama is eligible to the Presidency on these grounds.

    4 Given Obama would not be ineligible to the Presidency if officially registered as born in Hawaii then it goes against all rationality a) that Obama would withhold from the public his 1961 birth record when he allegedly released his CertificATION of Live Birth and later claimed “I ran for president promising transparency, and I meant what I said…whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable“; b) that before the election his party would not certify Obama as legally eligible to the Presidency in over 40 states; c) that Obama would release images of his purported CertificATION of Live Birth which have no discernible but necessary Hawaii seal; d) that an officially confirmed amendment (date of birth) to Obama’s vital records is illegally missing from the alleged images of Obama’s COLB; e) that law firms would be retained by Obama at great expense for eligibility lawsuits when permitting DoH to release Obama’s 1961 vital records would have cost nothing; f) that Obama’s lawyers would cite allegedly DoH-sourced newpaper announcements of Obama’s birth on August 4 despite the officially confirmed delayed filing on August 8 which establishes Obama must have been born before July 8; g) that Obama would claim birth in a Hawaii hospital although this circumstance could not have resulted in a delayed filing and so any birth certificate(s) could not have recorded Kapiolani Hospital as his birthplace; and h) that Hawaii DoH would act contrary to Hawaii law by misleading and misdirecting the public to shield Obama’s records from legitimate inquiry and by DoH Director Fukino illegally withholding Obama’s vital records from the public after her July 2009 statement.

    Nothing in point 4 is consistent with points 1-3 or the Indiana decision; therefore the explanation of the facts in point 4 goes beyond points 1-3 and the Indiana decision. Analogously, Nixon’s and Clinton’s fear of transparency was only rationally explicable in terms other than a high-minded and disinterested belief in executive privilege. Given the amended birthdate has been illegally removed from Obama’s COLB, while a delayed or amended birth filing under Hawaii law is not to be presumed true (prima facie), the burden is upon Obama loyalists to provide a convincing story which reconciles all the elements of point 4 with Obama’s claim to US citizenship and eligibility to the Presidency. It’s hard to imagine how complex that story must be to convince, even harder to imagine how such a complex story without evidence, now we know Obama’s COLB cannot be presumed true, could even be remotely convincing.

    The COLB isn’t important anymore.siseduermapierda

    No prizes for guessing, in the context of point 4, why siseduermapierda thinks Obama’s COLB “isn’t important anymore“. Unfortunately for siseduermapierda either Obama’s alleged online COLB is a fake because it has no raised seal and a birthdate amendment is illegally missing, or it’s a fake because the 1961 filing and amendment(s) were never officially “ACCEPTED” by Hawaii DoH (Obama’s alleged online COLB reads “DATE FILED”, which according to 1961 DoH rules is prior to official acceptance) and Obama was never officially registered as born in Hawaii. Given Hawaii DoH suspiciously continue to refuse to go on the record and answer direct questions and explain the difference between “DATE FILED” and “DATE ACCEPTED”, in what way is Obama’s alleged COLB being a forgery or Obama never being officially registered as born in Hawaii unimportant? With the understanding that nothing about Obama’s vital records adds up, which accounts for Obama’s fight to keep them out of the public domain, I hope siseduermapierda is aware that Fukino’s July statement was unintentionally a gift to “birthers”. Using Hawaii law (UIPA) Fukino will be compelled to adhere to her legal obligation to make public all the documents which informed her July statement: at which point those faked “COLBs” will become even more important

    The Court says that the birth certificate [Obama' alleged COLB] has been publicly available…brygenon

    Two passages from the court document brygenon cites:

    aPlaintiff’s counsel speculates that President Obama was not born in the United States [and] makes these allegations although a ‘short-form’ birth certificate [Obama's alleged COLB] has been made publicly available…” [P3]

    bCounsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya [but] has not, however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901” [P10 fn5, emphasis applied]

    It is painfully clear that the judge in this case is applying a double standard.

    Judge Land cites “publicly available” online images of Obama’s alleged CertificaTION of Live Birth that are not admissible in themselves; images that depict no raised seal on the alleged COLB; images that expose an officially confirmed amendment as illegally missing and, were the amendment included, strips the alleged COLB of prima facie status; images that show the alleged COLB not in compliance with authentication standards [FRE Rule 902(4)] for electronic or vital records; and images that reveal inadmissible hearsay within hearsay inside the alleged COLB: these online images have been ascribed greater evidential weight than a tangible document (about which I make no comment) on the basis that counsel failed to “properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901“: this is not merely judicial hypocrisy but a scandalous caricature of judicial bias.

    For brygenon to ask readers to be persuaded by such illogicalities reveals brygenon‘s underestimation of the intelligence of readers – or an overestimation of brygenon‘s own.

  159. 11/27/2009syc1959 says:

    Who Are You Kidding stated; The American colonies held that English common law, as it stood at their separate foundings (e.g. 1607), had followed the original colonists; after Independence state law and courts continued to maintain this position.

    WRONG!!!!!

    What a fool. The Plymouth colony was founded in 1620 NOT 1607, on Nov 11th, 1620 the Mayflower Compact was signed. British Common law is NOT the basis. More Obot lies.

    The Origin of Government and Laws in Connecticut
    JESSE ROOT, 1798

    These rights and liberties are our own, not holden by the gift of a despot. Our government and our rulers are from amongst ourselves; chosen by the free, uninfluenced suffrages of enlightened freemen; not to oppress and devour, but to protect, feed, and bless the people, with the benign and energetic influence of their power (as ministers of God for good to them). This shows the ignorance of those who are clamorous for a new constitution, and the mistake of those who suppose that the rules of the Common Law of England are the common law of Connecticut, until altered by a statute.

    As a decendant of the Mayflower Pilgrims, I take great offense in people like ‘Who Are You Kidding’ PREVERTING and altering documented history.

    The Laws of Nations was the standard that OUR Founding Fathers used as per Bengamin Franklin;

    Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
    “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

    Natural born citizens, “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

    “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘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 indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

  160. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    Who Are You Kidding, show me ANY legal marriage certificate from Kenya!

    There is none and a tribal marriage is not recognized by the State of Hawaii.

    If it was bigomy, there would have been no reason of a ‘divorce’ decree in the United States.

    so before you state whatever marriage was in Kenya, produce the documents. But like Obama’s Hawaiian Birth Certificate it doesn’t exist.

  161. 11/28/2009Sue says:

    Bob Straus,

    “sise,Your assertion that Leo has withdrawn from the NBC issue is more BS. Leo Donofrio is perfecting a quo warranto action against the usurper as we speak, as are other attorneys. Fraud charges are being delivered to State Attorney Generals charging Nancy Pelosi and the DNC with election fraud in the 2008 election.”

    Good. I hope Donofrio files his lawsuit soon. Fraud charges by the fake AGJ–that hasn’t gone too well, has it?

    You might want to read Judge Lamberth’s order:

    New Docket Entry…

    11/03/2009 8 RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER re 4[RECAP] Order, filed by AMERICAN GRAND JURY. (kb) (Entered: 11/10/2009)

    11/03/2009 7 ORDER lodging Response to Court Order. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 11/3/2009. (kb) (Entered: 11/10/2009)

    From reading Judge Lamberth’s order back on September 10 what he told them in the latest order to pay the filing fee, then he will accept their crap, then dismiss it just like he said he would.

    And also read Judge Campbell’s order:

    “11/06/2009 1 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of certain documents identified as “Grand Jury Presentments” filed by Mack H. Ellis. The documents purport to represent grand jury presentments for fraud, treason and election fraud against President Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic National Convention. Leave to file this presentment is DENIED. Further, though the papers presented to the Clerk of Court shall not be filed, they shall be assigned a miscellaneous number along with this Order for the Court’s record.. Signed by Chief Judge Todd J. Campbell on 11/6/09. (# 1 [RECAP] Attachment-Affidavit of Process-Serve and # 2 Attachment-Grand Jury Presentments)(as) (copy mailed to Mack Ellis) Modified on 11/6/2009 (af). (Entered: 11/06/2009)”

  162. 11/28/2009Sue says:

    FYI:

    http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2881#p88342
    “Now this an interesting find.

    It’s a matter of faith among many birthers that Lolo Soetoro adopted Barack Obama and therefore Obama took Lolo Soetoro’s last name. Philip Berg is particularly fond of the “Barry Soetoro” name.

    There’s just one little glitch in this idea.

    Indonesia is 86.1% Muslim. Lolo Soetoro himself was a non-practicing Muslim, and the birthers LOVE to hint that Obama himself is a “stealth Muslim”. So what does Islam teach about adoption??

    http://islam.about.com/cs/parenting/a/adoption.htm
    “…Nor has He made your adopted sons your (biological) sons. Such is (only) your (manner of) speech by your mouths. But Allah tells (you) the Truth, and He shows the (right) Way. Call them by (the names of) their fathers; that is juster in the sight of Allah. But if you know not their father’s (names, call them) your brothers in faith, or your trustees. But there is no blame on you if you make a mistake therein. (What counts is) the intention of your hearts. And Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 33:4-5)”

    The Islamic laws on adoption are called Kafala.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafala
    “While raising someone’s else child is allowed and, in the case of an orphan, even encouraged, the child does not become a child of the new parents. This form of adoption where children retain membership to their original family is called, in Arabic: kafala‎. This implies for example that the new father cannot name the son after him”

    An adoptive child is not considered maharim, or a member of the adoptive family. While the role of an adoptive parent is honored, (Muhammad himself adopted a child, Zayd ibn Harithah, the child is always seen as a member of the biological father’s family, should that family be known. Which is the case with Barack Obama, Sr. and his family.

    Therefore, under Islamic law and practices, even if an adoption took place, (and remember, there’s never been any evidence of such), Obama would have never took on the last name of Soetoro.”

  163. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    Poor misguided Sue,your dingy is sinking.

    First you claim that Lolo Soetoro was a NON-practicing Muslim, and then quote Islamic law on adoption as if he was.

    The you go on and say; Obama would have never took on the last name of Soetoro. As if an underage minor, would have legal grounds in a foreign country that denied such things as school to no one, but it’s citizens. However we do have the divorce decree and although Barry is not named, reason to conclude with Stanley Ann and Maya all bearing the same last name, what other conclusion would there be for Barry?

  164. 11/28/2009brygenon says:

    Who Are You Kidding wrote:

    It is painfully clear that the judge in this case is applying a double standard.

    The thing to remember about the judge is: he’s the judge.

  165. 11/28/2009brygenon says:

    syc1959 wrote:

    brygenon, as for MY myths. Why are you denying the facts from the State of Hawaii.

    Actually I cited the facts from the state of Hawaii:

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

    See that “hawaii.gov” part in the URL?

    I did not state what should be on a valid COLB Seal, the State of Hawaii has. I have posted everything, and unlike Barack Hussein Obama who has NOT produced one supporting piece of evidence on anything regarding his past.

    I’ve noticed quite a difference between what Hawaii says and what you say Hawaii says.

  166. 11/28/2009siseduermapierda says:

    bob strauss says:
    November 27, 2009 at 11:10 pm
    *Leo Donofrio is perfecting a quo warranto action against the usurper as we speak, as are other attorneys*

    Sure he is. Perfecting. Heh.

  167. 11/28/2009Sue says:

    ” syc1959 says:
    November 28, 2009 at 4:27 am
    Poor misguided Sue,your dingy is sinking.

    First you claim that Lolo Soetoro was a NON-practicing Muslim, and then quote Islamic law on adoption as if he was.

    The you go on and say; Obama would have never took on the last name of Soetoro. As if an underage minor, would have legal grounds in a foreign country that denied such things as school to no one, but it’s citizens. However we do have the divorce decree and although Barry is not named, reason to conclude with Stanley Ann and Maya all bearing the same last name, what other conclusion would there be for Barry?”

    Are you dense? That is not my comment but rather a comment from PJ and as usual, totally miss the point of the comment. Yes, you are dense.

  168. 11/28/2009siseduermapierda says:

    brygenon says:
    November 28, 2009 at 9:15 am
    *I’ve noticed quite a difference between what Hawaii says and what you say Hawaii says.*

    Just like there’s quite a difference between what the Soetoro divorce papers say versus what he says they say. Every birther theory counts on people wanting so badly to believe the smears about President Obama, they don’t check for themselves they just believe and repeat the interpretations someone like Steve puts out. Just like when someone insists Wong Kim Ark doesn’t say Wong was a natural born citizen and you challenge them to read the whole decision and offer a link – they never come back. They realize the likes of Leo et al have simply cherry-picked a few sentences that might tend to support their argument when stood alone, but are just side-notes in the entirety of the decision. Birther blog theories only work if the believers never independently verify.

  169. 11/28/2009Sue says:

    bob strauss says:
    November 27, 2009 at 11:10 pm
    “*Leo Donofrio is perfecting a quo warranto action against the usurper as we speak, as are other attorneys*”

    I can’t wait to see his “perfected” lawsuit. Bring it on.

  170. 11/28/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 27, 2009 at 9:23 pm
    *When Barry Became Barack*

    How idiotic. Read it aloud to yourself.
    ” Some time in college, a fellow called Barry as a child decides he would prefer to be called Barack. This proves his last name was changed when he was 6 and he changed it back too.”

    Silliness. So Jimmy as a child prefers to be called James as an adult. Do you also try to insist he also changed his last name? Of course not. You’re counting on people being too stupid to think through that ‘Barry’ is an obvious nickname for ‘Barack’. As for saying that since Maya Soetoro is named in the divorce papers as Maya Soetoro, even though Barack is not named, one can conclude his last name was changed to Soetoro – what a load of nonsense. You folks ASSUMED when Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, he adopted Barack and changed his name. What you didn’t think through is that it was an American practice in the 40s and 50s, maybe into the 60s, for a new husband to adopt the children of his new wife and for them to take his name, but it wasn’t a world-wide practice. You tried to apply a uniquely American practice to a couple living in an Asian country. Just like with most birther “theories”, lacking any proof, it falls apart under even the most basic examination. You also demonstrate with your “theories” that your knowledge of the world ends at your city limits.

  171. 11/28/2009Sue says:

    “Judge Land cites “publicly available” online images of Obama’s alleged CertificaTION of Live Birth that are not admissible in themselves; images that depict no raised seal on the alleged COLB; images that expose an officially confirmed amendment as illegally missing and, were the amendment included, strips the alleged COLB of prima facie status; images that show the alleged COLB not in compliance with authentication standards [FRE Rule 902(4)] for electronic or vital records; and images that reveal inadmissible hearsay within hearsay inside the alleged COLB: these online images have been ascribed greater evidential weight than a tangible document (about which I make no comment) on the basis that counsel failed to “properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901“: this is not merely judicial hypocrisy but a scandalous caricature of judicial bias.”

    Please cite your source for your above allegations; however don’t say Hawaii DOH but rather provide a link to your so called evidence.

  172. 11/28/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Sue says:
    November 28, 2009 at 10:11 am
    *Please cite your source for your above allegations; however don’t say Hawaii DOH but rather provide a link to your so called evidence.*

    He’ll just link you to pictures of what he SAYS are three different documents that show what he SAYS they show, but not to evidence. In birtherdom, one doesn’t have to prove theories. One simply has to believe and not ask any questions.

  173. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    brygenon says Actually I cited the facts from the state of Hawaii:
    See that “hawaii.gov” part in the URL?

    So have I and have the document to prove it. Please show me the COLB [any of the three] that have the REAL State of Hawaii Department of Health embossed seal as required to be issued by Vital Records.

    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/hawaiireply.jpg

    and a side by side comparison;

    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sealsidebyside21.jpg

  174. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue says; He’ll just link you to pictures of what he SAYS are three different documents that show what he SAYS they show, but not to evidence. In birtherdom, one doesn’t have to prove theories. One simply has to believe and not ask any questions.

    Right on Sue, why not link to evidence that proves the forgery. Like a side by side comparison. A picture is worth a thousand words, then people can see for themselves the lie, deception, and forgery for themselves. Just like that little blue dress of Bill’s. Then it was brought out, there was no place to hide. Just like with these forged documents of Obama’s. No heresay statements from FactCheck, but the actual e-mail from the State of Hawaii’s agency that is in charge of these documents.

    Better yett Sue, why not head over here and see how EASY it is to create the same forged document that Obama has.

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/create-your-own-barack-obama-hawaiian-birth-cetification/

  175. 11/28/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 27, 2009 at 11:19 pm
    BL, your blowing it out, your you know what.

    Obama has NOT met the qualifications. Pawning off an illegal document is a criminal offense. Providing three versions is multiple criminal charges.

    BL claims, that the President doesn’t have to. He supplied what was necessary.

    What makes him above the LAW?

    No he hasn’t. Even stealing delegates from a State where he wasn’t on the ballot.

    As for the triple citizenship, you stated it, admitted it and brought it out. Again thanks.

    What makes you think, that someone can produce an image on the internet, while another candidate has to produce a legal valid copy in a court to satisfy questions raised, and then having a Senate Committee vote an illegal non-lawful, non-binding resolution, that states John McCain having two (2) US parents, again the plural, but being born OUTSIDE the Jurisdiction of the United States, an the other candidate (Obama) an illegal undocumented alien, haveing a foreign father with an unknown birth location, who can’t possibly meet teh same requirements as the other (McCain) being equal.

    That in a nutshell is your bullsh** stance.

    As for “any other name” That was done by Newsweek. Again with material provided by BS Obama. So are you calling Obama a liar, when he states that he went by Barry?
    ___________________________________________________________________
    You do realize that his is not your moderated blog, so people here have acually done research and can find no biased sites other than your so called “no barack” site to reference.

    You can believe that he has not met the qualifications. However your opinion means NOTHING. The Supreme Court, the Congress, and the Electoral College all believe different. And their is the only opinion that counts. So continue to believe what you want. And as Obama continues to be President, we will see who is correct and who is not.

    He never stole delegates from Hillary. Those states were penalized for ignoring a warning by the DNC. They knew the rules and decided to ignore them. So their states paid the price for not following the rules.

    I never admitted triple citizenship. All I said was that Obama was born in the United States. Whatever citizenship he may have been ELIGIBLE for means nothing to the United States citizenship laws.

    I love how you call the President an illegal alien. Whereas John McCain NEVER RELEASED his Birth Certificate. If you believe that he did, link us to it. But be careful, because the only one that was released was a forgery. But go ahead and find the real one. And the President released the required documents to the people that count. He was under no obligation to release it to you or I. The online image is a picture of the actual document. Anyone with any sort of common sense knows that. You have been pusing this 3 different copies of the BC nonsense for awhile, but as usual has received no traction because of how ridiculous your theory is. People with common sense know that the President was born in HI, and his parents were an American citizen and a kenyan citizen. No mystery except for you and your fellow haters of the President.

    And your obsession with the fact that as a child he went as Barry, which in your twisted mind means that he went by Soetero, although you can provide no proof of that. You have never been able to provide any objective proof of any of your conclusions, which is because they are not rooted in fact but fiction. Have fun with your delusions…

  176. 11/28/2009Sue says:

    syc1959,

    “but the actual e-mail from the State of Hawaii’s agency that is in charge of these documents.”

    Hmmm, it must be “examined by a forensic expert” first. Just holding you to the same standard. Not to mention it does not say what you claim it says. Did ya leave some of the email out?

    And this bit of info on your blog is totally false/lies.

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/obamas-lawyers-caught-in-lies/

    None of these individuals are “Obama lawyers.” ROTFL

    You might want to actually read President Obama’s books before you post anything regarding them on your blog. Here is your version based upon an email.

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/the-adoption-of-obama/

    Here is the truth based upon the actual books.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ownwords.asp

    I especially love this recent comment on your blog.

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/new-obama-movie/

    The reason you don’t call us racist is because we aren’t.

  177. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    BL and his warped sense of reality.

    And as Obama continues to be President, we will see who is correct and who is not.

    After all is said and done, where will he be flown….Kenya…Indonesia? Where?

    BL – He never stole delegates from Hillary. Those states were penalized for ignoring a warning by the DNC.

    Right the DNC gave delegates to a candidate that was not on the ballot.

    BL – I never admitted triple citizenship.

    Yes, you did and I have linked that across other e-mails and posts. Thanks again. You and you alone have moved the ineligibility bar farther then any Obama supporter has ever been able to do. Not one, not two, but three bars.

    BL – Whereas John McCain NEVER RELEASED his Birth Certificate. If you believe that he did, link us to it.

    Here is only one that is posted. BTW- it’s a LONG form, unlike Obama’s forgery. Just to make it clear it states

    1. Where John McCain was born
    2. The Attending physician
    3. and other vitals that Obama does NOT have.

    Where is Obama’s long form. Did they keep the same information when he was born?

    http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrology-news/images/johnmccainbirthcertificate.jpg

    John McCains was also viewed by multiple people and even documented in the Washington Times, unlike Obama’s that has ONLY been seen by two people unqualified to even know what they are looking at.

  178. 11/28/2009Sue says:

    syc 1959,

    “John McCains was also viewed by multiple people and even documented in the Washington Times, unlike Obama’s that has ONLY been seen by two people unqualified to even know what they are looking at.”

    Boy, you walked right into to this one. Your information is wrong. John McCain never released his BC to media. But, I’ll let BL have the honor of debunking you.

    I can see why you come over here and comment; nobody to talk to on your blog. LOL.

  179. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    Black Lion, here is one for you. and for any Obama supporter here.

    How do you explain Bill Richardson’s folowoing remark…

    Barack Obama is the best candidate for the Hispanic community because our community wants a united country. Obama is an immigrant. When he speaks to Latinos, he doesn’t just speak about immigration and civil rights…

    Mind you this IS on video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo

    So I will make it simple so you might be able to stay focused.

    What does immigrant mean?

    Immigrant; one that immigrates: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

    Therefore he is NOT from the country he is immigrating to, is he?

    So Bill Richardson, former U.S. Congressman, former U.S. Secretary of Energy, former Governer, former presidential candidate states the fact that Obama is an immigrant, meaning he CAME from another country, NOT being from the United States.

    What else can that mean?

  180. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue sue Sue.

    McCain released it along with his medial records.
    Unlike Obama who got a note from his doctor.

    Obama has not relesaed anything.

    Scurry Sue scurry

  181. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue scurry lil Sue.

    During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.

    Among the key documents that Obama continues to shield from the public:

    Obama released just one brief document detailing his personal health. McCain, on the other hand, released what he said was his complete medical file, totaling more than 1,500 pages.

    Obama refused to offer his official papers as a state legislator in Illinois. Nor did he produce correspondence, such as his schedules of appointments or letters from lobbyists, from his days in the Illinois state Senate.

    Obama did not release his client list as an attorney or his billing records. He maintained that he performed only a few hours of legal work for a nonprofit organization with ties to Tony Rezko, the Chicago businessman convicted of fraud in June 2008 but did not release billing records that would prove this assertion.

    Obama ignored requests for his records from Occidental College, where he studied for two years before transferring to Columbia University.

    Obama’s campaign refused to give Columbia, where he earned an undergraduate degree in political science, permission to release his transcripts. Former President George W. Bush and presidential contenders Al Gore and John Kerry all released their college transcripts.

    Obama did not agree to the release of his application to the Illinois State Bar, which would have cleared up intermittent allegations that his application may have been inaccurate.

    Obama did not release records from his time at Harvard Law School.

    During the presidential campaign, McCain’s campaign released a full list of all online donors. Obama’s campaign still has not released the names of those who donated at least one-third of the $750 million he raised.

  182. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue delusional lil Sue.

    I can see why you come over here and comment; nobody to talk to on your blog. LOL.

    No, just like I said a bit of Pest Control, lil roach.

    My blog and youtube are not blogs. But then again, you can’t tell the difference, can you?

    My blog is not a forum. I enjoy proving Obots have nothing, are a tuned resident cavity and beleive in nothingness.

    Again I will post your reply and ignorant “you walked into that one lie” for others not only here to see.

    But I will ask you the same questions I asked BL

    How do you explain Bill Richardson’s folowoing remark…

    Barack Obama is the best candidate for the Hispanic community because our community wants a united country. Obama is an immigrant. When he speaks to Latinos, he doesn’t just speak about immigration and civil rights…

    Mind you this IS on video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo

    So I will make it simple so you might be able to stay focused.

    What does immigrant mean?

    Immigrant; one that immigrates: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

    Therefore he is NOT from the country he is immigrating to, is he?

    So Bill Richardson, former U.S. Congressman, former U.S. Secretary of Energy, former Governer, former presidential candidate states the fact that Obama is an immigrant, meaning he CAME from another country, NOT being from the United States.

    What else can that mean?

    Where was Obama migrating from?

    again, supporting Black Lion’s multiple atleast triple citizenships.

    Hat tip, to Black Lion.

  183. 11/28/2009uberVU - social comments says:

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by trsol: New Post: Eligibility Update: FactCheck.org Doesn’t Do Forensics; NH SoS and Certificates; Britis http://bit.ly/8qvJoc http://bit.ly/8qvJoc

  184. 11/28/2009Sue says:

    syc 1959,

    You are very misinformed.

    http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/covering_candidates_medical_re.php?page=all
    Covering Candidates’ Medical Records
    Larry Altman talks about access and interest
    By Curtis Brainard
    Three weeks ago, John McCain, who would be the oldest president in history if elected, released 1,173 pages of his medical records to the press. He did so only after a series of delays, however, and then granted a pool of about a dozen news outlets access to them for three hours, with no photocopying allowed. One reporter whose employer was not invited to view the documents was The New York Times’s Lawrence K. Altman. His exclusion was a bit ironic, given that he is an M.D. and was part of the group that viewed the last batch of McCain’s medical records, which the senator released in 1999 during his first bid for the Oval Office.”

    http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_releases_health_informat.html
    Obama releases medical information: “excellent health.”
    By Lynn Sweeton May 29, 2008 10:54 AM
    “WASHINGTON–Likely Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is in “excellent health,” according to a summary of Obama medical records released on Thursday. The 276-word summary was written by Dr. David L. Scheiner, the Chicago doctor who has been Obama’s personal physician since March, 1987. Obama has not had a check-up in more than a year. Scheiner described Obama as “lean and muscular with no excess body fat.” Obama is still using Nicorette gum to stay off cigarettes–he has quit smoking several times, his doctor notes.

    HIghlights:
    *Triglycerides of 44(normal under 150), cholesterol 173 (normal under 200), HDL 68 (normal over 40), and LDL 96 (normal under 130). Chem 24, urinalysis and CBC were normal, PSA was 0.6, very good. An EKG was normal.

    The Obama campaign decided to release this summary of Obama’s health status at this time to contrast with the long medical history of GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Az.). The McCain campaign last week allowed a select group of reporters to study McCain’s more complex medical history, complicated because of his skin cancer and injuries suffered while serving in the military and as a prisoner of war in Viet Nam.”

    BTW, Sarah Palin released the same thing President Obama did.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannyn-moore/palins-medical-records-re_b_140784.html
    Palin’s “Medical Records” Released
    “The McCain/Palin camp has released Governor Palin’s medical records. Well, that’s what they are calling a two page letter from Sarah Palin’s doctor… yep, that’s it. Read it for yourself.”

  185. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue; WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO YOURSELF. ARE YOU THAT SELF-ABUSIVE? DO YOU REALLY ENJOY PROSTITUTING YOURSELF OVER LIES AND DECIET?

    Sue oposted – Three weeks ago, John McCain, who would be the oldest president in history if elected, released 1,173 pages of his medical records to the press. and the about Brack Obama;
    “WASHINGTON–Likely Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is in “excellent health,” according to a summary of Obama medical records released on Thursday. The 276-word summary was written by Dr. David L. Scheiner, the Chicago doctor who has been Obama’s personal physician since March, 1987.

    So what you are saying is John Mccain allowed 1,173 pages to be looked at, while Barack Obama brought a note from his doctor.
    WOW – such clarity and transparency!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Sue ‘the hell-bent on self destruction Obama prostitute’

  186. 11/28/2009Sue says:

    Stevie boy,

    “Sue; WHY DO YOU DO THIS TO YOURSELF. ARE YOU THAT SELF-ABUSIVE? DO YOU REALLY ENJOY PROSTITUTING YOURSELF OVER LIES AND DECIET?”

    As usual, you missed the point. McCain did not allow any of his medical records to be copied or photographed so what did YOU see regarding McCain’s medical records? Not to mention the fact that McCain’s medical records where “cherry picked” for release. Oh yes, and forget the important detail of the age difference and health status of the two candidates. Lies and deciet? Nope don’t think so. That’s your MO. What I have presented is the truth. Nothing more. Let me rephrase that–the truth according to news releases. I have not seen any of the 4 candidates actual health records and have to take the medias word for them. Nor have you.

    Here is the summary by Dr. Gupta of McCain’s medical records, but how do you know you can trust Dr. Gupta? Dr. Gupta may have been an operative for the McCain campaign. Again, the released health records were “cherry picked” for release.

    http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/23/whats-in-mccains-health-records/
    What’s in McCain’s health records?
    excerpts
    “At promptly 7:30 a.m. PT, we were taken to a conference room and handed three stacks of paper, nearly 1,200 papers in all and told we had exactly three hours to review them. I am still not sure I understand why there was so little time given to review so many papers. Having said that, I am pretty convinced there was no “smoking gun” about the Senator’s health. I reviewed his cancer history carefully, as well as his cardiac, lung, prostate, kidney and liver history.

    He takes 6 medications, including a multivitamin, which is actually a little less than average for a man his age. He has been extremely diligent about getting skin exams, which is important given his history of malignant melanoma. Back in 2000, he had an extensive dissection of his left neck and the removal of 34 lymph nodes, along with a stage 2A melanoma. That was the worse of his at least 5 skin cancers. He was told at the time that it had a 66 percent chance of recurrence over 10 years. That was 8 years ago, and he has done pretty well.

    His heart seems to be in good condition, as evidenced by two stress tests, the last of which was this year. And, he even lost 6 pounds while campaigning. Many candidates put on weight with the crazy schedule. He was a 2 pack a day smoker for 25 years, and quit in 1980. He has received chest x-rays and CAT scans, which showed no evidence of lung cancer. His prostate seems to be alright, and aside from kidney stones, I could not find much else wrong with him.

    There was mention of his time as a prisoner of war. It was hard to read about the time he was tortured and beaten to the point of breaking both of his shoulders. I read that they never set properly, which is why to this day, he cannot reach above his head. Someday, one of the doctors wrote, he will likely need to have his shoulders replaced.

    I looked diligently for any mention of his mental health, and found hardly any. Every doctor’s note began, “he is a pleasant and cooperative”gentleman. No doctor’s note included a question about depression or substance abuse. He apparently does have trouble with sleep, and occasionally takes ambien. Today, I even saw pictures of a presidential candidate’s colon. Now that is some detail. His height, at one place in the chart, was listed at 5’6”, and a year later it was listed as 5’9”. Hmmm.”

    There is no requirement whatsoever for Presidential candidates to release any type of documentation. None.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14835.html
    What are the candidates hiding?

  187. 11/28/2009Sue says:

    “My blog and youtube are not blogs. But then again, you can’t tell the difference, can you?”

    Comment section is blank! Oh wait, I found two but one was yours. LOL

  188. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue again your self destructive nature and personal denial is getting the best of you. You continue to prostitute yourself over lies and deciet.

    As you pasted ‘As usual, you missed the point. McCain did not allow any of his medical records to be copied or photographed’

    The issue is that McCain brought documents and a slew of them, whereas Obama brought a note. Obama presented a ‘doctor’s promissory note’ vs. McCain’s CarFax report.

    More to teh point, what is Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro hiding?

    the following list is clear enough;
    Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released (lawyers’ fees = $2,000,000 ~ birth certificate = $15)
    Certification of Live Birth — Released — Counterfeit
    Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released (if one exists)
    Obama/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)
    Kindergarten records — Records lost (this is a big one — read two frames)
    Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
    Soetoro adoption records — Not released
    Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released (by independent investigators)
    Punahou School records — Not released
    Soetoro/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)
    Selective Service Registration — Released — Counterfeit
    Social Security Number — Under suspicion
    Occidental College records — Not released
    Passport — Not released and records scrubbed clean by Obama’s terrorism and intelligence adviser.
    Columbia College records — Not released
    Columbia thesis — “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament” — Not released
    Harvard College records — Not released
    Harvard Law Review articles — None
    Illinois Bar Records — Not released.
    Baptism certificate — None
    Medical records — Not released
    Illinois State Senate records — None
    Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
    Law practice client list — Not released
    University of Chicago scholarly articles — None

    Do yu have any REAL facts, or just enjoy making things up as you go along?

  189. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    Actually Sue, there are comments but I don’t allow the language that the Obot supporters put out, nor do I allow the same from others.
    There are some posted even how low the Obot’s go in attempting to twist the truth.
    But thats fine, I am not bothered by it – you are. Which is a good thing!

    scamper scurry shoo lil Sue

  190. 11/28/2009Sue says:

    Stevie boy,

    “Do yu have any REAL facts, or just enjoy making things up as you go along?”

    You are the one who makes up poop as you go along. Not me.

    You are truly dense. What part of “the Presidential candidates are not required to release any documents” do you not understand. Therefore, presidential candidates release what they choose to release. Courtesy, not a requirement.

    Your long list of documents has nothing to do with “presidential eligibility.” None whatsoever. The only document you list, which is also not required, that has anything to do with eligibility is the birth certificate/certification. A copy of President Obama’s COLB was released to the news media.

  191. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue,
    Just for you and Black Lion I have to thank you publicly for your insight.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2395987/posts

    You both deserve kudo’s

  192. 11/28/2009brygenon says:

    syc1959 wrote:

    During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president.

    John McCain did not release his birth certificate, but showed a copy Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post.

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

    McCain like Obama, was sued over his eligibility, and like Obama he moved for dismissal before discovery, and won. As explained in response filing in Hamblin v. McCain and Obama,

    McCain has ample evidence documenting his birth at the family hospital on the Naval base, and his counsel explained by letter to plaintiff that McCain could readily produce proof if ever this case merited discovery.
    http://www.scribd.com/full/18446202?access_key=key-2mlg1snimoccojoc0qy8

    There’s a fake McCain birth certificate available on the web that has him born in Colon Panama.

  193. 11/28/2009brygenon says:

    siseduermapierda says:

    Silliness. So Jimmy as a child prefers to be called James as an adult.

    It’s actually been litigated, but it was the other way ’round. Our 39′th President was born “James Earl Carter”. To get on the Maine ballot as “Jimmy”, Carter had to go to court. He swore out at affidavit that included: “In short, Jimmy Carter is not my nickname. It is the only name which I use in connection with my public activities, and it is the name by which the public knows and recognizes me”. Judge David Nichols of the Superior Court of Maine agreed, and ruled, in part: “It appears that, without resorting to judicial proceedings, this nominee did change his name to Jimmy Carter.”

    Even if the eligibility deniers were right about the name Obama used in Indonesia when he was six to ten years old, it means nothing. The public knows him by his birth name.

  194. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    brygenon says: There’s a fake McCain birth certificate available on the web that has him born in Colon Panama.

    talk about calling the kettle black.
    brygenon is a racist!
    brygenon wants to kill old people
    brygenon is against ObamaCare

  195. 11/28/2009Sue says:

    ” syc1959 says:
    November 28, 2009 at 4:31 pm
    Sue,
    Just for you and Black Lion I have to thank you publicly for your insight.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2395987/posts

    You both deserve kudo’s”

    Figured you’d be a freepers poster. You really are dense. What I posted is old, old news. McCain/Biden = medical problems and released “cherry picked” medical records but did not allow reporters to copy/photograph; Obama/Palin = healthy and released medical summary by family MD. Is that really so hard to understand?

    None of the candidates were required to produce anything.

  196. 11/28/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Sue says:
    November 28, 2009 at 6:39 pm
    *None of the candidates were required to produce anything.*

    The real question is why Steve is recycling old birther lore on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. Obama has been President for more than 10 months. Who would still care about his Punahou academy records? Steve, were you tasked with cleaning out the birther rumor chest and you can’t bear to toss them because you remember when they were shiny and new? Reading your posts here today is like watching “2008! What a Year it Was!” Wassamatta, Bored with your blog? Not enough traffic?

    What’s on my mind today is if the Salahi’s, the White House party crashers, are really birthers. Mrs Salahi seemed to really like our VP!

  197. 11/28/2009siseduermapierda says:

    What else is on my mind is how it is that Tiger Woods can run into fire hydrant and a tree, have scratches on his face, but there’s no blood in the car, airbags didn’t deploy, his wife meanwhile tees off on the Escalade and the first story is she broke the back window to get to him in the driver’s seat – ever seen how far it is from the back window to the driver’s seat of an Escalade – and he is able to “put off” talking to police, even though they responded to the scene. You or I in such a predicament, the talking to police would not be at our discretion. Bizarre. It appears that little swimsuit model whooped Tiger’s tail. The last time I heard of someone “putting off” talking to the authorities about an accident is when Cheney shot his friend in the face and managed to “put off” talking to the sheriff until the next day. Plenty of time for the whole group from the picnic to sober up!

  198. 11/28/2009syc1959 says:

    Actually Sue,
    If it wasn’t for you, Blacjk Lion and a few others here. I may never have posted on FreeRepublic.

    I should give you kudo’s for that. Your one of the ones, that directed me to it.

    Thanks;

  199. 11/29/2009Black Lion says:

    bob strauss says:
    November 27, 2009 at 11:10 pm
    “sise,Your assertion that Leo has withdrawn from the NBC issue is more BS. Leo Donofrio is perfecting a quo warranto action against the usurper as we speak, as are other attorneys. Fraud charges are being delivered to State Attorney Generals charging Nancy Pelosi and the DNC with election fraud in the 2008 election.”

    Bob, keep dreaming. Leo is doing nothing other than quitting when the going gets tough. He is full of it. Shame on you for believing that a poker player pretending to be some sort of a constitutional expert could know more about the law than real judges or real legal experts. If you choose to believe that somehow Leo is going to return like a “white knight” in the last minutes to somehow rescue the birther movement you are extremely deluded and confused.

    Leo said it himself on his blog regarding his so called legal theory that be made up which stated that a natural born citizen had to have 2 parents that were citizens…

    “By now it should be clear that federal standing and political question doctrine issues will not yield to exotic conceptual legal theories. As predicted, the courts will not bend to anyone that precedent does not bestow judicial invitation upon. After the electoral college certified Obama, I predicted every eligibility law suit pending against him would fail on procedural grounds unless brought via the DC District Court under the the DC quo warranto statute.”

    The only thing that is clear is the fact that even Leo realizes that his theory was exotic and conceptual. That says it all….

    Your assertion that the DOH in Hawaii has provided index data for the birth of Obama is also false. Hawaii is, right now, breaking their own open government laws to keep hidden the truth about Obama’s origins. Hawaii also will not release the information they supposedly used to determine Obama to be a NBC, even though their laws say the info must be released to the public.

    Maybe you can tell us why this information is being hidden if it proves your assertion. The truth is the Obama COLB is a forgery, Hawaii has no such document, they never issued the phoney document Obama would have people believe is his “birth certificate” and Polarik is your worst enemy.

    Also, for the one millionth time, no certificate on earth is going to qualify Obama as an NBC, his father was a Kenyan, British citizen. Foreigners don’t go traipsing around the United States depositing natural born citizens in their wake. Your BS about Obama being eligible to be President is strictly designed to mislead and and confuse people.

    Wow…That is a mouthful. You have no evidence that that the state of HI has done anything wrong. All you have is hope and speculation. All the state of HI has done is confirm what we have all known, and that is that President Obama was born in HI. Dr. Fukino has stated that more than once and the vital statistics that Leo requested himself confirmed that information. Why else do you think he is backing off? He knows a loser when he sees one. And this case is a loser. The birthers are all losers. They haven’t won a case and never will.

    Continue to believe that President Obama is not qualified due to his father not being a citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. I will continue to listen to the actual law and not what you and Leo think the law should be. And the law is quite specific. Just look at the following ruling…

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” – Indiana Appeals Court (2009)

    That says it all. How about you come up with some law that superceeds that? You can’t. All you have is an “exotic” theory that is not law. No matter how many birthers cry and make stuff up you can change the law or the SCOTUS interpretation of what the law is. Just suck it up and deal with it. The 2 parents requirement is a loser and not happening. Leo is gone and so his is theory.

  200. 11/29/2009syc1959 says:

    bob strauss

    Black Lion bases everything off selective statements. He reminds me of the old 4 out of 5 senerio. They poll 100 people and when they get a grouping they like, theuy use that portion as their bases of fact. Regardless of the true statistics.
    So people like him will use anything that makes their reality, easier to bear.

    Article was based on Vattel, he can’t accept or reason that, therefore he looks to where he can, one flawed argument that he can understand, instead of multiple one that contradict WKA.

    I give a prime example. Black Lion refuses to except the Founders intent, based in Vattel. However look at Venus 1814.

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

    “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘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 indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

    Bear that this is close to the Founders time and reference they used, not WKA that was done 100 years past the Framers and when the Constitution was written. Again, time and place have no bearing as long as it meets his reality.

    Even close to WKA where they based their opinion on the 14th Amendment. Let us look at what the author of the 14th Amendment has to say.

    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 )

    Note, 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.

    Now please refresh for BL, wasn’t Barack Obama under the British Nationality Act of 1948, by a father who was a foreign citizen?

    Or this little one, that BL will deny.

    “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.” – Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes, 1868

    Note citizen, but NOT Natural Born Citizen.

    But again, wasn’t Barack Obama a British subject like his father and aren’t British subjects of the British laws?

    Once again Black lion is off the target area. But he is correct on Barack Obama having multiople citizenships. Currently he has demonstrated and accounted for four of them. United States, claimed but not proven. British by birth from his father. Kenyan by independence from Britain in 1963, and Indonesian.

    I thing Black Lion is a deranged trekkie and desperately wants to time travel so he can prove himself wrong.

  201. 11/29/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 29, 2009 at 1:35 am
    *Article was based on Vattel, he can’t accept or reason that, therefore he looks to where he can, one flawed argument that he can understand, instead of multiple one that contradict WKA.

    I give a prime example. Black Lion refuses to except the Founders intent, based in Vattel. However look at Venus 1814. *

    The Indiana Court of Appeals explained that articles about “what the founders meant” and articles based on Vattel are ““conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions”. They explained very clearly that they conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen. In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a child born within the borders of the United States IS a natural born citizen, regardless of the status of his parents. You and others have parsed and clouded and argued, but the truth is clear, the Supreme Court already decided what is a natural born citizen. Best of luck in your next venture.

  202. 11/29/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 29, 2009 at 1:35 am
    *Article was based on Vattel, he can’t accept or reason that, therefore he looks to where he can, one flawed argument that he can understand, instead of multiple one that contradict WKA.

    I give a prime example. Black Lion refuses to except the Founders intent, based in Vattel. However look at Venus 1814. *

    The Indiana Court of Appeals explained that articles about “what the founders meant” and articles based on Vattel are ““conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions”. They explained very clearly that they conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen. In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a child born within the borders of the United States IS a natural born citizen, regardless of the status of his parents. You and others have parsed and clouded and argued, but the truth is clear, the Supreme Court already decided what is a natural born citizen. Best of luck in your next venture.

  203. 11/29/2009Sue says:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2
    Article II – The Executive Branch
    Section 1 – The President

    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14
    Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
    “1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
    United States v. Wong Kim Ark
    excerpts
    “United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about what determines United States citizenship.”

    “Opinion
    Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court 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.”

    “Rationale
    The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, according to the court’s majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory. The majority held that the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4]) – and that since none of these conditions applied to Wong’s situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that “…during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China”.

    Since Wong (according to the majority opinion) was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, the majority held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law “cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions.”

    “Effect
    Prior to Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court had held that birthplace by itself was not sufficient to grant citizenship (Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 1884). U.S. citizenship law since Wong Kim Ark has acknowledged both jus soli (citizenship through place of birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from parents). Wong Kim Ark’s case was subsequently cited in two major Supreme Court decisions on citizenship: Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (involving a U.S.-born woman who was alleged to have lost her U.S. citizenship when her naturalized US citizen Swedish immigrant parents took her back to Sweden with them when she was a baby); and Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) (involving a naturalized U.S. citizen who subsequently moved to Israel and was alleged to have lost his U.S. citizenship after voting in an Israeli election).”

    “In response to concerns over illegal immigration in the United States (and the associated fear that children of illegal immigrants could serve as links to permit citizenship for family members who would otherwise be ineligible), bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have challenged the conventional interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and have sought to actively and explicitly deny citizenship at birth to U.S.-born children of foreign visitors or illegal aliens. No such bill has ever come close to being enacted; even if one did, it would presumably achieve its intended result only if the Supreme Court, in a new case, were to conclude that Wong Kim Ark had been wrongly decided. Some attempts have also been made to supersede Wong Kim Ark by amending the Constitution itself, but no such amendment has ever been approved by Congress in order to be voted upon by state legislatures.”

    “It has been suggested by some critics of U.S. citizenship policy relating to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants that Wong Kim Ark does not hold such children to be U.S. citizens, because Wong’s parents were legal non-citizen residents of the United States at the time of his birth.[7] Those advocating this view assert that a subsequent case before the courts, dealing with U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants, would easily be distinguished from Wong Kim Ark by virtue of this difference in the parents’ legal status. Proponents of the conventional view argue that the Wong Kim Ark majority defined the “jurisdiction” exception to the jus soli rule very narrowly; that references in the majority opinion to the legal resident status of Wong’s parents were obiter dicta and not an essential part of the holdings of the case; that the court majority’s reason for mentioning the legal resident status of Wong’s parents was simply to illustrate that they were in the United States as ordinary people and not as representatives of a foreign government; and that the 1982 Plyler case affirmed the conventional, mainstream interpretation of Wong Kim Ark with regard to the question of what being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States means. In the end, no one can really know how the Supreme Court might rule in a new case challenging the citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants until and unless such a case were actually heard, and ruled upon, by the court.”

    “It has also been suggested by some that Wong Kim Ark supports the view that non-U.S.-born children of American parentage are not natural-born citizens of the United States and that such an individual may therefore not legally become President or Vice-President, even though Congress has enacted laws providing that foreign-born children of U.S. citizens are (in many cases) U.S. citizens by birth via jus sanguinis. Proponents of this view sometimes point to the passage from the Supreme Court’s minority opinion about U.S.-born children of foreigners being eligible for the Presidency, but not foreign-born children of U.S. citizens; note, though, that this statement, being part of the minority opinion, is not in any way legally binding as a precedent.”

    “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” only has two exceptions as defined/interpreted by SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Arc based upon English Common Law:

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
    U.S. Supreme Court
    United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
    MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
    excerpts

    “Dicey Conflict of Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

    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.”

    syc1959,

    All of your “quotes”, “previous minority opinions”, “deVattel BS”, “Donofrio’s opinion” and “your opinion” has no bearing whatsoever on present U.S. Citizenship laws. Whether you agree with this or not, doesn’t matter. What matters is the fact that this “is the U.S. citizenship law at the present time and will continue to be the law” until this were to happen:

    “Bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have challenged the conventional interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and have sought to actively and explicitly deny citizenship at birth to U.S.-born children of foreign visitors or illegal aliens. No such bill has ever come close to being enacted; even if one did, it would presumably achieve its intended result only if the Supreme Court, in a new case, were to conclude that Wong Kim Ark had been wrongly decided. Some attempts have also been made to supersede Wong Kim Ark by amending the Constitution itself, but no such amendment has ever been approved by Congress in order to be voted upon by state legislatures.”

    Citizenship as per U.S. Constitution(Article 2, Section I), Congressional Amendment(14th Amendment) and SCOTUS precedent(Wong Kim Ark).

  204. 11/29/2009Geir (Gerhardt) Smith says:

    Ominous Signs Are Aligned: Not A Particularly Good Sign

    excerpt:

    “This great slaughter of the Antichrist and his armies will take place in and around the valley of Megiddo near Haifa in Israel. It will mark the end of man’s cruel rule on earth (the cruel rule responsible for the American Dream, a nightmare for the planet), as Jesus, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and His Heavenly forces (TPTB) forcibly take over the World to rule and reign and run it the way it should have been run if man had not disobeyed God (lived in disharmony with the earth) and gone his own selfish way!”

    http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/11/28/ominous-signs-are-aligned-not-a-particul

    Geir: That’s a way of putting it ! I think it’s all spiritual; not at all like that. That needs interpreting. The fight can be spiritual not “hand to hand combat”.

  205. 11/29/2009syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda says In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a child born within the borders of the United States IS a natural born citizen, regardless of the status of his parents.

    Snoozy; Parents who are United States citizens. WKA’s parents were not citizens of the United States, the case and facts were mis-represented to the court. Also, Jurisdiction is required even to be a ‘native’ citizen of the United States, in both Title 8 of the US code and the 14th Amendment. Parsing a flawed decision again.

    Case in point; 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)

    that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
    Were WKA’s parents who were citizens of the United States.

    Oh I forgot, your a globalist and a citizen is a citizen, is a citizen of the world, so place and time, and law doesn’t matter.

    No wonder you have no regard for the law, you hold the law as something that is ill-relevant when it fails to justify your point.

    Again, you, BL, Sue, can only point to one, and only one flawed decision. I have on the other hand listed case after case, that the courts have determined Vattel is the basis of a Natural Born Citizen.

  206. 11/29/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 29, 2009 at 1:35 am
    bob strauss

    Black Lion bases everything off selective statements. He reminds me of the old 4 out of 5 senerio. They poll 100 people and when they get a grouping they like, theuy use that portion as their bases of fact. Regardless of the true statistics.
    So people like him will use anything that makes their reality, easier to bear.

    Article was based on Vattel, he can’t accept or reason that, therefore he looks to where he can, one flawed argument that he can understand, instead of multiple one that contradict WKA.

    I give a prime example. Black Lion refuses to except the Founders intent, based in Vattel. However look at Venus 1814.

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Sync, you remind me of the individual that has buried their head in the sand and refuses to see the truth. Unlike the birthers I don’t selectively edit quotes. I leave that up to you. Leo wrote that his theory was “exotic and conceptual.” He realized that the 2 parents must be citizens is a dog that won’t hunt.

    Secondly the Supreme Court were the ones that specifically rejected Vattel and stated that the Constitution was written in the language of English Common law. There are no multiple rulings that refute the ruling in Wong Kim Ark. If you can find a SCOTUS ruling AFTER the Wong ruling, then we can talk. But you can’t You continue to cite one ruling or the Minor ruling that was cited and clarified by Wong.

    Third the Venus ruling had NOTHING to do with citizenship. So citing it shows your lack of legal training. If there was not the ruling in Wong, maybe you would have an argument. But Wong is there and can’t be ignored.

    With respect to native birth, Wong stated that since the common law was adopted, all children born in the US are generally native born citizens. You are simply trying to read an implication into a choice of terminology. The court made clear the English common law rules controlled and under the common law all the native born (subject to common law exceptions) were by definition “natural born.” I think you need to refresh your Blackstone as you would see there are only 2 classes of people at birth under the common law, the natural born and the alien born. The natural born were also referred to as natives. There is no authority anywhere that says there is a difference between native and natural born under the common law.

    “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

    “By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. (2 Kent’s Com. 3d ed. l ; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1 ; 1 Black. Com. 366; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. Rep. 139.)” Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866), April 11, 1871, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)”

    In addition, Rawles View of the Constitution as cited by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in the case of the Town of New Hartford v. The Town of Canaan stated the following.

    “Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity.”

    Sync, find me a case where the SCOTUS has cited the so called Venus cases? Or the Minor ruling? You can’t. Minor was only cited in the Wong ruling. And we know what the the SCOTUS decided in Wong. And at least five of the nine justices currently on the Supreme Court cited Wong Kim Ark approvingly in Miller v. Albright. A case about whether the illegitimate child of a Filipino mother and an American soldier (born abroad) should have to jump through more hoops to affirm her American citizenship than if she were born to an American mother and Filipino father. Stevens, the majority opinion, “There are ‘two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.’ United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).”

  207. 11/29/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 29, 2009 at 10:14 am
    * Parents who are United States citizens. WKA’s parents were not citizens of the United States, the case and facts were mis-represented to the court. *

    More misrepresentation. It is very clear the Supreme Court understood Wong’s parents weren’t citizens. ( seriously, Steve, are you saying the Supreme Court was stupid?) Their decision was that Wong WAS a natural born citizen even though his parents were not citizens. Parse and pick and misrepresent all you like, the Supreme Court found that a child born in this country is a natural born citizen, regardless of the status of his parents. Leo now admits that his two citizen parents requirement was an “exotic, conceptual legal THEORY”. He realizes now if you want to argue a case in court, you have to use real legal cases, not Vattel’s writings, not the musings of what the founding fathers meant. Of course, I think Leo knew this all along, but the Indiana appeals court decision spelled it out in black and white so even Leo couldn’t parse it any longer. Take Leo’s example: it’s over, find a new theme.

  208. 11/29/2009DCA says:

    “Again, you, BL, Sue, can only point to one, and only one flawed decision. I have on the other hand listed case after case, that the courts have determined Vattel is the basis of a Natural Born Citizen.”

    Flawed, really? It was a recent court decion -as opposed to a ramble of blog postings. Oh, thats right because your side LOST after whinning for months how no court would take up the two-parent concept.

    How about the other FIFTY court decisions?
    Fifty Two birther cases in a row have racked up an uminpressive 0-52 win/loss ratio – that is called being on the wrong side of history. Ha-ha. No lawyers with a reputation and real skill have touched any of this, legal scholars IGNORED the whole thing. The SCOTUS denied several appeals without comment. Instead you have kooks like Orly T. ranting at federal judges and getting fined.

    The Ind Appeals court is the ONLY court to give an opinion of NBC in recent memory. And they went out of their way to explain why the REJECTED the reasoning of the birther plaintiffs two-parent fantasy – in a 3 to 0 decision.

    Birtherism is a denialist-cult that lives in a parallel universe.

  209. 11/29/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 29, 2009 at 10:14 am

    Again, you, BL, Sue, can only point to one, and only one flawed decision. I have on the other hand listed case after case, that the courts have determined Vattel is the basis of a Natural Born Citizen.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    One flawed decision? You have a seriously inflated opinion of yourself. You are not a lawyer or a jurist but you can state that the Wong decision, which has stood for over 100 years, is flawed? That is amazing. The great thing with case law is that you only need one ruling. And since you cannot cite any SCOTUS ruling that came AFTER Wong in 1896 that supports your theory, you have no argument or leg to stand on. Leo has realized that and real lawyers and attorneys have realized that also. It is just you people that hate the President so much you can’t see beyond your blind hatred.

    You have only referenced on case that referenced De Vattel. Minor doesn’t help your argument because the Court specifically stated that there might be other ways to be defined as a NBC but they would not take up the argument. The Venus had nothing to do with citizenship. So again you are left holding nothing. Just like Apuzzo you attempt verbal semantics to try and diminish the impact of Wong, but you can’t. You lose every time a court examines the issue.

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” – Indiana Appeals Court (2009)

    Every court will rule the same way. No judge will cite Minor or the Venus. Find one court that will. Find one court that has. Any court hat has heard any citizenship issue cites Wong. And they will continue to cite Wong and the English Common law definitions of NBC every time. Sorry, as much as you huff and puff you can blow that house down.

  210. 11/29/2009syc1959 says:

    BS Lion;

    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

    “””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.

    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;
    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.
    BL; I found a picture of you;
    http://theobamafollies.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/headup21.jpg

  211. 11/29/2009syc1959 says:

    BS lion

    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.

    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;
    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.

    BTW, Lion I found a picture of you
    http://theobamafollies.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/headup21.jpg

  212. 11/29/2009bob strauss says:

    sync 1959, Do you think Obama’s father qualifies as an “ambassador/agent” of Kenya, since he was sent to America for an education so he could later return to Kenya and be part of the Kenyan Government?

    I believe Obama Sr. was a “representative/agent” of the Kenyan government,sent here to be educated, and therefore Obama Jr. does not qualify as a natural born citizen of the USA under the 14th amendment or Wong KIM Ark. Since Obama Sr. was an agent of Kenya/Britain government neither WKA or the 14th amendment grants citizenship rights to the offspring of agents or ambassadors of a foreign country.

  213. 11/29/2009Black Lion says:

    Sync1959, you have to stop recycling the same debunked theories on the birther sites you like to post at likethe Obama file or no Obama. Obsessing about the filed vs accepted date is just a red herring.

    Above Phil writes the following…

    “Again, as I’ve said before, these individuals may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics — like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been — could possibly have a trained opinion of the document’s legitimacy.”

    Again I have revisit the claim that there were somehow “four” credentialed examiners that have reviewed the online COLB. The unnamed genealogist is interesting. It seems like that our buddy sync has been holding out on us. Are you the same person as the unnamed genealogist?

    According to research by Loren at http://www.barackryphal.com, he seems to think so. See the information that he has shared below…

    “The “genealogist” is actually just Steve/syc1959. This is evident because the document from the “genealogist” is *signed* “SYC1959″ at the bottom (http://www.theobamafile.com/_exhibits/SteveCeeFactCheckFogery.doc). The content of the document is also reflected in Steve’s YouTube presentations and on his blog (http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/292/).”

    “And so, despite posting a few dozen times in this thread, Steve not only hasn’t bothered to share the as-yet-unproduced credentials that Phil claims he possesses, but he hasn’t even acknowledged that he *is* the “genealogist.” He’s attempted to give himself credentials twice in the thread, but has cited only military and Oathkeepers participation, not forensic expertise.”

    Now sync your theories have no standing either way. Leo has bailed on the birthers and soon other will abandon ship. However if you are really the unnamed genealogist as Loren claims, then you are no better than TechDude or Polarik. All guys making claims that they cannot support. The birther movement is filled with individuals that don’t have the credentials that they claim or people that happen to be convicted felons. And this are the people that are going to “expose” and “bring down” the President? Are you kidding us?

  214. 11/29/2009Black Lion says:

    bob strauss says:
    November 29, 2009 at 6:04 pm
    sync 1959, Do you think Obama’s father qualifies as an “ambassador/agent” of Kenya, since he was sent to America for an education so he could later return to Kenya and be part of the Kenyan Government?

    I believe Obama Sr. was a “representative/agent” of the Kenyan government,sent here to be educated, and therefore Obama Jr. does not qualify as a natural born citizen of the USA under the 14th amendment or Wong KIM Ark. Since Obama Sr. was an agent of Kenya/Britain government neither WKA or the 14th amendment grants citizenship rights to the offspring of agents or ambassadors of a foreign country.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Bob, you can believe whatever you want. That dog is not going to hunt. Obama Sr. was a student. He was not an ambassador or agent of Kenya. Kenya was not even an independent country at time that Obama Sr. came to America. So how are you going to spin that one? You guys are hilarious. You deny WKA is relevant until the evidence is overwhelming and then you try and use the ruling and English Common Law to attempt to use the exemption to exclude the President’s father. Sorry. He was just a poor student that fell in love with an American woman and the got married and had a child together, who was born in HI and by virtue of that birth eligible to be President of the US. You may want to try one of the fake Kenyan BC’s again. At least then we got to discuss our convicted felon buddy Lucas Smith. Trying to make Obama Sr. some sort of ambassador of Kenya is not going anywhere.

  215. 11/29/2009Black Lion says:

    Sync and Bob, you and the birthers might want to listen to a couple of GOP Senators regarding what a natural born is….

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

  216. 11/29/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Black Lion says:
    November 29, 2009 at 6:23 pm
    *“The “genealogist” is actually just Steve/syc1959. This is evident because the document from the “genealogist” is *signed* “SYC1959″ at the bottom*

    Yep, it’s the one and the same Steve posting here. This is a classic example of the scummy, evil people who prey on and count on people’s ignorance to convince them of lies about President Obama. The explanation of why the COLB is a forgery is truly despicable. He doesn’t tell his viewers that any time you scan a document and save it as a jpg, there is a “date created”. Duh, it’s the date you scanned the document and saved a digital picture of a document, it doesn’t mean it’s the date you “created” the document on Adobe. Shameful Steve. See how easily this stuff falls apart under the least scrutiny. Thanks to Loren, who also found out Dr Polarik is Ron Polland.

  217. 11/29/2009brygenon says:

    bob strauss says:

    Do you think Obama’s father qualifies as an “ambassador/agent” of Kenya, since he was sent to America for an education so he could later return to Kenya and be part of the Kenyan Government?

    I believe Obama Sr. was a “representative/agent” of the Kenyan government, sent here to be educated, and therefore Obama Jr. does not qualify as a natural born citizen of the USA under the 14th amendment or Wong KIM Ark. Since Obama Sr. was an agent of Kenya/Britain government neither WKA or the 14th amendment grants citizenship rights to the offspring of agents or ambassadors of a foreign country.

    Did you try reading the 14′th Amendment? Do you think foreign students get diplomatic visas, and that somehow Barack Obama II was born exempt from the jurisdiction of the U.S.?

    Don’t you see that having this long list of reason why Barack Obama can’t really be President just makes it more obvious what you’re actually about?

  218. 11/29/2009brygenon says:

    DCA writes:

    How about the other FIFTY court decisions?
    Fifty Two birther cases in a row have racked up an uminpressive 0-52 win/loss ratio – that is called being on the wrong side of history.

    The eligibility-denier’s losing suits have gotten tricky to count. Tess over a Politijab currently lists 57 — oops, no — it’s up to 59 as I write this. http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf One could argue against including some of them, but the number doesn’t count additional losses on appeal, nor denied petitions/applications to the U.S. Supreme Court unless originally filed there.

    Fortunately there is no similar doubt or difficulty in counting birther wins.

  219. 11/29/2009syc1959 says:

    BS lion,

    Senators are never wrong. WOW Who would have thought.

    Again, you leave out the other half to the requirement – JURISDICTION.

    As for your following “And so, despite posting a few dozen times in this thread, Steve not only hasn’t bothered to share the as-yet-unproduced credentials that Phil claims he possesses, but he hasn’t even acknowledged that he *is* the “genealogist.” He’s attempted to give himself credentials twice in the thread, but has cited only military and Oathkeepers participation, not forensic expertise.

    All in good time BL. All in good time. When the time is right.
    My material is being used in places you can ONLY imagine. Not one of my material has been been proven false, or short to hit the mark.

    Thats wat frustrates the Obot crowd so much. Mine is intended so that anyone with reasonable intelligence (Obots can’t see reality) can see what I present and see the forged images. The fact that I have the e-mails from the State of Hawaii saying what they do, are what is really driving Team Obot up the wall. Because the facts speak for themselves.

    Long before Leo, I was stating that Obama is not, can not, nor ever be a ‘Natural Born citizen’ as required by the United States Constitution. Regardless of what a few select individuals including the Senators that you mentioned, who are wrong.

    The fact remains, WHY IS OBAMA FIGHTING THE LAWSUITS IF HE HAD ALREADY SHOWN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

    Because what he has produced is NOT what he claims it is.

    I really liked your “””The birther movement is filled with individuals that don’t have the credentials that they claim or people that happen to be convicted felons. And this are the people that are going to “expose” and “bring down” the President? “””
    Statement.

    Your ‘Perkins Coie’ once tried to discredit me in the same vain, it cost them A TON of money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    So my backgound and experience has held up. But thank you once again for attempting to ferret any information out.

    Read my latest blog post, before you head back to the collective;

    In mere months the façade has fallen off the Obama gorgon, and exposed the inner layers, just as Captain Kirk, exposed the true nature of the original gorgon. As more of the layers are peeled back, with the exposure of ACORN corruption, the charade of the public Terrorist trials, the Court Martial of Navy SEALs for given a known terrorist a ‘fat lip’ during capture, covering up the Ft Hood Terrorist attack, Obama’s staggering dragging his feet on supporting our troops and commander in Afghanistan, his total lack of experience in governance, reckless disregard for the United States Constitution, bowing to foreign leaders, among other items too long to mention here.

    I wonder what will happen after too many layers are revealed, or what will be the publics reaction upon seeing the real Barack Obama unmasked. Or when Barack Obama followers wake up and discover they have been assimilated into the collective, but not for their own good.

  220. 11/29/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959, you are a delusional man my friend. You think that somehow you have more legal knowledge than the SCOTUS and real legal experts. You don’t. You have a half baked theory that is “exotic” to quote Leo Donofrio. It has not and will not hold up in court. But continue to believe that it will. While you do that Obama will continue to be President.

    Secondly your so called qualifications are non exsistent and your so called analysis is worse that Polariks and Techdudes. That was why you called yourself “unknown.” Loren at Barackophyl eviserated your so called theory regarding the COLB.

    Why shouldn’t the President fight these ridiculous lawsuits? He is the President and since he has the Justice Department defending him, what does he have to lose. It is not like he is paying for it. You and I as taxpayers are. The more the idiotic birthers file lawsuits that don’t work, the more the taxpayers will have to pay to defend these suits. It is not his fault that they have decided to not believe the evidence that has been submitted. 69 million true Americans have accepted the evidence and is satisfied with the fact that the President is eligible to be the President.

    Your movement is filled with felons and people with made up backgrounds. That is why you find it funny. Because you know it is true.

    Perkins Coie is your “strawman” in this issue. Or is it ACORN? You need to make up your mind. Nothing new has been exposed about the President. You see ACORN or Perkins as some sort of omnipotent group, which shows how you have allowed your hate of the President to make you delusional. Which is too bad because otherwise you seem like a rational guy.

    The bottom line is you can bluster and make all kinds of threats as much as you want, the birther movement is dying and your legal cases will slowly but surely be dismissed or fail. And in a year you will be left with nothing other than the knowledge that you were wrong because Obama will still be the President.

  221. 11/29/2009siseduermapierda says:

    November 29, 2009 at 10:40 pm
    *My material is being used in places you can ONLY imagine.*

    Good. You realize it’s “material”, not evidence. Not good enough to support a cause of action, and so flimsy it falls apart under lightest pressure.

  222. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    Black Lion says;syc1959, you are a delusional man my friend. You think that somehow you have more legal knowledge than the SCOTUS and real legal experts. You don’t. You have a half baked theory that is “exotic” to quote Leo Donofrio. It has not and will not hold up in court. But continue to believe that it will. While you do that Obama will continue to be President.

    Shall I disembowel you by the numbers again,

    1. No case has been heard on the merits. Just like Judge Carter, he turned for help in attempting to sidestep the legal issues and recieved help from Perkins Coie. That is documented.

    Secondly your so called qualifications are non exsistent and your so called analysis is worse that Polariks and Techdudes. That was why you called yourself “unknown.” Loren at Barackophyl eviserated your so called theory regarding the COLB.

    2. Loren, has run away because he can’t face reality and the facts. He has not proven anything.

    However, my material has been used in the Gran Jury Presentments and there is another coming up, in Dec. So the same evidnce that is being shown and on the internet, exposing the Obama lies, fraud, and deception is what is causing Obama the hope that NOT one case will ever go forward. One will, eventually, and then all hell will break loose. Trust me, it may take a death of a thousand cuts, but it will happen. At that point what does the Law state about traitors convicted of treason. Obama and all of his family will be dealt with. That is why they staked the deck. But that stack can’t and won’t last forever. Can it.

    Why shouldn’t the President fight these ridiculous lawsuits?

    3. Criminals stick togather. How many are we up to for tax fraud, evasion, and the like that had to drop out of Obama’s administration because of personal issues that would put others in prision.

    Your movement is filled with felons and people with made up backgrounds. That is why you find it funny. Because you know it is true.

    4. Again, not looking in the mirror are you. I am not the one hanging around terrorists, denying associations with then, till after the facts. But again, even the bolshevik revolution did not clean out the entire house.

    The bottom line is you can bluster and make all kinds of threats as much as you want, the birther movement is dying and your legal cases will slowly but surely be dismissed or fail.

    5. The the last resort will happen. That is what your group is after, then so be it. You will have to except the result.
    Obama’s numbers are falling, bigger then a rock slide. Currently 34% of minorites are suffering, after their ‘savior’ Obama lied, cheated, and frauded his way to where he is. There is a growing number of his own that ids going to turn against him. That will be the funny part. Hope and change turned into despair and nothing.
    I am sitting by, watching the number grow against Obama. Saturday Night Live for one is now laughing at him out in the open, katie couric is another starting to see reality, other news sources that were Pro-Obama are tanking, all because of his BS.

    You sytill refuse to answer ANY one of my questions…

    A. How do you explain Bill Richardson’s following remark…

    Barack Obama is the best candidate for the Hispanic community because our community wants a united country. Obama is an immigrant. When he speaks to Latinos, he doesn’t just speak about immigration and civil rights…

    Mind you this IS on video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo

    So I will make it simple so you might be able to stay focused.

    B. What does immigrant mean?

    Immigrant; one that immigrates: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

    Therefore he is NOT from the country he is immigrating to, is he?

    So Bill Richardson, former U.S. Congressman, former U.S. Secretary of Energy, former Governer, former presidential candidate states the fact that Obama is an immigrant, meaning he CAME from another country, NOT being from the United States.

    C. What does he mean by Barack Obama is an ‘IMMIGRANT’?

    D. WHY IS OBAMA FIGHTING THE LAWSUITS IF HE HAD ALREADY SHOWN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

    Bauer’s client Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro might like to explain why he claims to have his original Birth Certificate. As mentioned in “Dreams of My Father” he claims finding his birth certificate.

    On Page 26 of “Dreams of My Father”, Obama writes:

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

    While this brief quote does not state WHAT article it is that Obama found, it does mention that he found it WITH his BIRTH CERTIFICATE. This would have been in the mid 70’s, so this birth certificate would not have been a computer generated document. So where is this original?

    E. Why does one posted on FactCheck, contained an illegal forged SEAL that the State of Hawaii has stated DOES NOT bear any resemblance to theirs?

    F. Who applied this SEAL and is not fabriction of document – forgery?

    Black Lion answer anyone of these, but like LorenC… you’ll run away from teh same questions that are being presented to the American public.

  223. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda says: My material is being used in places you can ONLY imagine.*

    Not really, it IS being used in courts in the Gran Jury presentments and is being used to show others the fraud and deception by Obama.

    I use the word material including all of the following such as Video, statements, research, e-mails from the State of Hawii.

    When refering to material, without having to connect the dots all the time for you, Sue, and Black Lion…

    material evidence is proof or testimony that has significant relationship with the facts or issues of a case or enquiry and can affect its conclusion or outcome.

    Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion’s truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.

    My videos and documentation are material evidence posted, used and comes not only from me, but again, the State of Hawaii.

  224. 11/30/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 12:12 am
    *Not really, it IS being used in courts in the Gran Jury presentments and is being used to show others the fraud and deception by Obama.*

    Oh, your material is in the let’s-pretend courts with play-acting juries made up of like-minded volunteers. Gotcha. Considering the first grand jury made its “indictment” back in March, it appears your grand juries have all the power of a ladies aid society meeting.

  225. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    siseduermapierda

    Fear not lil snoozer, the following should be goog news to you.

    On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his treason complaint against Obama/Soetoro to all thirteen members of a Tennessee Grand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee.

    Mind you, this is NOT a citizen’s Gran Jury.

  226. 11/30/2009Sue says:

    “5. The the last resort will happen. That is what your group is after, then so be it. You will have to except the result.”

    Bring your threat on as this is what “your group is after.” Many at the so called “Constitutional Convention 2009″ have resigned due to this type of language.

    http://home.comcast.net/~bill.bry/cc09press/

    “A. How do you explain Bill Richardson’s following remark…”

    If you require an explanation, why don’t you call Bill Richardson yourself and ask him? Politicians make false statements on a daily basis.

    “D. WHY IS OBAMA FIGHTING THE LAWSUITS IF HE HAD ALREADY SHOWN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?”

    President Obama was sued and his lawyers are responding to that lawsuit the same way McCain’s lawyers responded to the lawsuit filed against him. The lawyers file a MTD.

    “Bauer’s client Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro might like to explain why he claims to have his original Birth Certificate. As mentioned in “Dreams of My Father” he claims finding his birth certificate.

    On Page 26 of “Dreams of My Father”, Obama writes:

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

    While this brief quote does not state WHAT article it is that Obama found, it does mention that he found it WITH his BIRTH CERTIFICATE. This would have been in the mid 70’s, so this birth certificate would not have been a computer generated document. So where is this original?”

    No one has their “original birth certificate.” Probably lost.

    http://www.ehow.com/how_2002271_copy-birth-certificate.html
    “Try to find the “original copy of your birth certificate.” It will list the information you need to get a new, certified copy. “Your old certificate will most likely not be certified, which makes it an informational document only.”

    “E. Why does one posted on FactCheck, contained an illegal forged SEAL that “the State of Hawaii has stated DOES NOT bear any resemblance to theirs?”

    The State of Hawaii DOH has stated no such thing. You misrepresent the email you received from them. YOU stated this, NOT the State of Hawaii DOH.

  227. 11/30/2009Sue says:

    “On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his treason complaint against Obama/Soetoro to all thirteen members of a Tennessee Grand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee.

    Mind you, this is NOT a citizen’s Gran Jury.”

    Why don’t you tell the rest of the story?

  228. 11/30/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 9:23 am
    *On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his treason complaint *

    Ah yes, Mr Fitzpatrick. I wondered when you’d work your way around to this one. Tell the whole story Steve. Mr Fitzpatrick’s getting face time with the Monroe Country grand jury is because of an agreement that he would get to present his story to the full grand jury if he dropped his complaint against the grand jury foreman and the DA of Monroe County, isn’t it?

  229. 11/30/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 9:23 am
    siseduermapierda

    Fear not lil snoozer, the following should be goog news to you.

    On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his treason complaint against Obama/Soetoro to all thirteen members of a Tennessee Grand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee.

    Mind you, this is NOT a citizen’s Gran Jury.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    No matter what you think it is Steve it is not a real Grand Jury in the way that anything of substance will happen. You birthers have some sort of fantasy that somehow believe that the President has committed some crime and will be arrested. Not going to happen. This so called grand jury in TN is not going to issue anything. There will be no legal enforcement of anything whatsoever.

    Let’s look at it in more detail. First of all former Navy Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick is not a lawyer. He was convicted in a Navy court martial for misappropriation of funds. He was passed over for promotion and forced to leave the Navy. So that is the individual we are dealing with. But for the birthers having a criminal try and bring charges against the President of the US for treason is hilarious. It shows why this movement is such a joke that Bill O’Reilly laughs at it.

  230. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    Cool, the whole Obot gang is here!

    Welcome back ‘pussy cat’, ‘snoozer’, and dopey.

    Pussy cat says , “”””Let’s look at it in more detail. First of all former Navy Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick is not a lawyer. He was convicted in a Navy court martial for misappropriation of funds””””

    They used the same tactic on Richard Marcinko after he showed the military how lax they really were. So to a vast majority of military people, this means nothing.

    Snoozer posted “”””Mr Fitzpatrick’s getting face time with the Monroe Country grand jury is because of an agreement that he would get to present his story to the full grand jury if he dropped his complaint against the grand jury foreman and the DA of Monroe County, isn’t it?”””

    Whatever the means to get more people aware of the illegal undocument resident alien, I am for. I firmly believe in the Alinksi method, of putting it right back in their face. It it’s good enough for the Obama collective, it’s good enough for actual citizens of the United States.

    Then we have lil Sue: why do you attempt to distract and fail to answer not even onbe of the questions posted. Let’s stay focued…
    Answer the question. The CC2009, is not what these questions are about. In english class, did you do math? Stay focused!

  231. 11/30/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 11:18 am
    Cool, the whole Obot gang is here!

    Welcome back ‘pussy cat’, ’snoozer’, and dopey.

    Pussy cat says , “”””Let’s look at it in more detail. First of all former Navy Lt. Commander Fitzpatrick is not a lawyer. He was convicted in a Navy court martial for misappropriation of funds””””

    They used the same tactic on Richard Marcinko after he showed the military how lax they really were. So to a vast majority of military people, this means nothing.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    You would be wrong about that. Anyone that served in the military has little respect for someone that was convicted by a jury of his peers in a court martial. Especially one that was convicted for stealing funds from the ships general fund.

    Fitzpatrick, who likes to use his rank even though he has been out of the navy for over 10 years, is an unstable individual. He sued everyone and lost regarding his court martial. He has become some sort of a cult hero in the birther community because they seem to like convicted felons and people that make up qualifications that they don’t have like Polarik.

    I like the fact that you delusional people are getting more exposure. So more and more people can laugh and make fun of you like O’Reilly and Ann Coulter did. It is fun to see the incompetence displayed by your movement exposed to a greater audience. Also when the general public sees people felons like Fitzpatrick and the Rev. Manning along with incompetent attorneys like Orly leading the movement, they can feel comfortable in ignoring you and not taking you seriously…

  232. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    pussy cat says: ‘Fitzpatrick, who likes to use his rank even though he has been out of the navy for over 10 years’

    The oath of an officer or enlisted does not end with the end of your service or discharge. I also am a member of Oathkeepers. I also have been out of service for a number of years, Honorably discharged.

    I also am not Polarik. Am I?

    Bill O’Reilly has also stated the ‘he does not care about the Constitution’ so placing an former teacher [liberal one at that], a sexual pedator who admitts having sex outside marriage and with a staffer – like Letterman, I am actually honored NOT to be in the same company as him, as I stand opposed to him and have repeated this may time. I even have a video dedictade to his lies.

    Later pussy cat

  233. 11/30/2009Black Lion says:

    Steve, why are you pushing your junk psuedo scientifical garbarge regarding your analysis on top of the erroneous reporting by that hack Charlton over at the Post and Fail website?

    First of all Charlton makes stuff up and says the following…

    “However, the Department of Health has never corroborated the authenticity of the document. Rather, in an email to the publisher of The Right Side of Life website, Okubo admitted that the Hawaii Department of Health had no documents on file to establish that any such COLB was issued by them in 2007, even though the online COLB bears a 2007 seal.”

    Dr. Okubo and the HI DOH has never commented either way regarding this issue. This is recycled birther crap. Charlton even admits that she never said what he claims she said when he writes the following…

    “Okubo’s refusal to explain what “Filed by” means, can only be interpreted as withholding evidence that would indict the veracity of the online COLB and the credibility of their department in giving the semblance of truth to Obama’s claim to be born in Hawaii, because there is really no reason in the world to obstruct the request of a concerned citizen regarding what terms, which could be used on official Hawaii Vital Records, mean.”

    No, Dr. Okubo said the following…

    “Under the UIPA, the state is not required to answer all questions posed to it. Unfortunately, we are unable to help you at this time.

    Please see attached response to your UIPA request.”

    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/hi-dept-of-health-admits-obamas-colb-is-faked/

    So unless I missed something they are implying that Phil posted something that he did not. And Charlton makes up a story.

    And of course Steve sites his junk science as some sort of real forensic research to support the disingenous claims of Charlton in the comments of this article. Of course since Charlton like all other birther sites moderates the comments, no one is allowed to post a rebuttal to that nonsense…If you read the comments section is the the same group of core birther supporters who hate the President that post to all the birther sites recycling the same nonsense. So Steve you fit right in.

  234. 11/30/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 12:11 pm
    pussy cat says: ‘Fitzpatrick, who likes to use his rank even though he has been out of the navy for over 10 years’

    The oath of an officer or enlisted does not end with the end of your service or discharge. I also am a member of Oathkeepers. I also have been out of service for a number of years, Honorably discharged.

    I also am not Polarik. Am I?

    Bill O’Reilly has also stated the ‘he does not care about the Constitution’ so placing an former teacher [liberal one at that], a sexual pedator who admitts having sex outside marriage and with a staffer – like Letterman, I am actually honored NOT to be in the same company as him, as I stand opposed to him and have repeated this may time. I even have a video dedictade to his lies.

    Later pussy cat

    ____________________________________________________________________

    Steve take your meds. I know who you are. Polarik was exposed by Loren to be Ronald Jay Polland.

    Secondly I respect your service to our country whether or not I agree with you but you do yourself a disservice to be affiliated with a convict and a loon like Fitzpatrick. The guy is mentally unstable.

    Whether or not O’Reilly stated what he stated the fact of the matter is that on his so called highly watched show on Fixed News he made fun of the movement. Why else did the loon Orly and the convict Manning stage that joke of a protest against him on Veterans day. Give it up Steve-O, your birther movement is its own worse enemy.

  235. 11/30/2009Loren says:

    A. How do you explain Bill Richardson’s following remark…

    Barack Obama is the best candidate for the Hispanic community because our community wants a united country. Obama is an immigrant. When he speaks to Latinos, he doesn’t just speak about immigration and civil rights…

    Obama emigrated to Indonesia in 1967. Four years later, he emigrated back to the U.S.

    What, did you think there’s some massive conspiracy of silence that Bill Richardson, of all people, is privy to?

    On Page 26 of “Dreams of My Father”, Obama writes:

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

    While this brief quote does not state WHAT article it is that Obama found, it does mention that he found it WITH his BIRTH CERTIFICATE. This would have been in the mid 70’s, so this birth certificate would not have been a computer generated document. So where is this original?

    If your average person wants a copy of his birth certificate and doesn’t have one handy, what does he do?

    Does he pay a few bucks and have his home state send him a new copy, like a COLB?

    Or does he take time off work, travel back to his home state and proceed to dig through boxes and boxes of his parents’ and grandparents’ old records, hoping that he might stumble across a copy he once saw thirty years earlier?

    Black Lion answer anyone of these, but like LorenC… you’ll run away from teh same questions that are being presented to the American public.

    I only see one person running from questions.

    “You know I’m the genealogist and I have no forensic credentials? Ignore the man behind the curtain! No case has been heard on the merits! Perkins Coie! Citizen grand jury! Criminal conspiracy! Obama’s numbers are slipping! Bill Richardson said “immigrant”! Where’s Obama’s birth certificate from 30 years ago?! Who said anything about a genealogist?”

  236. 11/30/2009Elmo says:

    The true obscenity is how many people don’t care, aren’t interested. Or simply choose to ignore (partisan or no). This will not end well. Time was a smelly turd … was called a smelly turd.

    Now we call him 44!

    The greater crime … the destruction, wholesale. Of truth. Fact check dot org? It’s just so f*cking sickly Orwellian. Not fantasy. A real waking nightmare. And with the KSM trial in NYC … tis only just beginning.

    We now find ourselves on the precipice.

  237. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    Pussy Cat says; “”””Steve take your meds. I know who you are.””””

    So, Who am I? What is my background? Both military, professional, and personal?
    What court cases have I testified or been involved in? What has been the outcome in each and very case?

    Sue wants to know.

  238. 11/30/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 9:23 am
    siseduermapierda

    Fear not lil snoozer, the following should be goog news to you.

    On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his treason complaint against Obama/Soetoro to all thirteen members of a Tennessee Grand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee.

    Mind you, this is NOT a citizen’s Gran Jury.

    ____________________________________________________________________

    “Obama Treason Charges Advance In Tennessee Grand Jury”

    On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his treason complaint against Obama/Soetoro to all thirteen members of a Tennessee Grand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee.

    The road to justice has been bumpy, to say the least. Commander Fitzpatrick has been ridiculed, blocked in court house halls, threatened, accused of mutiny and labeled a “crackpot” by Obama supporters who see no need for a standard background check for the most powerful office in the world.

    Fitzpatrick had to go so far as to file criminal obstruction charges against Grand Jury Foreman Pettway before he would gain access to the court. Despite it all, Commander Fitzpatrick forged ahead and on December 1st, his complaint will be heard by his local Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury.

    Now, this places the Tennessee Grand Jury squarely in the middle of the biggest Constitutional Crisis in U.S. history. Fitzpatrick will be under oath before the Grand Jury on Tuesday. If the Grand Jury has any doubts about Fitzpatrick’s testimony, they must arrest him for perjury on the spot. If they don’t arrest him for perjury, they are accepting his testimony as true and accurate…”

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/

    Sync, are you referring to the article above? From the Canada Press? Is that anything like the Post and Fail or WND? Or is it a step below and is similar to FOX? What a joke. It is obvious the writer has no experience with the law. Accepting his testimony as true? Where do they get this stuff? We can all see why the birther continue to fail. Their legal knowledge is the equvalent to the person that wrote the article above. Funny stuff….Dream on if you think that somehow this will lead to any kind of warrant or legal proceeding against the President.

  239. 11/30/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 12:54 pm
    Pussy Cat says; “”””Steve take your meds. I know who you are.””””

    So, Who am I? What is my background? Both military, professional, and personal?

    Sue wants to know.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Know what? You mean you aren’t Steve, the delusional crackpot expert behind the junk science over at the nobarack blog? That background is enough to show us all who you really are. No need to get into any more details. And I doubt that Sue even cares. Buddy, by chance is your room at home padded and has a lock on the door that only opens from the outside? Just checking…

  240. 11/30/2009Black Lion says:

    BTW Steve, I just wanted to address the following…

    “In honor of the racist bigots posting on several blogs, such as Sue, Black Lion, brygenon over on the Right Side of Life, who call anyone that has anything to say against “their” Obama a racist. I have decided to have a little fun and make the following illustration poking fun at their inabilty to see facts. Mind you that unlike them, I do not revert and call people racists. I for one, standby Alan Keyes and Pastor Mannin, who also question the illegal undocumented alien, Barack Hussein Obama’s eligibility as POTUS.

    So here’s to you Sue, Black Lion, and brygenon”

    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/new-obama-movie/

    Wow…Pot meet kettle. You call Bry, Sue, and I racist? Really? Yet you are the one that makes up what could be best called insensitive material? Buddy, you really need your meds. If you are looking for someone to call racist you may want to take a quick look into the mirror. And standing by a loon like Keyes and an idiotic ex con like Manning means nothing. They just happen to be a couple of Toms that have been exploited by the overall birther movement to be tokens used when someone accuses the movement or anyone associated with the movement of being racist. I personally care less and have never made that accusation about you. But if feel you need to address that, maybe you might want to re-evaluate some of the individuals that have become associated with your movement.

  241. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    Pussy cat posted “Wow…Pot meet kettle. You call Bry, Sue, and I racist? Really? Yet you are the one that makes up what could be best called insensitive material?”

    Yes I did. EVERY graphic that you call insensitive material, I created. But again, it demonstrates my ability at graphics, doesn’t it. Just like showing how easy it was for Team Obama to forge his.

    The Treason poster, I did that one too. A picture speaks a thousand words. The cabbage patch Obama one is going viral in e-mails.
    Spreading the word about the illegal undocumented resident alien is working. When even the likes of SNL are making fun of him after a few months, what could be better?

    More later pussy cat.

  242. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    pussy cat;

    here is more good news for you.

    Turning Point: Couric Rips Obama
    Katie Couric may be best known for her unflattering interview with Sarah Palin. But her nightly news broadcast this past Monday night may be an indicator that the big liberal media are now turning their guns on Obama.
    Couric said on “CBS Evening News” that Americans are growing “disenchanted” with Obama and are openly questioning his credibility.
    “Is the honeymoon over?” anchor Couric said at the beginning of her correspondent’s report.
    “Although President Obama has been in office less than a year, many Americans are growing disenchanted with his handling of the enormous problems he and the country are facing, from healthcare to unemployment to Afghanistan .
    “His poll numbers are sliding, and at least one poll shows his job approval rating has fallen, for the first time, below 50 percent.”
    Correspondent Chris Reid chimed in: “The president is getting battered on everything from the economy to foreign policy. Some polls show Americans are increasingly questioning his credibility.”
    The report asserted that while Obama talks about dealing with unemployment, which is over 10 percent and expected to rise, he has developed “no new ideas” for dealing with the problem.
    CBS also cited a poll showing that only 14 percent of Americans believe Obama’s claim that healthcare reform won’t add to the budget deficit, and only 7 percent believe that the stimulus has created any jobs at all.
    The report also criticized the president for being “indecisive” on Afghanistan , and for returning from his recent Asian trip “with little to show for it.”
    An expert was quoted as describing his trip as the “amateur hour,” as he did not line up agreements with foreign countries before venturing abroad.

    Keep the faith, Obama is imploding all by himself.

  243. 11/30/2009Sue says:

    “Sue wants to know.”

    Actually, no I do not.

  244. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    More good news.

    Even ‘Tingles’ Chris Matthews, compares Obama to Neville Chamberlain

    also

    Seven Deadly Stories the Obama Administration Don’t Want Taking Hold

    EIGHT: PURPOSELY HIDING LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

    (for reasons unknown – incredibly bizarre behavior if nothing to hide)

  245. 11/30/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 2:13 pm
    More good news.

    Even ‘Tingles’ Chris Matthews, compares Obama to Neville Chamberlain

    also

    Seven Deadly Stories the Obama Administration Don’t Want Taking Hold

    EIGHT: PURPOSELY HIDING LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE

    (for reasons unknown – incredibly bizarre behavior if nothing to hide)
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Yes, quote an article from Politico….Interesting…But if you read the article it feels more of a partisan attack. According to Harris the author, the same folks who sat through eight years of exploding deficits under Bush without saying a word are now freaked out by one year of spending under President Obama in the middle of the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression. And, without pointing to a single shred of evidence, they think “spending” is a big political issue.

    Well, how do they explain the fact that even a majority of Southern Republicans — the most conservative leaning voters in the entire country — want the federal government to pass a jobs bill?

    We are in a recession with massive unemployment…Of course the administration in any current crisis will be unpopular. We will see where the numbers lie in 2012. That still is 3 years from now. A lot can happen between now and then.

    And of those 7 stories Sync, none of them happen to be anything associated with the birthers and their issues. That is not even on the radar of the President. So no matter how you and your band of merry men try and make is seem like this is some sort of issue for the President, it’s not.

    So you and your buddies go ahead and play with your fantasy grand juries and junk forensic science, thinking that somehow it will really matter. The adults will worry about keeping this country from falling any deeper in the abyss that the last 8 years of mismanagement caused.

  246. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    Holy cow….pussy cat can read!!!

    We are in a recession with massive unemployment…
    More coming because of the under-achiever in charge. Currently 34% of minorities are hurting. 90+ voted for “you know who” , so they are getting what they deserve. Don’t you think. Now, they are begining to turn on his elective nothingness.

    Pussy cat stated ‘Of course the administration in any current crisis will be unpopular.’

    Blame blame blame… whendo you think it time to grow up and take some responsibility? If you think the American public is going to go through four years of blame, I can’t wait till 2012, cause after that when the Obama taxes come due, it’s going to get real interesting. Esp with job losses going to hit 40%. We are already at 22% and there is no bottom in site. So what will the huddled masses do?

    PC syas; We will see where the numbers lie in 2012. That still is 3 years from now. A lot can happen between now and then.

    Learn your history, FDR’s programs lengthened the Great Depression by several years, and that includes WWII.

    PC posted – And of those 7 stories Sync, none of them happen to be anything associated with the birthers and their issues.

    So again, pussy cat is limited in his ability to rationalize more then one subject. Focus PC Focus. Your ability is like trying to herd cats…but, I guess that’s why you go by the name you choose.

    PC again said; The adults will worry about keeping this country from falling any deeper in the abyss that the last 8 years of mismanagement caused.

    I think you may have to relearn math, as Obama has already spent three times the that amount in less then 10 months, and he’s still going.

    Pussy cat, when does the kool-aide wear off? and woiuld you like to try and answering ‘any’ one of the questions I presented to you?

  247. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    I have updated my blog to include a new compiled list concerning Vattel.

    http://wp.me/pkW2J-8y

    Vattel was the key in the United States Constitution in determining the Article 2 Natural Born Citizen clause. Here is a list of the references used by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington in regards to Vattel’s Law of Nations. This should dispel any notion that the Founding Fathers did not use the Law of Nations as their guide.

    Read the list off my blog. Contains references from John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the Ratification.

    A natural Born Citizen is a person born in country to parents who are citizens. Per Vattel

    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 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 should keep pussy cat, snoozer, and company busy for a while.

  248. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    Here kitty kitty kitty

    here is another “Good News” article for you.

    He Can’t Take Another Bow

    Last week, two points in an emerging pointillist picture of a White House leaking support—not the support of voters, though polls there show steady decline, but in two core constituencies, Washington’s Democratic-journalistic establishment, and what might still be called the foreign-policy establishment.

    From journalist Elizabeth Drew, a veteran and often sympathetic chronicler of Democratic figures, a fiery denunciation of—and warning for—the White House. In a piece in Politico on the firing of White House counsel Greg Craig, Ms. Drew reports that while the president was in Asia last week, “a critical mass of influential people who once held big hopes for his presidency began to wonder whether they had misjudged the man.” They once held “an unromantically high opinion of Obama,” and were key to his rise, but now they are concluding that the president isn’t “the person of integrity or even classiness they had thought.”

    Just as stinging as Elizabeth Drew on domestic matters was Leslie Gelb on Mr. Obama and foreign policy in the Daily Beast. Mr. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and fully plugged into the Democratic foreign-policy establishment, wrote this week that the president’s Asia trip suggested “a disturbing amateurishness in managing America’s power.” The president’s Afghanistan review has been “inexcusably clumsy,” Mideast negotiations have been “fumbling.” So unsuccessful was the trip that Mr. Gelb suggested Mr. Obama take responsibility for it “as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs.”

    He added that rather than bowing to emperors—Mr. Obama “seems to do this stuff spontaneously and inexplicably”—he should begin to bow to “the voices of experience” in Washington.

    When longtime political observers start calling for wise men, a president is in trouble.

    also raises a distressing question: Who are the wise men and women now?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB30001424052748703499404574558134111577494.html

  249. 11/30/2009qwertyman says:

    Vattel was the key in the United States Constitution in determining the Article 2 Natural Born Citizen clause. Here is a list of the references used by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington in regards to Vattel’s Law of Nations. This should dispel any notion that the Founding Fathers did not use the Law of Nations as their guide.

    Read the list off my blog. Contains references from John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and the Ratification.

    A natural Born Citizen is a person born in country to parents who are citizens. Per Vattel

    None of those quotes you link to refer to the natural born citizen clause. I’m not saying that Vattel was not influential, but there is nothing to suggest that the natural born citizen clause came from him.

    There is certainly significantly more evidence to show, as well as our entirety of legal history, that English common law was much more influential on the Founders.

    There is not a single member of Congress, judge, or current legal scholar who subscribes to your legal theory.

  250. 11/30/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 5:57 pm
    *A natural Born Citizen – Per Vattel *

    Still citing an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century when you know they directly conflict with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen? Truly pathetic. Per the United States Supreme Court, a person born within the borders of the United States is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents.

    The US Supreme Court trumps Vattel.

  251. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman; please focus.

    The references are substantive evidence on what the Framers and Founding fathers used in regard to common knowledge of the day and intent of the Framers of the United States Constitution.

    It would be like for you – playing checkers and describing a move in chess. You have to use the same reference. But once again, anything that eludes to Obama being Un-Constitutionaly qualified to his collective, will be denied.

    So i suppose the evidence presented will only be met, well they used shakespeare’s Hamlet or Othello instead. Maybe some of the wording is excpetable or that they could even understand it.

  252. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    snoozer – Still citing an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century when you know they directly conflict with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen?
    The US Supreme Court trumps Vattel.

    So lets go around your merry-go-round again.

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

    “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘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 indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

    The United States Constitution has never been amended to allow ‘Native” citizens eligible for the Office of the Presidency.
    If you think it has, please provide the statue, amendment, or law that has changed the Article 2 requirement.

    As I refered to SR 511. SR511 is a non-binding, non-lawful understanding, that can not be held as a LAW. Being such, a non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.This type of 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 would that be?

    This Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004 refers to the following; S.2128 Natural Born Citizen Act. That act never passed and hence as of this Judiciary Hearing in Oct 2004, the meaning and Constitution had never been amended.

    So let’s look at the Natural Born Citizen Act

    S. 2128: Natural Born Citizen Act

    A bill to define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.
    This bill never became law. This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress. Sessions of Congress last two years, and at the end of each session all proposed bills and resolutions that haven’t passed are cleared from the books. Members often reintroduce bills that did not come up for debate under a new number in the next session.

    Last Action: Oct 5, 2004: Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.

    Related: See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

    So there appears to be NO change or alteration of the Constitutional requirement, is there?

  253. 11/30/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.

    Of course you will admit Steve that in The Venus the Supreme Court never declared Vattel to be the “authority on citizenship issues.” Aside from that, the Supreme Court did not rely on Vattel’s Law of Nations when deciding the case of Wong Kim Ark. In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a child born within the borders of the United States is a natural born citizen regardless of the status of his parents. Parse and stretch and wrap back to Vattel as many times as you like, it doesn’t change what the Wong decision really said. And it said when a child is born in the United States, the parents’ status doesn’t matter, the child is a natural born citizen. What is your intent here? Any new lawsuit that claims two citizen parents is doomed to failure following the Indiana decision. Just trying to confuse the believers?

  254. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    snooze;

    Flawed decison as they failed to account for Jurisdiction. You state one and only one case.

    As I stated before and will again.

    State the LAW, Statue, or Amendment that allows for a NATIVE citizen to be eligible for the United States Presidency.

    A single case decision does not amend or alter the United States Constitution, the same as a non-binding Gentlemen’s Agreement [SR511] and not as Article 2 is protected by the United States Constitution itself.

    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.

    Not only that that amendment would have to be ratified, please state the ratification date.

    By his own admission: “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.”

    QUOTE; NATIVE, such as Native under Title 8 US Code and the 14th Amendment. “Native does not equal ‘Natural Born” If it did, illegal undocumented aliens would have run for office long ago.

  255. 11/30/2009Preston says:

    So a Brit thinks he will succeed where the Russian immigrant has failed, bring it on.

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

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

    http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/29/bill-oreilly-slams-orly-taitz/
    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/BIRTHER%20CASE%20LIST.pdf

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

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

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

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

  256. 11/30/2009Sue says:

    ” syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 9:23 am

    “On Tuesday December 1st 2009, Retired Navy Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III will present the evidence behind his treason complaint against Obama/Soetoro to all thirteen members of a Tennessee Grand Jury in Monroe County Tennessee.

    Mind you, this is NOT a citizen’s Gran Jury.”

    The above is not factual according to the TN DA’s office. It is true he has been invited to appear. However, according to the D.A.’s office the reason for his appearance is in regards to his charge of obstruction against the jury foreman and the assistant D.A. stemming from when he was booted from the grand jury at his prior appearance and his “charge of treason” rejected by them, and has absolutely nothing to do with his POS treason charge against President Obama, which is not being reconsidered.

    They can spin it any way they wish, but that’s the facts, directly from the D.A.’s office.

  257. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    Mind you Preston and lil Sue;

    There is no statue of limitations on document forgery and being an undocumented illegal alien. You might think that you can keep the truth from coming out, or the punishment from being dealt. But like our pie-hole, that is just an opinion.

    Consider the following very cafefully;

    Treason; Offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one’s country or of assisting its enemies in war. In the U.S., the framers of the Constitution defined treason narrowly — as the levying of war against the U.S. or the giving of aid and comfort to its enemies — in order to lessen the possibility that those in power might falsely or loosely charge their political opponents with treason.

    The excesses of the Revolution prompted the framers of the Constitution to restrict the definition of treason to “levying war against” the United States and providing “aid and comfort” to its enemies, and to require the testimony of two witnesses “to the same overt act” and the establishment of treasonous intent for conviction. They limited punishment to the person charged, and abjured the attainder of the traitor’s relatives or heirs.

    Requiring ONLY two witnesses for the charge of treason. Aid and comfort to the enemy, such as the Taliban or Al_Queda, charging soldiers with Court Martial for given an enemy combatant a fat lip.

    So after he leaves office one way or another, the ramifications are still going to be there. This issue will not go away and as the fraud of global warming, the bail-outs comes out. So will the Obama’s treason.

  258. 11/30/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 12:03 am

    You sytill refuse to answer ANY one of my questions…

    A. How do you explain Bill Richardson’s following remark…

    Barack Obama is the best candidate for the Hispanic community because our community wants a united country. Obama is an immigrant. When he speaks to Latinos, he doesn’t just speak about immigration and civil rights…

    Mind you this IS on video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5OUdj_YIpo

    So I will make it simple so you might be able to stay focused.

    B. What does immigrant mean?

    Immigrant; one that immigrates: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence

    Therefore he is NOT from the country he is immigrating to, is he?

    So Bill Richardson, former U.S. Congressman, former U.S. Secretary of Energy, former Governer, former presidential candidate states the fact that Obama is an immigrant, meaning he CAME from another country, NOT being from the United States.

    C. What does he mean by Barack Obama is an ‘IMMIGRANT’?

    D. WHY IS OBAMA FIGHTING THE LAWSUITS IF HE HAD ALREADY SHOWN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

    Bauer’s client Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro might like to explain why he claims to have his original Birth Certificate. As mentioned in “Dreams of My Father” he claims finding his birth certificate.

    On Page 26 of “Dreams of My Father”, Obama writes:

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

    While this brief quote does not state WHAT article it is that Obama found, it does mention that he found it WITH his BIRTH CERTIFICATE. This would have been in the mid 70’s, so this birth certificate would not have been a computer generated document. So where is this original?

    E. Why does one posted on FactCheck, contained an illegal forged SEAL that the State of Hawaii has stated DOES NOT bear any resemblance to theirs?

    F. Who applied this SEAL and is not fabriction of document – forgery?

    Black Lion answer anyone of these, but like LorenC… you’ll run away from teh same questions that are being presented to the American public.
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Just a follow up…

    A. How do you explain Bill Richardson’s following remark… Barack Obama is the best candidate for the Hispanic community because our community wants a united country. Obama is an immigrant. When he speaks to Latinos, he doesn’t just speak about immigration and civil rights… Obama emigrated to Indonesia in 1967. Four years later, he emigrated back to the U.S. What, did you think there’s some massive conspiracy of silence that Bill Richardson, of all people, is privy to?

    On Page 26 of “Dreams of My Father”, Obama writes: “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school,” While this brief quote does not state WHAT article it is that Obama found, it does mention that he found it WITH his BIRTH CERTIFICATE. This would have been in the mid 70’s, so this birth certificate would not have been a computer generated document.

    So where is this original? If your average person wants a copy of his birth certificate and doesn’t have one handy, what does he do? Does he pay a few bucks and have his home state send him a new copy, like a COLB? Or does he take time off work, travel back to his home state and proceed to dig through boxes and boxes of his parents’ and grandparents’ old records, hoping that he might stumble across a copy he once saw thirty years earlier?

    Black Lion answer anyone of these, but like LorenC… you’ll run away from teh same questions that are being presented to the American public.

    I only see one person running from questions. “You know I’m the genealogist and I have no forensic credentials? Ignore the man behind the curtain! No case has been heard on the merits! Perkins Coie! Citizen grand jury! Criminal conspiracy! Obama’s numbers are slipping! Bill Richardson said “immigrant”! Where’s Obama’s birth certificate from 30 years ago?! Who said anything about a genealogist?”

  259. 11/30/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 4:44 pm
    Holy cow….pussy cat can read!!!
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Steve thanks…I am just curious, on multiple sites you direct individuals to your blog where you supposedly did some research on Obama’s COLB and came up with your conclusions. This leads me to the question of whether or not you have the qualifications to do that sort of research. Unlike Polarik (Ronald jay Polland) do you have the background in forensics to make such conclusions? I mean Dr. Lines, who has the qualifications claimed that she could not make any conclusions without examining the actual document. So I was just wondering how you were able to do what she couldn’t. I am sure there are many on this blog that would like to know. Especially since you claim to know what the founders were thinking regarding Vattel over English Common Law…

  260. 11/30/2009Phil says:

    Preston,

    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.

    According to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, the onus is on the individual aspiring to the presidency to show their bona fides for the office.

    Yet, there is presently no enforcement mechanism laid out in the Constitution that determines exactly what and to what degree such substantiation must be made.

    What’s next? According to the 10th Amendment, anything that is not otherwise specifically delineated to the federal government — via the Constitution — flows down to the States and/or the People thereof.

    Therefore, for you to suggest that individuals such as myself should “shut-up” about the entire eligibility movement is, in effect, asking someone like me to forsake my constitutional right to hold the President accountable for being subject to the presidential eligibility clause.

    Other than that, if I only had a certain amount of money for every time someone hurled such castigations against my site… well, as you know, in any conversation, the first to bring out the insults is the first to have lost the argument.

    -Phil

  261. 11/30/2009Preston says:

    So a Brit thinks he will succeed where the Russian immigrant has failed, bring it on.

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

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

    http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/…ams-orly-taitz/
    http://tesibria.typepad.com/what…CASE%20LIST.pdf

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

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

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

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

  262. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    Pussy Cat asked…I am just curious, on multiple sites you direct individuals to your blog where you supposedly did some research on Obama’s COLB and came up with your conclusions. This leads me to the question of whether or not you have the qualifications to do that sort of research.

    I would state that is for a JURY to decide. As I mentioned before I have testified in trials before, given depositions, been in discovery, and everytime I have proven my positions.

    Pussy Cat asked…Unlike Polarik (Ronald jay Polland) do you have the background in forensics to make such conclusions?

    I will not divulge this, because I have placed everything with the exception of some highly sensitive material on-line for anyone to see. Unlike some, I have not asked for a dime, accepted any money, have placed research out there for everyone. Unlike an Obama prostitute, country, honor, and faith are more important to me.

    Pussy Cat asked “I mean Dr. Lines, who has the qualifications claimed that she could not make any conclusions without examining the actual document. So I was just wondering how you were able to do what she couldn’t.”

    Sandra Ramsey Lines was shown ONLY one version. Based on that, I agree and concur with her not being able to make an assesment off that one singular document image. However I don’t limit mine to only one. That is the issue with people like Rick Sanchez, they will hold up one printed out image and disregard the others.

    Unlike some again I will state, I was asked me about the first Kenyan Birth certificate that popped up in early Aug. I could not verify that document and nor would I as I had nothing to compare it to. Unlike the multiple Hawaiian one and the accessibility to the various agencies across the country. I had my doubts about the document, esp. the SEAL, but I never stated one way or the other.

    As I have previously mentioned a short form is not regarded as definitive evidence to establishing any vital stastic’s due to the limited data or the absence of collaborating documentation. I could go on at nauseum, but think that would be better left to a Jury again. Can’t give away the store when theres a lot left.

    PC asked…I am sure there are many on this blog that would like to know. Especially since you claim to know what the founders were thinking regarding Vattel over English Common Law…

    I believe that if you looked at my blog and video’s that you would discover that my family history is extensive within this country. From the first Pilgrims on the Mayflower, to the Revolutionary War, and to the establishment of this Nation. So the founding, meaning, history, heritage were instilled at an early age. Unlike the education that the majority of people recieved who failed to learn about them, I learned. One tidbit, that I will share, was during several government and political science classes many years ago, the teachers were using OUR families books as references and were corrected on numerous occasions when confronted with the current text books of the time.

  263. 11/30/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 7:37 pm
    *A single case decision does not amend or alter the United States Constitution*

    Sure it does if it is a decision by the US Supreme Court. It is a legal precedent and has the effect of the force of law unless Congress passes a law that supersedes it. Wong Kim Ark stands today: a child born within the borders of the United States is a natural born citizen regardless of the his parents’ status.

    By the way Native = Natural Born = Citizen at Birth
    All used interchangeably by the US Supreme Court.

    Looks like no one is discussing your ‘material’ in a certain grand jury tomorrow in Tennessee!

  264. 11/30/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    The United States Constitution has never been amended to allow ‘Native” citizens eligible for the Office of the Presidency.
    ________________________________________________________________________
    Sync, do you think we all are as obtuse as you are? Native and natural born are considered the same thing. The founders considered them both to have the same meaning….

    There is a great post from Dr. C’s blog which addresses this issue…Maybe we can see if your reading comprehension skills have improved. Your fasicnation with Vattel and the irrelevant Venus rulings show the rest of us how much you have buried your head in the sand and ignore the fact that the SCOTUS ruling in Wong (1896) is the definitive ruling regarding citizenship…

    “No court has ruled on NBC. The court has not defined many terms, but that does not mean a definition is in doubt. Even if it was in doubt, the court will look to all early legal authorities to define such term…

    With respect to native birth, Wong stated that since the common law was adopted, all children born in the US are generally native born citizens. You are simply trying to read an implication into a choice of terminology. The court made clear the English common law rules controlled and under the common law all the native born (subject to common law exceptions) were by definition “natural born.” I think you need to refresh your Blackstone as you would see there are only 2 classes of people at birth under the common law, the natural born and the alien born. The natural born were also referred to as natives. There is no authority anywhere that says there is a difference between native and natural born under the common law.

    Finally, here is a list of early authorities saying that the president needs to be native born citizen or a native. Take notice it includes the most influential scholars of the early republic that court consistently relies upon. If you or Leo [Donofrio] disagree with this multitude you need to find authority to the contrary. Clearly, there you have no such authority.

    “No man but a native, or who has resided fourteen years in America, can be chosen President.” Elliot’s Debates –DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, pg 195-196 (statements of future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell, July 30, 1788).

    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence,…” St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
    “As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

    “The president must, by law, be a native born citizen; so that none need aspire to that high calling, but those who might emphatically be termed natural sons of America.” Joseph Dennie, John Elihu Hall, The Port Folio, pg. 199, (18)

    “By the provisions of the federal constitution, the President and Vice President of the United States are required to be native-born citizens; and the President is required to cause the laws of the Union to be executed.” Rep. Russel, Congressional Globe, 24th Cong., 1st Sess. pg 4256 (1836)

    ” It is not too much to say, that no one, but a native citizen, ought ordinarily to be intrusted with an office so vital [the presidency] to the safety and liberties of the people. But an exception was, from a deep sense of gratitude, made in favor of those distinguished men, who, though not natives, had, with such exalted patriotism, and such personal sacrifices, united their lives and fortunes with ours during the Revolution….” Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, pg. 167 (1842 ed.)

    “Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)

    “No person can be elected president who is less than 35 years of age, who is not a native born citizen of the United States, or was not a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United Stales…” John Ramsay McCulloch, Daniel Haskel, M’Culloch’s Universal Gazetteer: A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical, and Historical, of the Various Countries, Places, and Principal Natural Objects in the World, pg. 994 (1844)

    “Afterwards however, in Convention, the words “natural born citizen” were stricken out, and the word ” native” was substituted, as the original words might have left an uncertainty as to the meaning of the Convention, for ” natural born citizen” might have had some reference to the manner of birth, while the word “native” would refer more particularly to the place of birth. ” Sherman Croswell, R. Sutton, Debates and Proceedings in the New-York State Convention – New York (State) Pg. 148 (1846)

    “No person can be President or Vice-president who is not a native-born citizen, of the age of thirty-five years, ….” Richard Swainson Fisher, The progress of the United States of America: from the earliest periods. Geographical, statistical, and historical, pg. 9 (1854)

    “The executive power is vested in a president and vice-president; each chosen for a term four years each to be a native born citizen…..Emma Willard, Abridged history of the United States, or, Republic of America, pg. 254 (1856)

    ” They declared by that solemn compact, that the President of the United States should be a native born citizen, … Samuel Clagett Busey, Immigration: Its Evils and Consequences pg. 10 (1856) pg. 10

    “Your committee is of opinion that no one can be eligible to discharge, for the time being, the functions of President, unless he be thirty-five years old, and a native born citizen. A Speaker of the House, or a President pro tempore, might not have these qualifications —and if so, he could not act as President in compliance with the Constitution.” Sen. Butler, 8/05/1856, Reports of Committees: 30th Congress, 1st Session – 48th Congress, 2nd Session, pg. 4., By United States Congress. Senate, Congress, Published 1856

    “One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of tho United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizan.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877)

    “It is a singular fact, however, that to-day, under the Federal Constitution, a negro may be elected President, United States Senator, or a member of the lower branch of Congress. In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” Sen. Henderson, Civil Rights Acts Debates, reported in Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 387 (1866)

    “By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons. (2 Kent’s Com. 3d ed. l ; Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 1 ; 1 Black. Com. 366; Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. Rep. 139.)” Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866), April 11, 1871, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

    “What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913)

    “One of the qualifications of President of the United States is that he must be a native born citizen, and incontestibly were it not for this provision a naturalized citizen might, if elected, hold that high position.” White v. Clements, Georgia Supreme Court, 1870, Reports of Cases in Law and Equity, Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, in the Year , pg. 256-57 (1870)

    “The qualifications for president and vice-president by this clause are made the same. They must, therefore, be native born citizens of the United States, or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the federal constitution, and been fourteen years citizens of the United States, and thirty-five years old.” John King, A Commentary on the Law and True Construction of the Federal Constitution, pg. 206, (1871)

    “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 162 (1874).

    “The President was required to be thirty-five years of age, and native born, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution.” Richard Hildreth, The History of the United States of America, pg. 521 (1880)

    “The President and the Vice-President, (and hence their Electors also), are required, however, to be native-born citizens of the United States. Here we have a clear inclusion of all the States as to their native-born, and a clear Delusion of all foreign-born citizens.” Meeds Tuthill, The civil polity of the United States considered in its theory and practice, pg. 83 (1883)
    “As the president and vice-president are elected at and for the same time, the right to be chosen to both offices is dependent upon the same conditions (12th amendment). To be eligible, it is necessary to be a native-born citizen of the United States,…Hermann Von Holst, Alfred Bishop Mason, The Constitutional Law of the United States of America” pg. 84 (1887)”

    Sync, lets see you resolve these citations…You will come to realize that the only flawed decision is your fasicnation with the Venus ruling…So lets see if you can read…

  265. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    snoozer; Sure it does if it is a decision by the US Supreme Court.

    Really name one case that has resulted in a Constitutional Amendment. PLEASE. Just One.

    Snoozer – Looks like no one is discussing your ‘material’ in a certain grand jury tomorrow in Tennessee!

    saving the big guns for court. But fear not! :D

  266. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    Snoozer; Please state the amendment, as that is the ONLY way the Constitution can be altered to allow, Natives eligible.
    But since as close to OCTOBER 5, 2004, with the S. 2128: Natural Born Citizen Act, no legal amendment has ever been done.

    So when the election was held in 2008, the Constitution was unaltered from it’s original requirements.

    “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.”

    How can a British subject at birth, be free from any foreign influence as described by John Jay in the following;

    The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
    LXVIII. John Jay to George Washington.3
    [Note 3: 3 Documentary History of the Constitution, IV, 237.]
    New York 25 July 1787

    Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expresly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.

    Again Alexander Hamilton (a signer of our Constitution) in the Gazette of the United States, published in Philadelphia, on June 29, 1793 “The second article of the Constitution of the United States, section first, establishes this general proposition, that “the EXECUTIVE POWER shall be vested in a President of the United States of America…The executive is charged with the execution of all laws, the law of nations, as well as the municipal law, by which the former are recognized and adopted.”

  267. 11/30/2009syc1959 says:

    You have to read this story, at least the last part of it:

    http://nygoe.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/barack-obama-sighting-hawaii-1980/

    Allegedly, a Marine met Obama in Hawaii in 1980, and after the Marine told him that he had been to Mombasa, Obama said that he was born there:

    “What strikes me most is what he said as to where he grew up: Indonesia. He told me he wanted to be President of the US someday. I remember lightly smiling and commenting that maybe by the time he gets to be 40 or so, America will be ready for a Black man to be President and I wished him luck. . . .”

    “He also told me something that I never forgot, for it caused me to do some other things in an effort to be nice to him and possibly a favor. We spoke of where I had been and the world as I saw it. I told him I had been to Africa, Mombassa specifically, and he said to me abruptly, ‘I was born there’. I told him he is not eligible to be president if that was true, but I remembered he said his mom was an American, so, maybe it was okay.”

    In this story, the Marine cannot swear that it was Obama, but he is “willing to tell people openly at the risk of [his] ridicule”. The conversation details definitely point to Obama.

  268. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    In this story, the Marine cannot swear that it was Obama, but he is “willing to tell people openly at the risk of [his] ridicule”. The conversation details definitely point to Obama.

    The site isn’t the Marine himself, it’s what a “friend” is saying that Marine told him. It’s a chain email, perpetuating the completely unfounded Mombasa story (Mombasa is over 1000 miles in the wrong direction from Nairobi to the village Obama Sr. lived in).

    This has as much credibility as those persistent rumors that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

  269. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman states – This has as much credibility as those persistent rumors that Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990.

    Yup, has the same credibility that Obama was born in Hawaii also.
    But, that is not the issue is it?

  270. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    Yup, has the same credibility that Obama was born in Hawaii also.
    But, that is not the issue is it?

    Obama’s birth in Hawaii is backed by a significant amount of documentary evidence, albeit evidence that you dispute.

    Your blog post you linked to is a third-hand story by a guy who isn’t even sure he was talking to a young Obama (who incidentally did not *grow up* in Indonesia, only spent a few years there).

  271. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    Obama’s birth in Hawaii is backed by a significant amount of documentary evidence, albeit evidence that you dispute.

    Where, a forged document, 2 newspaper announcements that contain NO vital information. No hospital, doctor, and witnesses to the blessed event.

    Obot’s back to square one, believing in nothing.

    Obama the uniter for nothing!!!!!!!

    New Poll—> 7 out of 10 American Voters Are Just Plain Pissed by Off !!!

    For anybody who has followed the tea party movement and the summer town halls this should come as no surprise, the latest Rasmussen poll reports that American voters are just plain pissed off at the federal government. They feel that our “leaders” are just out for themselves.

    Seventy-one percent of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government (up 5% points since Sept.) and 46% who are very angry, that number us up 10% since September.This trend is being led by the over 40 set as over half of those voters are very angry.

  272. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    Am I honored or what….
    My own band of Obama collectives, following me around the net.

    How cool is that. I mean mean mind-numbed kool-aide drinking zombie collectives clicking around wondering where I am going to post.

    WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Looks like it getting looked at, and we may have confirmation on the writter.

  273. 12/1/2009Sue says:

    syc1959,

    Unless you can cite a SCOTUS decision/precendent that reverses Wong Kim Ark OR a Congressional Amendment that reverses Wong Kim Ark; your opinion/theory is false. Think you can cite one? Come on syc, cite one for us.

  274. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    Lil Sue,

    Neither can any Obot cite one Supreme Court casethat back up WKA, hence a flawed decision.

    But I and others hae posted several other Supreme Court cases that are in direct opposition to WKA.

    Again, as of 2004, no statute, law, or amendment has altered, changed, the Article 2 requiement, not has the language been changed.

    scurry lil Sue, surry

    The Obama is falling

  275. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 11:49 pm
    Snoozer; Please state the amendment, as that is the ONLY way the Constitution can be altered to allow, Natives eligible.
    __________________________________________________________________
    You keep ignoring the fact that the founders considered native and natural born to mean the same thing. You keep citing Hamilton…I cited at least 8 different historical founders that thought that native and natural born were the same, especially when discussing the Presidency. Your attempt to introduce a red herring to confuse people is not successful. If you need any help maybe Black’s Law dictionary will help you…

    Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition:
    Native. A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890.

    Notice the citation of the Wong ruling. No matter how many time you try and cite Minor or the Venus you will lose. Why? Because the SCOTUS in Wong made the decision in 1896 that the definition of Natural Born came from English Common law. That was the most recent ruling and any legal professional will tell you that the most recent ruling regarding an issue when you cite cases is the one that carries the most weight. Especially when the ruling specifically mentions the earlier rulings in making their decision. The Appeals Court in Indiana tried to give you direction but the birthers choose to ignore them and substitute their own beliefs. And that is why they are 0 for 60. There is the birther fantasy and their is the law.

    Sync, you can continue to cite some historical figures or the irrelevant Venus ruling…I will cite language from specific SCOTUS rulings, More specifically what the Court said in the Wong ruling…

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

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

    “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

    Finally the best is what the 3 judge Appeals panel said using the language from the SUPREME COURT RULING in Wong…

    “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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

    That is one statement you cannot get past no matter how much you try and pretend that the founders did not intend this or meant something else…

    The Indiana Appeals Court said it best when they said…

    “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court‟s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs‟ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”

    Sorry Sync1959. You can make up your own interpretation of the law and think your opinion matters. However here in the real world and not fantasyland, the facts are the facts. The SCOTUS has decided this issue and the IN Appeals Court has evsiserated the so called birther theory. You can spin it anyway you want, and you will, but the bottom line is that there is no judge or court that is going to go against Wong. Especially when according to Westlaw Wong has been cited over 1,000 times in cases since it was decided. You are better off going back to your junk science analysis of the President’s COLB. You won’t look as bad….

  276. 12/1/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    December 1, 2009 at 9:24 am
    *Neither can any Obot cite one Supreme Court casethat back up WKA, hence a flawed decision.*

    In Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th amendment. That’s the role of the third branch, to interpret the law. It’s funny how every decision someone doesn’t like is “flawed”, or “legislating from the bench.”

    Congress enacted USC 8, 1401 which reinforces the mandate of the 14th amendment, and supports Wong Kim Ark, that children born within the United States are citizens at birth.

  277. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    December 1, 2009 at 9:24 am
    Lil Sue,

    Neither can any Obot cite one Supreme Court casethat back up WKA, hence a flawed decision.

    But I and others hae posted several other Supreme Court cases that are in direct opposition to WKA.

    Again, as of 2004, no statute, law, or amendment has altered, changed, the Article 2 requiement, not has the language been changed.

    scurry lil Sue, surry

    The Obama is falling
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Sync1959, from your posts we know you are not a lawyer. Why? Because you would have failed Constitutional Law. First of all SCOTUS rulings are considered the law of the land unless there is another ruling that overturns it. (see Plessey v Fergerson overturned by Brown v Board of Ed). And the ruling by the Court in the Brown case ENDED any laws on the books that required segregation. There was no amendment or law needed because the SCOTUS had ruled and found any of those types of laws unconstitutional.

    Secondly you cite one founder and a couple of case laws as somehow that will invalidate Wong or show that it was a bad ruling. Again you show your ignorance of the law. First of all you would need to find a SCOTUS ruling that came after Wong in 1896 that contradicts the determination of the Court. So let us see one of your many cases that fit that category. We are waiting. Secondly your “opinion” that Wong was a flawed ruling. If you believe that then I have a request. Go to Westlaw or Lexis Nexis and see how many times Wong has been cited. According to Westlaw it has been over 1000 times. That is not a flawed decision, that is good case law which no court has seen fit to overturn. You don’t need another case to support Wong because the ruling in that case is so clearly defined. The SCOTUS won’t rule on a case to “support” another SCOTUS ruling. That is not how it works.

    No law or anything has changed the Article 2 requirement because it was never defined until Wong. So you would be correct. Wong is the law of the land. Whether you like it or not it is here to stay.

  278. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    snoozey declares; Congress enacted USC 8, 1401 which reinforces the mandate of the 14th amendment, and supports Wong Kim Ark, that children born within the United States are citizens at birth.

    Citizens, but NOT Natural Born Citizens

    Boy, you fell into that one and you also forgot the OTHER part of JURISDICTION beig required.

    Here let me post it for you.

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    ‘subject to the JURISDICION thereof’

    But Barack Obama was NOT subject to the JURISDICTION, was he. NO!
    He was under the JURISDICTION/LAW of the British Nationality Act of 1948 as he stated so clearly!

    Just to make sure Snoozy keeps focused

    TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part I > § 1401Prev | Next § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    AGAIN, ‘SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF.’

    SO OBAMA WAS NEVER UNDER THE JURISDICTION, NO UNITED STATES LAW GOVERNING HIM AT BIRTH.

  279. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    PUSSY CAT -No law or anything has changed the Article 2 requirement because it was never defined until Wong. So you would be correct. Wong is the law of the land. Whether you like it or not it is here to stay.

    No amendment has been ratified. Article 2 stands. The sole reason even SR511 has no weight against declaring what is protected by the Constitution.

  280. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    Neither can any Obot cite one Supreme Court casethat back up WKA, hence a flawed decision.

    What?

    Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998), 422

    The Constitution “contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” Scalia, concurring and citing Wong.

    Stevens also says the same thing at the beginning of the judgment.

    Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), 212

    Justice Gray concluded that “[e]very 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.”

    This means that anybody born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth. This means that anybody born in the US is a natural born citizen.

    Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), 829

    Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), 266

    Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), 58

    In every one of these decisions, the Supreme Court positively cites and extensively discusses Wong.

    There are many cases in the Supreme Court, and dozens more in the lower federal courts that use Wong as a guide in citizenship cases, and not a single one of them has ever referred to the case as “flawed.”

    Edit re: “subject to the jurisdiction”

    Take another look (or more likely, a first look) at Plyler v. Doe. The requirement of being subject to jurisdiction is solely to ensure that the children of foreign diplomats are not US citizens at birth.

    Anybody in the US, somebody who’s lived here all their life or an undocumented worker who crossed the border two weeks ago, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US government while inside the US. This does not apply to foreign diplomats due to diplomatic immunity and concerns of sovereignty.

    Thus, anybody born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the US at birth. That makes them a citizen from birth, which is synonymous with being a natural born citizen, as stated in Wong and its progeny.

  281. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    December 1, 2009 at 10:04 am

    No amendment has been ratified. Article 2 stands. The sole reason even SR511 has no weight against declaring what is protected by the Constitution.

    So what? That has nothing to do with whether or not President Obama, by being born in the US is a NBC. Again with your strawman argument regarding SR511 and constitutiona amendments. Wong specifically addressed being born in the US. Period. Obama was. Bringing up irrelevant issues doesn’t change the facts.

    Silly1959, you claim to be an intelligent person. Define what “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. Then go and look up where in United States immigration or citizenship laws does it state that the US will defer to other countries in regards to who it declares to be eligible to be a citizen. Again you prove with every post that you have no grasp of legal terminology. By virtue of being born in the US, Obama was a natural born citizen. No matter what any other country may say or claim. The US doesn’t care what other countries may claim. If that was the case there are a lot of Americans that are born in the US that are not citizens.

    It is kind of funny how you choose to ignore things you are unable to respond to. Stick to making up scientific analysis because you are out of your league when it comes to the law.

  282. 12/1/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    December 1, 2009 at 10:01 am

    No. I didn’t “fall into” anything. “Natural born citizen”, “native”, “native born”, “citizen at birth”, “natural-born citizen” all mean the same thing. They were used interchangeably in a number of Supreme Court opinions and in particular in Wong Kim Ark. Deny it all you want on your moderated blogs, you will never get anywhere with that game in a court of law. You are a parser of facts, a misrepresenter of what Supreme Court decisions and the Constitution mean. You lie about the law to try to convince others. You get away with it at your blog, freeper, texas broadcasting et al because the comments are heavily moderated so that clear facts are never allowed. You take advantage of people who don’t have the intellectual horsepower to fact check you and who want to believe your BS so badly, they don’t question it.

    “Natural born citizen”, “native”, “native born”, “citizen at birth”, “natural-born citizen” all mean the same thing.

  283. 12/1/2009siseduermapierda says:

    Oops, forgot one point. Even a cursory read of USC 8, 1401 would explain the only children who would NOT be under the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of their birth inside the United States would be the children of ambassadors, dignitaries or the children of invading soldiers. You have yet to explain exactly how the laws of another country would ever apply to a child born in Hawaii to a US citizen mother. Just another attempt to twist and bend some information to convince the useful idiots who will simply read and parrot what you write. You pander to those with low intellectual ability who don’t think to deeply about anything and who want to believe something, anything that might relieve them of a President they don’t like. You are despicable to use people who don’t know any better.

  284. 12/1/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    November 30, 2009 at 11:11 pm
    *saving the big guns for court. But fear not! *

    Oh baloney! Until it came out that the DA in Monroe County had confirmed Mr Fitzpatrick will be speaking to the grand jury only about his complaint about the foreman and the DA, you were advertising that Fitzpatrick was doing a full “presentment” with your “material”. You aren’t really the insider you purport to be. You simply make stuff up and exaggerate and pretend to be “in the know”. There is no more court. After 50+ suits against Obama have been dismissed, there is no more anything left to argue. Your “material” has been determined to be irrelevant. Sure, you can fuss and parse and squawk at Freep and TBN and Sam Seward’s and SGJ and the Betrayal, but there won’t be any more court cases. Come on, have you even got yourself fooled too?

  285. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    From today’s barackryphal blog…Interesting post on sync1959…

    Steve Christiansen, the Birther “Genealogist”

    Birthers love their experts. Specifically, they love anonymous experts. People who produce pseudo-academic work supporting the Birther cause while claiming to possess expert credentials, but who don’t produce such things as their real names or any evidence of the expert credentials they claim they have.

    TechDude was the original forensic expert darling of the Birther crowd, claiming to have extensive forensic credentials, but keeping his identity secret. He was eventually exposed as a fraud. After that, Ron Polarik took to creating an expert resume for himself, and for a year was the Birthers’ new favorite expert, all while keeping his true identity secret and refusing to produce proof of any forensic credentials. Then he was exposed as a fraud too.

    In the last four months, after Polarik was exposed, the Birthers have found themselves yet another document expert: “Steve Cee,” a supposed genealogist. And, for a perfect strikeout, the Birthers seem to have fallen for a third fake expert.

    Phil at ‘The Right Side of Life’ recently wrote:

    “[Factcheck's employees] may be very well credentialed in their chosen fields, but it hardly seems fitting that individuals who are not trained in the science of document forensics — like four otherwise credentialed examiners have been -”

    Phil’s link goes to Parker “Beckwith” Shannon’s TheObamaFile, where the four “credentialed examiners” who are “trained in the science of document forensics” that Phil mentions are: “Dr. Ron Polarik,” Sandra Ramsey Lines, “a genealogist,” and “MissTickly — aka TerriK.

    Note that three out of four of Phil and Parker’s “credentialed examiners” don’t even have real names. TechDude thankfully isn’t listed, but Shannon still falsely claims that Polarik/Polland “specializes in computer graphics,” which everyone but Shannon has known to be flatly untrue for months.

    One of these “credentialed examiners” isn’t even listed with his fake name. Of the “genealogist,” Shannon writes:

    A third investigator, a genealogist, says The FactCheck.org Certificates of Live Birth (COLB) have been an issue since they were posted…

    This genealogist concludes the COLBs are forgeries, plain and simple.

    Forgery #1 – The COLB posted on ‘Fight the Smears’ – No Stamp, No Seal, evidence of tampering and forgery. Sandra Ramsey Lines, Ron Polirak, and myself, among others.

    Forgery #2 – FactCheck – Two different COLB’s one with a SEAL, however NOT an Official State of Hawaii Department of Health SEAL

    Forgery #3 – FactCheck – COLB without a SEAL, image of COLB being held up. High resolution and NO indicating of a SEAL.

    This post isn’t about the “genealogist’s” “research.” But I do want to point out that his theory here is that Obama’s people gave the FactCheck employees two different birth certificates during their visit, and that the FactCheck employees were either in on the scam or were too utterly incompetent to notice that they were given one document with a seal, which was then taken away, and then they were given a second document without a seal.

    The “genealogist” behind this absurdity went by “Steve Cee”. On July 28, 2009, The Steady Drip shared this material and wrote “This information was provided by Steve Cee, a genealogist, who has also authored this new analysis…Steve’s contribution adds to Dr. Ron Polarik’s extensive forensic examination.” As it happened, the very next day “Dr. Ron Polarik” was revealed to possess precisely ZERO forensic credentials. “Steve Cee’s” work is admittedly on par with that.

    Where did The Steady Drip get the “genealogist” label? Two days earlier he’d written “Steve Cee decided to confirm if Klein’s statement were factual and sent a series of emails to the State of Hawaii…Identifying himself as a genealogist, Steve specifically asked…” Steve is identified as a “genealogist” because when he’d called and harassed some folks in Hawaii, that’s what he called himself on the phone.

    Enough backstory, let’s get on with the real story. Who is the “genealogist” that Parker Shannon considers an expert and who RSoL Phil deems a “credentialed examiner” with forensic training?

    He is Steve Christiansen of Boise, Idaho. You may know him as “ch22240″ or as “syc1959,” the latter being the handle that he uses to post at RSoL itself, and the name he used to sign his “research”. He runs Nobarack08 and he posts Birther YouTube videos. And at 50 years old, he’s in the same age demographic that so many vocal Birthers seem to be.*

    Is Steve a credentialed examiner, like Phil claimed and like Steve wants you to believe? No. Does he have forensic experience, like Phil claimed and like Steve wants you to believe? No more than Polarik does. He is yet another in a line of anonymous pseudo-experts that the Birthers keep putting their uncritical faith in.

    Two months ago, I confronted Steve with this, and asked for his credentials. Here is how the conversation went down:

    Me: “Everyone who cites your paper online offers only “genealogist” as your expertise. Now I rather enjoy genealogy, but what in your genealogy past gives you experience in digital image examination?”

    Steve: “You’d be surprised at my past and experience.”

    Me: “So surprise me.”

    Steve: “You will be!”

    Steve then promptly disappeared from FreeRepublic for two months, starting that very day. No credentials have been proffered in the eight weeks since. After Phil stated that Steve is a “credentialed expert” the other day, Steve made several dozen posts in the comments thread without even hinting that he was one of Phil’s supposed forensic experts.

    Finally, Steve was asked again for these alleged credentials. His response? “All in good time. When the time is right.” He then promptly started talking about Perkins Coie and citizen grand juries and criminal conspiracies and Obama’s poll numbers and Bill Richardson quotes and Obama’s birth certificate from the 1970s and how complaints aren’t being dismissed on the merits…all in the same post. When confronted with his months of deception, his response was not only to change the subject, but to attempt to change it to as many different subjects as possible.

    When given one more chance to say whether he actually has any background in forensics, Steve wrote only: “I will not divulge this.” Steve is apparently content with Phil describing him as a “credentialed examiner” with training in forensics, but adamantly refuses to provide so much as a scintilla of actual credentials to anyone to support this description.

    When Steve has felt prompted to cite his credentials under other circumstances, unprompted by skeptics such as myself, what has he offered up? Only that he is a former service member (though he doesn’t state which branch, or when or how long he served), and that he joined Oath Keepers earlier this year. That’s quite a resume, isn’t it?

    As for his status as a “genealogist,” there is no Steve Christiansen who is a member of the Association of Professional Genealogists, and he has actually described his own expertise as follows: “I’ve done some genealogy research myself.” In other words, he’s as much of a genealogist as I am.

    So there you have it. Steve Christiansen is a man who doesn’t want you to know what credentials he may or may not possess, but who wants you and everyone else to believe that he really does have secret awesome credentials that totally validate his wild conspiracy theories. He’s Polarik 2.0, and until he produces proof of expertise that support his claims of expertise, he is no more an “expert” than the next anonymous hack.

    http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/12/steve-christiansen-birther-genealogist.html

  286. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    way cool. But you still have no background on me.
    Thatnks for the post pussy cat

  287. 12/1/2009siseduermapierda says:

    *He’s Polarik 2.0, and until he produces proof of expertise that support his claims of expertise, he is no more an “expert” than the next anonymous hack.*

    Thanks for that BL. I never understood what having genealogy experience had to do with pointing out features of Adobe documents that exist for Every scan of document saved as a jpg in Adobe and trying to make it sound like they were some “special” evidence of anything about a scan of a COLB. Like I have said before, Steve plays on people’s ignorance, lack of intellectual horsepower, and eagerness to believe to sell his nonsense, or “material” as he calls it. Steve also posts as jcarter1977 at TBN. That’s how he started here a few weeks ago, by cross-posting back to his own blog as if he were some passerby who “discovered” *New* information at nobarack08.

  288. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    December 1, 2009 at 11:35 am
    way cool. But you still have no background on me.
    Thatnks for the post pussy cat

    No problem silly1959…It definately is cool to know just like with all of your posts you can’t back up anything you claim….

  289. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    Black Lion says:
    November 29, 2009 at 6:23 pm “According to research by Loren . . .”

    Ooooh, “research.” Impressive. I digress . . .

    Black Lion, you’re amazing. Somehow you manage to link to something as proof/evidence of syc1959′s identity before the evidence is even posted. Your link goes to an article posted by “Loren” Dec. 1, 2009, 12:35 a.m. Are you prescient or something?

    btw, who cares what pseudonyms anyone has gone by? Does your “Loren” tell us who he or she REALLY is? Also, btw, very WELL READ blog Loren has there. Not! Also, btw, Loren has no “profile” on the blog. How in the world can we EVER rely on the accuracy of Loren’s “research” then?

    Do we know who YOU really are?

    Your ever-morphing personalities suggest, at least to me, that “Black Lion” is a group. Who else are YOU, Black Lion?

    Black Lion apparently said, as quoted by syc1959: “The birther movement is filled with individuals that don’t have the credentials that they claim . . . ”

    One might also contend, as I believe Phil has done in this post, that FactCheck is similarly filled with individuals who don’t have the credentials that they apparently claim.

    FactCheck, for the umpteenth time, is a BLOG. Like Steve’s. Like Loren’s.

    The entity known as FactCheck blog, which supposedly vouched for the authenticity of the COLB, has NEVER identified the authenticators of that COLB, much less provided their credentials in forensic document vetting, if there is such a specialty.

    These people write articles on a blog. The above-named inviduals (Henig and Miller) who composed the supposedly authenticating article at FactCheck BLOG do not state that THEY are the “representatives” or “staffers” of FactCheck who SAW the alleged document or photographed it.

    Those individuals remain anonymous. Why won’t they come out and publicly state that they saw and photographed the item in question? It’s very interesting to me that FactCheck reports that these anonymous “staffers” saw and photographed the document, yet FactCheck blog pointedly does NOT identify those people.

    Plausible deniability? You be the judge.

    As far as commenters using multiple pseudonyms: The arguments and issues are what is important, not the identity of the speaker.

    We all have common sense (at least, most people do; I can’t speak for everyone who comments here. Far from it.) Nonetheless, syc1959 is correct when he points out that the embossed seal on the FactCheck blog photos of A COLB is NOT the official seal of the State of Hawaii. Anyone with eyes to SEE, can SEE that for themselves. They don’t need “credentials.”

    Why didn’t they photograph the entire back side of that alleged authentic COLB? Why did they photograph the document at such odd angles, under such odd lighting? Is that they way an ordinary person would do it?

    No. An ordinary person would put it down on a desk, under good lighting, and photograph the front and the back. It’s as if whoever took those photos went to great pains to make the photos as obfuscating as most of the comments by True Believers on this blog.

  290. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    syc1959 said, “Why does one posted on FactCheck, contained an illegal forged SEAL that the State of Hawaii has stated DOES NOT bear any resemblance to theirs?

    F. Who applied this SEAL and is not fabriction of document – forgery?”

    There’s the nub of the issue. IF it’s not tha seal of the State of Hawaii, which it obviously is not, then where is the “forgery?” Plausible deniability. A legal question that any clever lawyer, being the weasels that far too many True Believer lawyers are, can weasel out of. Everyone’s anonymous. Who’s the person who provided the document? Who’s the person who photographed the document? Who’s holding the document? Who’s sitting in the chair to the left of the guy holding the document? Who knows? All anonymous. No proof. No three-dimensional document. Only photoshopped photos. Ergo, no forgery. See how cute they are? But the obfuscation served its purpose. Even in courts of law.

  291. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    Black Lion said about Manning and Keyes: “They just happen to be a couple of Toms that have been exploited . . . ”

    So there it is in a nutshell: All you need to know, but were afraid to ask, about Black Lion.

  292. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    Sue said, again, and falsely, “No one has their ‘original birth certificate.’” Wrong. I have mine. Complete with my little footprints on it.

  293. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    The entity known as FactCheck blog, which supposedly vouched for the authenticity of the COLB, has NEVER identified the authenticators of that COLB, much less provided their credentials in forensic document vetting, if there is such a specialty.

    I don’t blame them. Look at the completely needless attempted character assassination of one of Judge Carter’s clerks, or the personal threats Judge Land reported receiving over the phone and through mail.

    FactCheck, for the umpteenth time, is a BLOG. Like Steve’s. Like Loren’s.

    And one of those blogs was considered credible enough to be cited by both Dick Cheney and John Edwards during a vice presidential debate.

    We all have common sense (at least, most people do; I can’t speak for everyone who comments here. Far from it.) Nonetheless, syc1959 is correct when he points out that the embossed seal on the FactCheck blog photos of A COLB is NOT the official seal of the State of Hawaii. Anyone with eyes to SEE, can SEE that for themselves. They don’t need “credentials.”

    syc is simply factually incorrect. His credentials are also actually important, because if he is declaring a document to be a forgery, he should at least have some specialty in forensics upon which he can make his determination. Forensics is a very specialized field, and syc seems to have no experience in forensics. Heck, he may have even lied to the Dept of Health when he said he was a genealogist.

    Relying on syc’s analysis to reach your conclusion is like relying on a history professor’s opinion about DNA to reach your conclusion about mitosis. When you’re making such a huge accusation, why not at least talk to an actual biology professor? Why not at least talk to somebody who has forensic experience?

    Lines is the only credentialed person Phil cites, and she says the only sensible thing: she’d need to see the actual document to know for sure.

    Edit:

    Wrong. I have mine. Complete with my little footprints on it.

    That’s not the original. Your original birth certificate is in some storage or archive facility in the state in which you were born. The one you have with your footprints is the copy you were given at birth.

  294. 12/1/2009siseduermapierda says:

    MGB says:
    December 1, 2009 at 1:21 pm
    Sue said, again, and falsely, “No one has their ‘original birth certificate.’” Wrong. I have mine. Complete with my little footprints on it.

    HA! Footprints? That’s a hospital souvenir, not a legal birth certificate. No one has their original birth certificate. The county in which you were born has the original. Your momma may have been given copies that date back to your birth, but she didn’t get the original

  295. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    MGB says:
    December 1, 2009 at 1:00 pm
    Black Lion says:
    November 29, 2009 at 6:23 pm “According to research by Loren . . .”

    Ooooh, “research.” Impressive. I digress . . .

    Black Lion, you’re amazing. Somehow you manage to link to something as proof/evidence of syc1959’s identity before the evidence is even posted. Your link goes to an article posted by “Loren” Dec. 1, 2009, 12:35 a.m. Are you prescient or something?
    ___________________________________________________________________
    First of all MGB I am not the one making claims that I am some sort of expert and linking people to some sort of junk scientific analysis that I posted on my blog. Steve made the claim without providing any details of his background which would give his analyis the veracity it would need to be taken seriously. Loren was the guy that was able to expose the fraud Polarik as Ronald Jay Polland so I would think he has some knowledge of what he is talking about. I linked you to the blog posting so if Steve has an issue with Loren I am sure he can challenge him if he is really not Steve Christiansen. Somehow I think that he is so he won’t challenge Loren on what he wrote.

    Factcehck never made any claims about having a forensic or scientific background. All they did was take photos of a document, which you don’t need to have any qualifications to do. However, it was these birther so called document experts that exposed themselves to be frauds…The unknown genelogist, techdude, and Polarik all were jokes that the birther movement supported because no reputable forensic examiner would have ever made the ridiculous conclusions that they did. The only reputable person, Dr Lines, stated that she could not make a conclusion without examining the actual document.

    You mention the seal of HI. Do you have proof that the state of HI did not issue the seal that is on the President’s COLB? If so how about sharing it with us. We only have unsubstantiated comments that HI stated that the seal was not the official HI seal. Let’s see where that information came from.

    And Keyes and Manning. Are you offended? After the language that they have used to describe the President of the United States, the fact that I called them a couple of Toms bother you? Keyes is a certified loser. He has run for office numerous times and lost. Manning is a ex convict. If that is the extent if the minorities involved in supporting the birthers, who have people from Stormfront involved in the movement, then they obviously have some sort of an agenda. All it tells you about me is that I support the rule of law, the Constitution, and the legitimately elected President of the US.

  296. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman: The person who quoted a marine, who was allegedly told by Obama that he was born in Mombasa, is discredited by you because it’s second hand information. This reminds me very much of the Barbara Nelson story, which you seem to accept as proof of something, even though her backtracked-upon memory recounts a supposed conversation with a now-deceased physician, who didn’t even practice medicine at the time. So it all depends upon whose ox is being gored, doesn’t it?

  297. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    syc1959: fyi, the “article” that Obama talked about in his fictional, ghost-written “auto”biography is a newspaper article from the Honolulu Advertiser, that documented his father’s (?) students days in Hawaii. You can probably find it in their archives. If not, it’s been cited elsewhere.

  298. 12/1/2009siseduermapierda says:

    MGB says:
    December 1, 2009 at 1:10 pm
    * IF it’s not tha seal of the State of Hawaii, which it obviously is not*

    Uh, how can you tell? You’re saying it’s not because Steve showed you some blurry pictures with arrows and tells you it’s not? What authority has said the COLB is not authentic? The only people who have actually seen it, held it, examined it and wrote about it are the factcheck writers. Steve’s pictures are like Bigfoot pictures – he has to tell you what it is you’re supposed to be looking at and you have to squint and believe. Loren has proven that Steve is just another nobody who is clever enough to prey on people’s ignorance, lack of curiousity to verify what he says and eagerness to believe he’s right.

  299. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    MGB says:
    December 1, 2009 at 1:35 pm
    qwertyman: The person who quoted a marine, who was allegedly told by Obama that he was born in Mombasa, is discredited by you because it’s second hand information. This reminds me very much of the Barbara Nelson story, which you seem to accept as proof of something, even though her backtracked-upon memory recounts a supposed conversation with a now-deceased physician, who didn’t even practice medicine at the time. So it all depends upon whose ox is being gored, doesn’t it?
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Not all all. The birthers only want to “gore” Obama and don’t care if they use the actual truth or not. Going back to the story of the Marine if I read it correctly the guy was even sure that it was Obama that he met. This is kind of like the infamous story of the birther who was pretty sure that he saw AG Holder in a coffee shop outside Judge Land’s court the same day that AG Holder was in California. A third party e-mail chain where no one uses their name so that the story could be verified. Barbara Nelson used her name and the name of the person she said told her the story. So to equate this fairy tale with the story Ms. Nelson told is like comparing Steve’s fantasy qualifications to the actual qualificaions of Dr. Lines.

  300. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman said, in reference to FactCheck’s anonymous “fact checkers”: “I don’t blame them. Look at the completely needless attempted character assassination of one of Judge Carter’s clerks, or the personal threats Judge Land reported receiving over the phone and through mail.”

    Yet, somehow, many of your like-minded compatriots do seem to “blame” people like “Polarik” and syc1959 for preferring to remain anonymous, despite that persons who oppose Obama and question his eligibility are very similarly subject to character assassination and threats of physical harm.

    Again, it all depends upon whose ox is being gored. Could you try a little equanimity, please?

  301. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    The person who quoted a marine, who was allegedly told by Obama that he was born in Mombassa, is discredited by you because it’s second hand information. This reminds me very much of the Barbara Nelson story, which you seem to accept as proof of something, even though her backtracked-upon memory recounts a supposed conversation with a now-deceased physician, who didn’t even practice medicine at the time. So it all depends upon whose ox is being gored, doesn’t it?

    I also give that story no credence because it says that he met Obama in 1980 in Hawaii. Only problem is that in 1980 Obama was attending Occidental College in Los Angeles. It comes with its own superfluous right wing commentary and even if everything in there were true, the guy himself says he doesn’t know if the person he met was a young Obama. All of that is without reference to the fact that there are multiple birth announcements from 1961 in Honolulu papers announcing Obama’s birth and an official birth certificate from the state of Hawaii announcing his birth in Honolulu, and multiple statements from the Department of Health backing that the original birth certificate, as well as the index data, showing Obama’s birth in Honolulu.

    The Barbara Nelson story is merely circumstantial evidence, not nearly as dispositive as the birth certificate itself. Barbara Nelson recalled a conversation she had with a doctor in 1961 about the birth of a boy named Barack Obama in Honolulu. The fact that the doctor she talked with wasn’t normally practicing in that hospital at that time does not mean that Nelson was lying.

    Also, one story was reported by a reputable news organization, the other is some email forward that’s going to wind up being debunked on snopes in the next several days, most likely because when this person claims to have met Obama in Hawaii in 1980, Obama was not living in Hawaii.

  302. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman said, “And one of those blogs was considered credible enough to be cited by both Dick Cheney and John Edwards during a vice presidential debate.” So what? Who cares? Just goes to show that even people like Cheney and Edwards don’t have their “facts” in hand. They need better researchers.

    qwertyman also said, “syc is simply factually incorrect. His credentials are also actually important, because if he is declaring a document to be a forgery, he should at least have some specialty in forensics upon which he can make his determination.”

    Consider the irony. BUT FactCheck’s anonymous staffers can somehow vouch for the authenticity of the supposed Obama COLB without any credentials whatsoever in forensics? qwertyman, I am truly amazed by your apparent lack of objectivity. Again, how about a little equanimity? Fair and balanced, you know?

    You’re wrong about my birth certificate. I DO have the “original” in my possession. If the first birth certificate, written up, signed by the delivering physician, and authenticated by my very own footprints isn’t my “original” birth certificate, then I don’t know what is. Yes, there’s another at the state. But the “original” would BE the original. The first one created. That birth certificate I do have in my possession, so it is a complete lie to state that nobody has their original birth certificate, only a copy.

  303. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    First off;

    I am a genealogist and family historian. I never stated that I was on a board.
    As discribed below. Other members of my family are also the same.

    That does not egate the documents that I have shown, the research that has been presented and the statements from the State of Hawaii that prove that the Obama COLB is forged.

    However my backgound does include training on document forgery among a host of others that
    backs up what I state.

    Unlike the convicts and low-lifes that you mention, I am clean.

    Genealogy (from Greek: γενεά, genea, “generation”; and λόγος, logos, “knowledge”) is the study of families and the tracing of their lineages and history. Genealogists use oral traditions, historical records, genetic analysis, and other records to obtain information about a family and to demonstrate kinship and pedigrees of its members. The results are often displayed in charts or written as narratives.

    Some scholars differentiate between genealogy and family history, limiting genealogy to an account of kinship, while using “family history” to denote the provision of additional details about lives and historical context.

    Hobbyist genealogists typically pursue their own ancestry and that of their spouses. Professional genealogists may also conduct research for others, publish books on genealogical methods, teach, or work for companies that provide software or online databases. Both try to understand not just where and when people lived, but also their lifestyles, biographies, and motivations. This often requires — or leads to — knowledge of antiquated laws, old political boundaries, migration trends, and historical social conditions.

    Genealogists sometimes specialize in a particular group, e.g. a Scottish clan; a particular surname, such as in a one-name study; a small community, e.g. a single village or parish, such as in a one-place study; or a particular, often famous, person. Bloodlines of Salem is an example of a specialized family-history group. It welcomes members who are able to prove descent from a participant of the Salem Witch Trials or who choose simply to support the group.

    Genealogists and family historians often join family history societies, where novices can learn from more experienced researchers. Such societies may also index records to make them more accessible, and engage in advocacy and other efforts to preserve public records and cemeteries.

  304. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    MGB says:
    December 1, 2009 at 1:46 pm
    qwertyman said, in reference to FactCheck’s anonymous “fact checkers”: “I don’t blame them. Look at the completely needless attempted character assassination of one of Judge Carter’s clerks, or the personal threats Judge Land reported receiving over the phone and through mail.”

    Yet, somehow, many of your like-minded compatriots do seem to “blame” people like “Polarik” and syc1959 for preferring to remain anonymous, despite that persons who oppose Obama and question his eligibility are very similarly subject to character assassination and threats of physical harm.

    Again, it all depends upon whose ox is being gored. Could you try a little equanimity, please?
    ___________________________________________________________________
    MGB, you leave out the part that neither Steve or Ronald Jay Polland (Polarik and sync1959) have the qualifications that they CLAIMED they did. So in this case their backgrounds are germane to the statements and conclusions they are making. Once you discover that they lied about have the requesite qualifications to make the proper conclusions, then their analysis and contentions are not valid. Dr. Lines was the only person that had the proper background and she was honest and stated that there was no way you could determine anything without examining the actual document. She released her name and background and did not endure any sort of public ridicule or character assassination. No ones character was assassinated. The only people attacking peoples character are the birthers, attacking Judge Carter’s law clerk and making baseless accusations.

  305. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    Yet, somehow, many of your like-minded compatriots do seem to “blame” people like “Polarik” and syc1959 for preferring to remain anonymous, despite that persons who oppose Obama and question his eligibility are very similarly subject to character assassination and threats of physical harm.

    Like I said, if somebody is claiming particular knowledge in forensics to make a conclusion about the legitimacy of a document, they should have some knowledge or training of the field.

    I would not ask a history professor to interpret a DNA analysis, and I would not as a biologist to analyze the historical causes of the Civil War.

    Polland has no forensics experience. Syc seems to have none as well. However, you seem to be willing to absolutely latch on to them because they say what you want to hear.

    All factcheck did was physically touch and take pictures of the COLB. I am no forensic analyst, but I do trust Krawetz, who has publicly said why every allegation of the birthers about some “forgery” is completely incorrect.

    http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/235-Bad-Science-How-Not-To-Do-Image-Analysis-Part-II.html

  306. 12/1/2009Sue says:

    “MGB says:
    December 1, 2009 at 1:21 pm
    Sue said, again, and falsely, “No one has their ‘original birth certificate.’” Wrong. I have mine. Complete with my little footprints on it.”

    No, I am not wrong. Try using your “little footprints BC” to obtain a driver’s license, passport, etc.

    http://www.ehow.com/about_5410639_birth-certificates.html
    Facts About Birth Certificates
    By Vivian Pearson
    excerpt
    “Issuing Body
    Birth certificates are issued by individual state health or vital records departments. In some jurisdictions, individual cities and counties maintain birth records, while other states maintain centralized vital records agencies. Although hospitals sometimes issue certificates to families following the birth of a child, these are generally not legal birth certificates and cannot be used as identification or proof of citizenship.”

  307. 12/1/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    “despite that persons who oppose Obama and question his eligibility are very similarly subject to character assassination and threats of physical harm.”

    I have yet to see any proof or evidence of your above statement.

  308. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    You’re wrong about my birth certificate. I DO have the “original” in my possession. If the first birth certificate, written up, signed by the delivering physician, and authenticated by my very own footprints isn’t my “original” birth certificate, then I don’t know what is.

    Legally, your original birth certificate is on file in an archive or storage facility in the state in which you were born. Sue correctly pointed out that what you have might not be sufficient for a passport. While what you have may be sufficient for anything, and it was given to you at your birth, the original birth certificate, by definition, stays on file with the state.

  309. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman says;Syc seems to have none as well. However, you seem to be willing to absolutely latch on to them because they say what you want to hear.

    Wrong, I was trained in document examination as part of my job. Plain and simple. I have expanded that along with examining historical documents in genelogy and family reasearch, which mine is very well documented.

    If you really look at my blog, you will see that I even show how the Obama marriage certificate is REAL. Therfore I am not limiting my research to just the COLB. I cover ‘document security’.

    But again, this goes not dispel the fact that the State of Hawaii in an e-mail, clearly states what the SEAL on the COLB should be, and the fact that Obama’s only has a seal on one of three presented and on that one it is NOT a valid seal.

    I will stand by material in a court of law.

  310. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    Black Lion: First of all, I don’t see how identifying Polarik does anything to detract from what he has said.

    Black Lion argues, “Steve made the claim without providing any details of his background which would give his analyis the veracity it would need to be taken seriously.”

    Yet Black Lion also says, “Factcehck [sic] never made any claims about having a forensic or scientific background.”

    From FactCheck blog’s own article:

    “And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is ‘fake’. We beg to differ.”

    Now that’s a claim if I ever read one. They “beg to differ.” In other words, they’re claiming that it’s not a “fake.” Yet THEY provide no details of their background “which would give” their analysis “the veracity it would need to be taken seriously.” Yes, they never said they have forensic backgrounds, yet they DO expect us to accept them at their word when they affirmatively, yet anonymously, state that the COLB is NOT “fake.”

    As for your comment about Manning and Keyes, I’m not offended because that particular racial insult was not and cannot appropriately be aimed at me. However, I have no doubt that Manning and Keyes, although they’ve probably been called that insult many times before, would be quite offended. As should anyone who is similarly called offensive names based solely upon their political and/or religious views.

    Isn’t it rather intolerant and stereotyping of the worst kind to refer to an African-American who opposes Obama as a “Tom”, as if every African-American MUST walk in lockstep with that majority of African-Americans who did support Obama? Talk about a “collective”.

  311. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    Wrong, I was trained in document examination as part of my job. Plain and simple. I have expanded that along with examining historical documents in genelogy [sic] and family reasearch [sic], which mine is very well documented.

    If you really look at my blog, you will see that I even show how the Obama marriage certificate is REAL. Therfore I am not limiting my research to just the COLB. I cover ‘document security’.

    But again, this goes not dispel the fact that the State of Hawaii in an e-mail, clearly states what the SEAL on the COLB should be, and the fact that Obama’s only has a seal on one of three presented and on that one it is NOT a valid seal.

    I will stand by material in a court of law.

    Well that’s the first time you’ve actually claimed experience in document examination. Do you have a degree in the field? Have you ever testified regarding the provenance of a document? Have you been deemed to meet Daubert standards to testify as an expert? You certainly seem to hold yourself out as an expert here, though your work with document examination seems to be at most tangential to your job as a genealogist, as your yourself said during your previous post describing your work.

    The thrust of your allegation here seems to be that you can’t recognize that the seal on the COLB is that of the State of Hawaii, and because of that, it’s fraudulent. That’s a huge accusation to make without seeing the document physically. No document expert worth their salt would opine on a document solely based on a picture of the document.

    By the way, genealogy does sound like interesting work, appeals to the amateur historian in me.

  312. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    Barackryphal likes to spread lies, so while everyone is reading, lets show who the real liar is – Barackryphal!

    Barackryphal –Where did The Steady Drip get the “genealogist” label? Two days earlier he’d written “Steve Cee decided to confirm if Klein’s statement were factual and sent a series of emails to the State of Hawaii…Identifying himself as a genealogist, Steve specifically asked…” Steve is identified as a “genealogist” because when he’d called and harassed some folks in Hawaii, that’s what he called himself on the phone.

    SYC1959 – First off I am a genealogist/family historian. I never stated/claimed/showed that I was on a Board of any sort. Secondly, I never called the State of Hawaii. All coorospondence was done via, e-mail, so a paper trail would be established.

    Barackryphal —- Is Steve a credentialed examiner, like Phil claimed and like Steve wants you to believe? No. Does he have forensic experience, like Phil claimed and like Steve wants you to believe?

    SYC1959 – again Barackryphal lies, without knowing my background, work history, or anything, he assumes he can tell tall tales. I have been trained in document forensics as part of a previous job. Taken this along with the genelogicalhistorical work, the two mesh very well. So again, trying to place me in the same as others, will not work.

    Barackryphal —–Me: “Everyone who cites your paper online offers only “genealogist” as your expertise. Now I rather enjoy genealogy, but what in your genealogy past gives you experience in digital image examination?”

    syc1959 — I have a rather extensive backgound in both graphics, computers, softeware, systems, ect. I have testified and given depostitions on the like and have been vindicated in all cases.
    The Perkin Coie case that he likes to state was a REAL case, they were attempting to defame someone, and the evidence was staggering, however I knew better and proved that their evidence was not only flawed, but completely untrustworthy. Perkins Coie lost the case.
    That is a fact. So when I state I have personal knowledge for their tactics and such, I mean it.

    And because of this, If I had been one of the two at FactCheck, I would have seen the discrepincies of the COLB and stated them at that time.

    No one at any time has proven my statements to be false. People like Barackryphal, BL, Sue and a host of others have attempted to mis-represent the facts. That is why they swam places like this.
    I have documented their lies and have contacted the local authorites as, I work with them.

  313. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    Sise said, about the alleged embossed seal not being authentic,

    “Uh, how can you tell? You’re saying it’s not because Steve showed you some blurry pictures with arrows and tells you it’s not? What authority has said the COLB is not authentic? The only people who have actually seen it, held it, examined it and wrote about it are the factcheck writers.”

    What tells me the seal is not authentic is

    1. I can see that it does not have words on it, only indented dots and dashes. No words.

    2. The official seal of Hawaii has WORDS on it: Department of Health. State of Hawaii. I noticed this discrepancy independent of “Steve”. I saw this for myself as soon as I examined the photos at FactCheck blog, when they first posted the photos. I read syc1959′s analysis months later and was happy to learn that someone concurs with what I can see with my own eyes.

    3. syc1959 has supplied us with email from vital records at the State of Hawaii, which affirm that, yes, their official seal embosses WORDS on documents. Not dots and dashes that signify nothing. Actual words! What a novel thought.

    You ask what authority has said that the COLB is not authentic. I must ask you: What authority has said that the COLB IS authentic? By your own admission, “The only people who have actually seen it, held it, examined it and wrote about it are the factcheck writers.”

    If that’s true, then how can ANYONE say that it’s authentic?

    Who, exactly, are “the only people who have actually seen it, held it, examined it?” They’re anonymous. The FactCheck blog writers do not say that they are the “staffers” or “representatives” who saw the COLB at Obama headquarters. Why don’t they say WHO saw it and photographed it?

    Another thought about that seal: I do notice that they DON’T claim that the seal they saw is the official seal of the State of Hawaii. They write, “We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal.”

    A raised seal. Not THE official seal of Hawaii. Here’s a link to their article, for anybody who wants to see for themselves how cleverly they dance around, in an attempt to give the impression that the COLB is real without actually SWEARING to that as FACT. OR telling us WHO supposedly saw and photographed this document.

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

  314. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    The Perkin Coie case that he likes to state was a REAL case, they were attempting to defame someone, and the evidence was staggering, however I knew better and proved that their evidence was not only flawed, but completely untrustworthy. Perkins Coie lost the case.
    That is a fact. So when I state I have personal knowledge for their tactics and such, I mean it.

    Can you tell me the name of the case? Where it took place, when, the parties?

    syc1959 — I have a rather extensive backgound in both graphics, computers, softeware, systems, ect. I have testified and given depostitions on the like and have been vindicated in all cases.

    For somebody claiming particular expertise, you’re either extremely tired, or a very bad speller. It seems to me borderline inexcusable for a genealogist to misspell genealogy. I would be interested in seeing these cases in which you’ve testified and whether your testimony or depositions were contested.

  315. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman: So somehow you KNOW for a fact that Obama never set foot in Hawaii during 1980? How so?

  316. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    Black Lion said, “The only people attacking peoples character are the birthers, attacking Judge Carter’s law clerk and making baseless accusations”

    Uh, you’re not calling Manning and Keyes, among others, “Toms”, “convicts”, “losers”? Not to mention all the sexist and xenophobic comments directed at Dr. Taitz. All character assassination.

  317. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman says:Can you tell me the name of the case? Where it took place, when, the parties?

    syc1959 – you are not privy to that information. Too bad.

    qwertyman says:For somebody claiming particular expertise, you’re either extremely tired, or a very bad speller.

    syc1959 – no I am not a typist and hence some fat fingering gets done. I wouldn’t worry about it, I don’t.

  318. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    Sue says:
    December 1, 2009 at 2:05 pm
    MGB,

    “despite that persons who oppose Obama and question his eligibility are very similarly subject to character assassination and threats of physical harm.”

    I have yet to see any proof or evidence of your above statement.

    Sue, that would make me laugh if it weren’t so very sad. READ Phil’s blog with an open mind. Check out the insults that are thrown at people, including your host Phil, simply for having the unmitigated gall to ask Obama, our employee, to prove to our satisfaction that he is eligible to lead this nation under the requirements listed in the Supreme Law of the Land.

    In my last comment to Black Lion, I listed only a few of the insults. Much of this thread is dedicated TO character assassination of syc1959 and Polarik, who isn’t even here to defend himself. I, myself, have been the victim of “character assassination” at this blog and others. Go back and read some of the epithets thrown at attorneys Leo Donofrio and Orly Taitz. Both of whom, I might add, have said they were physically threatened, as was Polarik. There is animus to spare on both sides. Be honest and stop being ridiculous. Please.

  319. 12/1/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Now that we know that syc1959 is Steve Christiansen of Boise, there is no longer any rational reason (other than concealing the lie) to avoid proving his bone fides.

    The failure to do so is essentially an admission of complete dishonesty.

    Thanks for playing, sys. Try again.

  320. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    MGB, thats what is causing them so much grief. The fact that someone [anyone] was able to get that e-mail from the State of Hawaii, and what it states. They have nothing,because as I have maintained the COLB is a smoke screen, even Bill Clinton eluded to Obama being Constitutionaly qualified, remember.

    Their biggest fear is very simple. If and when ANY court decides to hear a case on the merits and they are told to produce the original document—- THEY CAN’T. It does not exist! At that point everything will point to the forged COLB and the fact that they lied.

    The State of Hawaii, has issued the statement, whereas they maintain the records on file.

    Last I checked people were only born once. Why does Barack Obama have more then one.

    They attempted to fool the public, with the Dr Rodney West story, ask the Obot’s who debunked that one rather quick, and WHY you haven’t heard any more about it!

    If they think, that I am going to shut up, screw them, I have a whole lot more, and people are being told, should anything happen to me.

  321. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    I’m ready to take a vote:

    Anybody who doubts Obama’s claims about where he was born, and to whom, raise your hands if you would accept his “original birth certificate” from the HOSPITAL where he was born, if it had his little footprints on it and the signature of the attending physician?

    I vote YES! How about you?

    Let’s see the hospital birth certificate.

    Let’s see the birth certificate referenced in his fictional, ghost-written “auto”biography.

    Let’s see the State of Hawaii produce a new COLB from their database, certify it, and deliver it directly to any of the courts where eligibility cases are under consideration.

  322. 12/1/2009Loren says:

    MGB wrote:

    Black Lion, you’re amazing. Somehow you manage to link to something as proof/evidence of syc1959’s identity before the evidence is even posted. Your link goes to an article posted by “Loren” Dec. 1, 2009, 12:35 a.m. Are you prescient or something?

    No, you just apparently can’t tell time. Black Lion appears to have reposted my piece at 11:14 a.m. today. That was almost 11 hours AFTER 12:35 a.m.

    Does your “Loren” tell us who he or she REALLY is?

    He. And yes, I do.

  323. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    qwertyman: So somehow you KNOW for a fact that Obama never set foot in Hawaii during 1980? How so?

    No, I don’t know beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama did not set foot in Hawaii in August 1980 at the time the Marine alleges his possible meeting. However, this guy claims that the young man said he lived in Hawaii – at the time, Obama was living in LA while attending Occidental. The claim was made that the young man said he grew up in Indonesia – Obama didn’t grow up in Indonesia, he only spent a few years there. Most of his upbringing was in Hawaii. The young man claims he was born in Mombasa – I have never ever understood why birthers think Obama was born in Mombasa – it’s 1000 miles in the wrong direction from Obama Srs. village, a long, bumpy road in a third world country in a politically charged area at the time. Of course, the entire birther theory makes no logical sense either, so there’s that.

    syc1959 – you are not privy to that information. Too bad.

    Fair enough. Forgive me for not taking you at your word – I have been lied to far too many times by birthers.

    Uh, you’re not calling Manning and Keyes, among others, “Toms”, “convicts”, “losers”? Not to mention all the sexist and xenophobic comments directed at Dr. Taitz.

    I agree, it’s pretty ridiculous to refer to black Republicans or conservatives as uncle toms. However, they do get exploited by the party – witness RNC Chairman Steele saying that he’s noticed white Republicans act intimidated in front of him, which he thinks was for racial reasons. Rev. Manning is a reformed convict, and he made direct threats on the life of President Obama in his sermons. His church has no more than a few dozen members, but has an influence far outweighing what a preacher with a parish that small should have.

    As for Taitz, I don’t recall any sexist language towards her; I’ve heard people point out the irony of her making her natural born citizen argument that would leave her own children ineligible for the presidency. I’ve also heard her, and called her myself, one of the absolutely most incompetent lawyers I’ve ever seen. That’s a statement I stand by.

  324. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    syc1959: I’m sure you meant to write that Clinton alluded to Obama’s INeligibility. Which he did. That was a snark of a major kind. Shot across the bow. Probably cinched the position for “Hil” and reminded Obama who holds the cards. In addition, Howard Dean long ago called Obama’s potential POTUS candidacy “flawed.” So he knows, too. As does Pelosi. As does McCaskill, who got to sit near The One at her very first state dinner last week and who helped pass that eligibility resolution. Valiant try on her part, but it didn’t work out quite they way they planned it. Not to worry. They found another way to put one over on the electorate. Until the other shoe drops, that is. All in good time.

  325. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    MGB says:
    December 1, 2009 at 2:31 pm
    Black Lion: First of all, I don’t see how identifying Polarik does anything to detract from what he has said.

    As for your comment about Manning and Keyes, I’m not offended because that particular racial insult was not and cannot appropriately be aimed at me. However, I have no doubt that Manning and Keyes, although they’ve probably been called that insult many times before, would be quite offended. As should anyone who is similarly called offensive names based solely upon their political and/or religious views.

    Isn’t it rather intolerant and stereotyping of the worst kind to refer to an African-American who opposes Obama as a “Tom”, as if every African-American MUST walk in lockstep with that majority of African-Americans who did support Obama? Talk about a “collective”.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    MGB, do you know what a Tom is? Probably not. It is not racially intolerant to call someone one. And they are not being called one for their political or religious views. They are being called one because they are allowing themselves to be used. Condi Rice disagrees with Obama politically but she is not one. Neither is General Powell. So before you pretend to know what it means, look at the entire context of the statement.

    Identifying Polarik shows that he does not have the background in forensics that HE CLAIMED he had. That was the point. In America, if you make a claim you had better back it up. Isn’t that what you are saying about the President? Prove you are who you say you are? Well the same goes for Polarik and Sync1959. You are making the claims, prove to us who you are. Techdude couldn’t. Polland was exposed for not having the proper qualifications. Why do you think he has faded away from the conversation. Once it was shown that he did not have the ability to make the claims he did, no one would or could take him seriously.

    You say show us the birth certificate…Then take your own advice…Show us your qualifications. If they exist then their should be no problem, right?

  326. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    Loren, if you look at the sentence above what I wrote about Black Lion’s timing, you will see that he linked to you on 11/29/09. Thanks for linking to who you are. There was no profile on your blog.

  327. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    MGB says:
    December 1, 2009 at 2:58 pm
    Black Lion said, “The only people attacking peoples character are the birthers, attacking Judge Carter’s law clerk and making baseless accusations”

    Uh, you’re not calling Manning and Keyes, among others, “Toms”, “convicts”, “losers”? Not to mention all the sexist and xenophobic comments directed at Dr. Taitz. All character assassination.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    What? Are you serious? If you happen to be convicted of a crime, you are a convict. Manning, convicted of a crime. Lucas Smith, convicted of a crime. Larry Sinclair, convicted of a crime. Fitzpatrick, convicted of a crime. That is the truth not a characther assassination. I have made many comments of the lack of skills shown by Orly and will stand by them. She is an incompetent attorney and will soon be disbarred. I have said that Donofrio was a poker player pretending to be an attorney and that is true. Apuzzo is a DWI lawyer in NJ and doesn’t have the skill or qualifications to argue Constitution law and that is true. The birther movement is filled with these sorts of characters….No wonder why you are not taken seriously…

  328. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    Black Lion: My qualifications are that as an American, I still have the right to free speech. Last time I checked, although I’m sure that certain people are working hard to do away with my right to speak my mind without fear.

    My qualifications are native intelligence and common sense. The latter was good enough for the Founding Fathers.

    I still don’t care what Polarik’s true identity is. Nor do I think his forensic “qualifications” (or lack thereof in your eyes) matter. What matters is his arguments.

    As for all the nuances involved with the term “Tom”, that matters not, either. What matters IS that it’s an insult. Would you take it as an insult if someone called you a “Tom”? It’s a racial insult, to boot, and a particularly insulting insult. If a person is being “used” then that implies that they’re too stupid to stand on their own feet. Or to unaware to know that they’re being used.

  329. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    SanDiegoSam says:
    December 1, 2009 at 3:11 pm
    Now that we know that syc1959 is Steve Christiansen of Boise, there is no longer any rational reason (other than concealing the lie) to avoid proving his bone fides.

    The failure to do so is essentially an admission of complete dishonesty.

    Thanks for playing, sys. Try again.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Sam, he can’t provide something that does not exist. That is the funny thing about the birthers. They demand all these documents from Obama going back to Kindergarten but when you use the same standards for them, all of a sudden it is a secret or I would prefer not to because I am “afraid”. How lame. Doesn’t Phil always say “Trust, but verify”? So we want verification. So why should Steve be any different. If you have the background or educational qualifications that would allow you to make the so called scientific claims that you have made, then lets see them. If you have a Masters or PhD in forensic science or some similar science, then why not share it? So far between TechDude and Polarik the track records for people claiming to have the necessary qualifications has so far come up a big fat zero.

  330. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    pussy cat/loren

    go back and read your comic book collection.
    You have not stated one factual relevant point that makes Barack Obama born of a foreign father, under the ‘Jurisdiction’ of the British Nationality Act of 1948, even if born in Hawaii as a ‘NATIVE’ citizen, eligible to be POTUS.

    What “LEGAL” ground do you base that the United States Constitution was amended/altered to specifially address Art 2. allowing a Native citizen without Jurisdiction eligible?

  331. 12/1/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    December 1, 2009 at 2:45 pm
    *No one at any time has proven my statements to be false.*
    You have repeatedly stated that Wong Kim Ark didn’t find Wong to be a natural born citizen. That is patently false. You have repeatedly insisted “native” and “citizen at birth” not the same as “natural born”. That is also patently false. You peddle falsehoods.

    *I have documented their lies and have contacted the local authorites as, I work with them.*

    Ooooo, Ooooo, Steve’s telling! Are these the “authorities” in your imagination like your “material”? The only real documents expert, Sandra Line, has said you can’t tell a document is authentic from its picture. Your pictures and arrows and labels really tell us nothing about Obama’s COLB.

  332. 12/1/2009Loren says:

    Steve wrote:

    Barackryphal likes to spread lies, so while everyone is reading, lets show who the real liar is – Barackryphal!

    ‘Barackryphal’ is the name of the blog, Steve. Not me. You’re not off to a good start.

    SYC1959 – First off I am a genealogist/family historian. I never stated/claimed/showed that I was on a Board of any sort.

    I never stated that you weren’t a family historian. I accept that you are, and said as much towards the end. But Beckwith and others have cited “genealogist” as if it were a meritorious credential in this context, and it’s not.

    Secondly, I never called the State of Hawaii. All coorospondence was done via, e-mail, so a paper trail would be established.

    Fair enough. I don’t think we’ve seen these e-mails, but I’ll take your word for it. I’ve made the correction from “phone” to “e-mail.”

    SYC1959 – again Barackryphal lies, without knowing my background, work history, or anything, he assumes he can tell tall tales. I have been trained in document forensics as part of a previous job.

    Yes, yes. Your secret awesome credentials that are secret and awesome. We’ve heard it all before. Kudos on the consistency.

    syc1959 — I have a rather extensive backgound in both graphics, computers, softeware, systems, ect.

    That reminds me of this:

    “I’ve been working with computers, printers, and typewriters for over 20 years,”

    That’s how Polarik initially described HIS experience. And that turned out to mean that he’d used computers, printers, and typewriters.

    The Perkin Coie case that he likes to state was a REAL case,

    That sure is a non-sequitur. I’m honestly clueless what you’re talking about here.

    And because of this, If I had been one of the two at FactCheck, I would have seen the discrepincies of the COLB and stated them at that time.

    Wait…so your theory is that the FactCheck folks were FOOLED by being handed two different COLBs, one with and one without a seal? That Obama’s people mocked up two COLBs, but didn’t bother to use the seal on one, gave FactCheck one to photograph, then took it back after some photos, and then gave them a different one for the other photos? And FactCheck didn’t notice it being switched out mid-shoot?

    Man, that’s a silly theory.

    I have documented their lies and have contacted the local authorites as, I work with them.

    Quaking in my boots, I am.

  333. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    MGB says:
    December 1, 2009 at 3:37 pm
    Black Lion: My qualifications are that as an American, I still have the right to free speech. Last time I checked, although I’m sure that certain people are working hard to do away with my right to speak my mind without fear.

    My qualifications are native intelligence and common sense. The latter was good enough for the Founding Fathers.

    I still don’t care what Polarik’s true identity is. Nor do I think his forensic “qualifications” (or lack thereof in your eyes) matter. What matters is his arguments.

    As for all the nuances involved with the term “Tom”, that matters not, either. What matters IS that it’s an insult. Would you take it as an insult if someone called you a “Tom”? It’s a racial insult, to boot, and a particularly insulting insult. If a person is being “used” then that implies that they’re too stupid to stand on their own feet. Or to unaware to know that they’re being used.
    ____________________________________________________________________
    MGB, agreed. We are all entitled to free speech. Of course you don’t care what Polarik’s true identity was because he was saying things you wanted to hear. The birthers and anti Obama people never care about such trivial matters like qualifications unless you are requesting that information from the President. Polarik’s findings were junk science and easily disproven because he did not have to proper qualifications to make his conclusions. Those are the facts, not just in my eyes but in everyone’s eyes that don’t hate the President.

    If you went to see a doctor, I am sure you would want him to acutally have gone to medical school. I seriously doubt you would say that his qualifications “don’t matter” when you are being operated on or when he is diagnosing you. If you were on trial I am sure you would want your lawyer to actually have gone to law school. So let us stop being disingenous about this. If Steve is qualified, then great. If not then his so called conclusions would definately be called into question by anyone. Someone is considered an expert in their field not because they say so, but because they are qualified and those qualifications can be verified.

  334. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    pussy cat/loren

    I have posted by BC and other files. Unlike Obama’s mine has the witnesses, doctors signiture, hospital and other vital stactic’s.

    Including a registar’s signiture. Obama’s can not be verified as there is NO verification that the date stamp is ACTUALLY on the one presented by FactCheck or on FTS. The date stamp is on the template they used to create it. I have shown, that template, which includes the stamp in the EXACT spot as on the blank template, with NO other indications of any other markings.

    The registar’s signiture the same, there is no verification as to where the COLB presented on FactCheck and FST has an actual signiture or not on it.

    The Seal is absent on two of the three and on the third, it does NOT resemble what the State of Hawaii clealry states is REQUIRED on their official State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Vital Records issued COLB.

  335. 12/1/2009Loren says:

    MGB wrote:

    Loren, if you look at the sentence above what I wrote about Black Lion’s timing, you will see that he linked to you on 11/29/09.

    Yep, he linked to my blog on 11/29. Not to any article, just my blog. Two days after I’d posted in this thread on 11/27 that Steve was the “genealogist.”

  336. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    then you might find it ironic, that I started out to prove that the Hawaiian COLB was in fact real. When presented with conflicting evidence, that demonstrated a lack of authenticity, I began to question the document. Every step that I took, revealed another inconsistancy, and therefore as anyone would with reasonable knowledge, I contacted the authority best suited, they replied with that e-mail that the Obot’s hate so much. Because it comes from the agency responsible for the issuance of that document, not some heresay statement.
    Anyone with common sense and basic ability can see that my analysis can be repeated, again and again. It is based on the documents that Obama, FTS, and FactCheck have presented. It is their documentation that either stands or falls.
    It falls.

  337. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    December 1, 2009 at 3:41 pm
    pussy cat/loren

    go back and read your comic book collection.
    You have not stated one factual relevant point that makes Barack Obama born of a foreign father, under the ‘Jurisdiction’ of the British Nationality Act of 1948, even if born in Hawaii as a ‘NATIVE’ citizen, eligible to be POTUS.

    What “LEGAL” ground do you base that the United States Constitution was amended/altered to specifially address Art 2. allowing a Native citizen without Jurisdiction eligible?
    ____________________________________________________________________
    Silly1959, back to your useless straw man argument to change the subject? I will admit that you are consistent. Obama was born in HI so he is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as per Article 2 qualifications. The UNITED STATES does not care about British law. Native and Natural Born are synonyms. Everyone but you knows that. The Legal basis for Obama to be President was already told to you. By virtue of the SCOTUS ruling in Wong Kim Ark. No matter how many times you ask the same question, you will get the same answer….

    “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. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.”

  338. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    Black Lion: You can call people whatever you want. If these people were indeed convicted of crimes, then you’re correct. They’re convicts. But that’s not all they are and it’s not particularly on point. (Although I don’t know that they have been convicted. Where’s the proof?) The POTUS himself barely escaped being convicted of crimes. (If he’s not convicted, then does that mean he’s innocent?) He was lucky not to be caught when he smoked marijuana and snorted Coke. Bill Clinton lost his law license, but does that mean that all he achieved as POTUS is kaput? You call Keyes a “loser” but any number of politicians have lost races. You bring up that Leo Donofrio is a “poker player pretending to be a lawyer,” which you then FALSELY say is true. He is not “pretending” to be a lawyer. Whether you like it or not, he IS a lawyer in good standing. Many judges, btw, have DWI’s. I seem to recall Patrick Kennedy running into the Capitol while under the influence of “sleeping pills” or so the story goes. However, that is not the sum total of who the man is, nor does it negate in one fell swoop whatever he has done in the Congress or in his life. Why don’t you stop the name calling and simply address the issues?

  339. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    Black Lion: “No wonder why you are not taken seriously…”

    For someone who thinks we shouldn’t be taken seriously, you sure spend an awful lot of time taking us seriously.

  340. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    Anyone with common sense and basic ability can see that my analysis can be repeated, again and again. It is based on the documents that Obama, FTS, and FactCheck have presented. It is their documentation that either stands or falls.
    It falls.

    At what point in your document training did they tell you that it was acceptable to declare a document to be forged based solely on what you see in a picture of the document?

    What “LEGAL” ground do you base that the United States Constitution was amended/altered to specifially address Art 2. allowing a Native citizen without Jurisdiction eligible?

    Perhaps you should leave the legal arguments to those who have legal expertise. Stating your opinion on the provenance of a document during a deposition does not give you the legal experience to make an informed interpretation of the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution.

    The natural born citizen clause was never amended or altered. It was interpreted in light of the 14th Amendment in Wong Kim Ark, one of the leading cases on citizenship. As the case states, and as has been affirmed many times subsequently, there are two bases of citizenship – by birth or by naturalization. Anybody that’s a citizen by birth is a natural born citizen.

  341. 12/1/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    MGB:

    Anybody who doubts Obama’s claims about where he was born, and to whom, raise your hands if you would accept his “original birth certificate” from the HOSPITAL where he was born, if it had his little footprints on it and the signature of the attending physician?

    lol

    You do know that hospital certificates are little more than souvenirs, right? That they have no legal significance or value whatsoever?

    Or didn’t you know that?

  342. 12/1/2009Sue says:

    MGB says:
    December 1, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    “Sue, that would make me laugh if it weren’t so very sad. READ Phil’s blog with an open mind. Check out the insults that are thrown at people, including your host Phil, simply for having the unmitigated gall to ask Obama, our employee, to prove to our satisfaction that he is eligible to lead this nation under the requirements listed in the Supreme Law of the Land.”

    Phil has held his own here and has been just as rude, sarcastic and insulting too. However, insults are not “death threats or threats to do harm.” I have been insulted here numerous times. I’ve been called an “obot” and “get money from Obama.” I have been threatened with harm when they “revolt” on other blogs.

    “In my last comment to Black Lion, I listed only a few of the insults. Much of this thread is dedicated TO character assassination of syc1959 and Polarik, who isn’t even here to defend himself. I, myself, have been the victim of “character assassination” at this blog and others. Go back and read some of the epithets thrown at attorneys Leo Donofrio and Orly Taitz. Both of whom, I might add, have said they were physically threatened, as was Polarik. There is animus to spare on both sides. Be honest and stop being ridiculous. Please.”

    Orly’s posts to her blog were not “death threats” and we have no idea who sent them–she could have sent them to herself. Donofrio thinks men follow him but he is bipolar so who know if that is true. I have never seen a police report filed by any of these individuals save and except for the one Orly claims she filed.

    However, I have seen the emails and letters posted on Orly’s blogs that have been sent to Judge Land and Judge Carter; not to mention insults and character attacks of SCOTUS, Danny Bickell, and numerous other appointed and elected officials.

    The young lady who reported the Cook case in Georgia received “hate emails” that concerned the newspaper enough to provide security for her the day of the hearing. I confirmed that these emails were NOT from Obama supporters by the way.

    Look at all the threats and disrespectful comments that have been made toward POTUS, FLOTUS and their children.

    Anybody who doesn’t agree with the “birthers/patriots” has been attacked.

  343. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman asked; At what point in your document training did they tell you that it was acceptable to declare a document to be forged based solely on what you see in a picture of the document?

    When questioned, I refered to the Agency who issued that document.
    The State of Hawaii, [as indicated in THEIR e-mail] declared that document a forgery.
    Again, attempting to place the statement on me, vs the actual ageny who issued it.

    As for the legal questions, I guess it was OK, to question Bush, but never question anything else.

    The Constitution itself is the guide. Do you follow blindly others?

    Are you that ignorant of the laws, history, and heritage of this country?

  344. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    MGB says:
    December 1, 2009 at 4:00 pm
    Black Lion: You can call people whatever you want. If these people were indeed convicted of crimes, then you’re correct. They’re convicts. But that’s not all they are and it’s not particularly on point. (Although I don’t know that they have been convicted. Where’s the proof?) The POTUS himself barely escaped being convicted of crimes. (If he’s not convicted, then does that mean he’s innocent?) He was lucky not to be caught when he smoked marijuana and snorted Coke. Bill Clinton lost his law license, but does that mean that all he achieved as POTUS is kaput? You call Keyes a “loser” but any number of politicians have lost races. You bring up that Leo Donofrio is a “poker player pretending to be a lawyer,” which you then FALSELY say is true. He is not “pretending” to be a lawyer. Whether you like it or not, he IS a lawyer in good standing. Many judges, btw, have DWI’s. I seem to recall Patrick Kennedy running into the Capitol while under the influence of “sleeping pills” or so the story goes. However, that is not the sum total of who the man is, nor does it negate in one fell swoop whatever he has done in the Congress or in his life. Why don’t you stop the name calling and simply address the issues?
    ____________________________________________________________________
    MGB, nice dodge. You claim that “if these people were indeed convicted of crimes, then you’re correct.” Let us not be obtuse. We both know that everyone I detailed, Manning, Smith, Sinclair, Fitzpatrick, were convicted. All you need to do is google them and find that out for yourself. So let us not play games. You know that because we have argued about this before. Smith the convicted forger ring a bell? Or does LT Commdr Fitzpatrick’s court martial conviction? Or Manning’s armed robbery conviction and prison time in FL and NY? Or the various crimes that Sinclair did? Or maybe Charles Lincoln III who was disbarred and served time for misappropriation of funds?

    You are correct. Donofrio is a “lawyer” in good standing. Which in NJ means that he passed the bar and keeps up with his dues. How about you cite some cases that he has actually litigated. Come back to me if you find one.

    The POTUS nearly escaped being convicted of crimes? Wow, what a stretch. You must mean arrested for crimes. Because you would have to be arrested first. If not then George Bush and his coke sniffing days would have not been a good thing.

    Keyes loses a lot, hence he is a loser. If he doesn’t like the title then maybe he should win one time. We were not discussing Kennedy or other judges but if they are convicted then they are convicts also. I have never said that a conviction is the sum of a man but sometimes it gives you a good indication of the person’s character or lack thereof. I have never stopped addressing the issues so anytime you want to get back to that then lets go…

  345. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    Black Lion, “Of course you don’t care what Polarik’s true identity was because he was saying things you wanted to hear.”

    So now you’re a mind reader, too. Or are you a psychologist? Your credentials to psychoanalyze me, please.

    Black Lion, “Those are the facts, not just in my eyes but in everyone’s eyes that don’t hate the President.”

    I assume you can back that up with a poll? EVERYONE who doesn’t “hate” the POTUS agrees with your “facts”? EVERYONE? That’s an amazing claim. I don’t “hate” Obama and I don’t agree with you.

    Black Lion said, “If you went to see a doctor, I am sure you would want him to acutally have gone to medical school. I seriously doubt you would say that his qualifications “don’t matter” when you are being operated on or when he is diagnosing you. If you were on trial I am sure you would want your lawyer to actually have gone to law school. . . . and those qualifications can be verified.”

    I can tell you one thing, Black Lion. If I were going under the knife or was put on trial for my life, you’d better believe that I’d check out the credentials of the doctor or lawyer and not simply accept a digital image of a diploma posted without provenance on a third-party blog.

  346. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    SanDiegoSam;
    Well then, you’ll have to ask Obama why he doesn’t have a souvenir from ANY of the hospitals in Hawaii.

  347. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    syc1959 says:
    December 1, 2009 at 4:14 pm
    qwertyman asked; At what point in your document training did they tell you that it was acceptable to declare a document to be forged based solely on what you see in a picture of the document?

    When questioned, I refered to the Agency who issued that document.
    The State of Hawaii, [as indicated in THEIR e-mail] declared that document a forgery.
    Again, attempting to place the statement on me, vs the actual ageny who issued it.

    As for the legal questions, I guess it was OK, to question Bush, but never question anything else.

    The Constitution itself is the guide. Do you follow blindly others?

    Are you that ignorant of the laws, history, and heritage of this country?
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Silly1959, can you show us this so called e-mail where the state of HI declared the document a forgery? You keep referencing it but we are still waiting to see it. Especially the language where it says that the online COLB is a forgery. Come on, if you have that then you have actual proof from the state of HI, so why not show it?

    No one blindly followers others. That is left up to the birthers. The so called “o-bots” link to actual laws and legal experts who have qualifications that can be verified. The birthers do not.

    I am a student of the history of this country. The only people ignorant of the laws are the people that are trying to overturn Wong Kim Ark and undo the lawful results of the last election in this country.

    It is OK to question any President, about legitimate matters. Making up laws and scientific evidence is not legitimate. Claiming 100 SS numbers and fake travel bans are not legitimate. You may want to ask that same question of your birther buddies…

  348. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    SanDiegoSam, I do know that when other documents are absent, hospital birth certificates and even baptismal certificates are acceptable to the government as proof of birth, citizenship, age. This is an ongoing discussion, so please read up.

    Loren: My bad. Black Lion quoted your article and it appeared to be the one that comes up currently. In any case, qwertyman said, “Perhaps you should leave the legal arguments to those who have legal expertise.” Since Loren is a lawyer, then perhaps he’ll answer these questions:

    Would you, Loren, as a lawyer/judge, accept as incontrovertible proof, with NO supporting three-dimensional documentation, what is posted in digital form at FactCheck blog, considering it to be sufficient to qualify a person for the office of POTUS under the Constitution?

    That is, are those photographs/digital images legal and binding PROOF of birth in the USA, to the persons named on the document, and at/on the time and date specified?

    What would you consider to be better proof? A digital image of what purports to be a computer-generated abstract of an original birth certificate OR an actual paper document, such as a hospital birth certificate, especially one that has footprints on it, which I assume can be verified against adult footprints?

  349. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    The State of Hawaii, [as indicated in THEIR e-mail] declared that document a forgery.

    [citation needed]

    As for the legal questions, I guess it was OK, to question Bush, but never question anything else.

    The Constitution itself is the guide. Do you follow blindly others?

    Are you that ignorant of the laws, history, and heritage of this country?

    This is pretty much incoherent and doesn’t make any sort of legal argument. You make vague appeals to what you believe to be the heritage of the country. You’ve called one of the leading citizenship cases in US history “flawed,” despite the fact that the Supreme Court regularly refers to it as precedential value and has never criticized the opinion.

  350. 12/1/2009siseduermapierda says:

    SanDiegoSam says:
    December 1, 2009 at 4:11 pm
    *You do know that hospital certificates are little more than souvenirs, right? That they have no legal significance or value whatsoever?*

    It is apparent most birthers don’t have passports or they would know what documents are considered valid proof of citizenship. They also are probably younger than 65, because a 65 year old would have had to bring a valid birth certificate to prove eligibility for Social Security and Medicare. I think the posts here suggest birthers are mostly southern, aged 50-60, who have never traveled outside the US.

  351. 12/1/2009Black Lion says:

    MGB says:
    December 1, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    I can tell you one thing, Black Lion. If I were going under the knife or was put on trial for my life, you’d better believe that I’d check out the credentials of the doctor or lawyer and not simply accept a digital image of a diploma posted without provenance on a third-party blog.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    And I would definately require that the doctor produce his credentials and not say trust me or I have the qualifications without showing them. However if the AMA and the board certified him then you would have to take their word for it. Kind of like the state of HI stating that the President was born there. I seriously doubt you would hold your doctor’s diploma in your hand so you would have to take someone elses word for it.

  352. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    syc1959 said that qwertyman asked, “At what point in your document training did they tell you that it was acceptable to declare a document to be forged based solely on what you see in a picture of the document?”

    Oh, my. ROFLOL! Did he really say that? How did that one get by me?

    qwertyman, at what point in ANY document training are people taught that it’s acceptable to declare a document AUTHENTIC based solely on what is seen in an alleged picture of the document?

    That’s what’s called being “hoist with your own petard!”

    Gotcha there, qwerty. Even you have to smile about how you walked right into that. :)

    Come on. Smile. Just a little one?

  353. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    sise: You assume many facts not in evidence. I do have a passport; I do know what the State Dept. requires for a passport. However, requirements differ across the spectrum of government agencies. We the People would accept a hospital birth certificate, with an original signature of the delivering doctor, and with Obama’s little footprints on it in indelible ink, sufficient to compare to current footprints. How about it? Anybody else want to vote in my straw poll?

    As for Social Security, I know someone who had to prove citizenship and date of birth. They accepted a baptismal certificate and testimony from the church, which, btw, is in another country. The person had no birth certificate. He got Social Security based upon his baptismal record.

  354. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    My doctors, to a one, post their diplomas on their office walls. They sure look authentic to me. Doctors tend to be proud of such things. btw, the State of Hawaii did NOT verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. They stated ONLY that they have “on file” unspecified vital records that assert that he was born in Hawaii. Show us those vital records and then we’ll determine whether or not we believe they’re sufficient to prove where he was born. If they consist ONLY of testimony of some third party, then I doubt we would accept that as proof.

  355. 12/1/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    “Why don’t you stop the name calling and simply address the issues?”

    We have. Numerous times. If you will look back, generally speaking, we don’t return the insults until we have been insulted first. Not to mention when we provide credible evidence with sources cited, we are called “liars” or worse.

    However, all of you have held up Taitz, Donofrio, Apuzzo, Kreep and others to be “constitutional lawyers and experts” when they clearly are not. All of you have put them above the judges who have ruled on these cases and are clearly more qualified than Taitz, Donofrio, Apuzzo, Kreep, etc. These judges have followed the rule of law and the Constitution, nothing more, yet you have trashed them, professionally and personally, time and time again. Speaks volumes, don’t you think?

  356. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    qwertyman, at what point in ANY document training are people taught that it’s acceptable to declare a document AUTHENTIC based solely on what is seen in an alleged picture of the document?

    Agreed. You shouldn’t declare a document authentic solely based on a picture of the document. But the document has been backed up by the Dept of Health in multiple statements. There are contemporary birth announcements in local papers. There are multiple people who personally remember hearing about or being in the same hospital as Obama during his Hawaii birth. The COLB’s number is within two numbers of Nordyke’s birth certificate, further suggesting that the certificates were issued at roughly the same time.

    Birthers are declaring that the Dept of Health has been actively lying for over a year. They have presented absolutely no affirmative evidence to show that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii. The burden of proof is on them to make their case that this COLB is forged.

  357. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    I would ask Bl, sise,Sue, and the other Obot’s here one simple question.

    Have you ever served this country?

    Without BS, I doubt they have. I doubt they were have done something that was not self-centered, about them, or have any thoughts about anyone who has the ability with his finger on the button.

    Unlike them, I have. Here is a tidbit you you. I had better then a “TOP Secret” clearance in the service, was a member of PRP, among other things.
    Just to keep the Obot’s in check, I will be glad to post some of my qualifications. I guarantee they will not like it.
    Unlike some they have slandered and misrepresented, it will be impossible for them to do that to me.
    As John Paul Jones stated – “I have not yet begun to fight!”

  358. 12/1/2009siseduermapierda says:

    MGB says:
    December 1, 2009 at 4:49 pm
    *btw, the State of Hawaii did NOT verify that Obama was born in Hawaii.*

    btw, they did indeed. Stop LYING MGB. What sort of man has to Lie to try and get his way? And please, pick a position and stick with it. Today you have alternately admitted Obama was born in Hawaii, but he still isn’t natural born, now you’re trying to say he wasn’t born in Hawaii. You can’t have it both ways. This is why most people don’t take birtherism seriously

    You lost in a fair election. There will be another one in 2012.

  359. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    Oh, By the way. I am filing a criminal complaint against LorenC and Black lion with the Boise Police Department, of which [hint, hint] thaey are in the same building as I am.

    Meet Loren!

    It seems that someone (namely, someone I will be addressing more directly in my next post) has accused me of ‘relying on anonymity’ in writing this blog. I wasn’t aware that I was doing so. I post under my real name, Loren, and anybody with a modicum of web-fu can learn within seconds that Barackryphal.com is registered to my real name. I hadn’t said any more because I didn’t think anybody really cared to know more about who I am.

    But if I’m going to be attacked on flimsy claims of ‘anonymity,’ I might as well nip that in the bud now, and go full disclosure. Because frankly, I don’t care if anybody knows who I am.

    I am, as previously mentioned, Loren. I’m a 30-year-old Atlanta attorney, and lifelong Georgia native. I’m a comic geek and a Presbyterian. I’ve run for Congress twice as a write-in. I have an underattended personal website at http://www.lorencollins.net, and an underattended political blog at http://www.socialinsecurity.net.

    Two of those sites should clue you in to the fact that I’m no liberal. For one, I hate, hate, Social Security. Politically, I’m a libertarian, or at least a classical liberal. And, like I stated in my first post here, I didn’t vote for Barack Obama in November. Rather, I voted for Bob Barr; here’s a photo of me with Mr. Barr:

    http://www.lorencollins.net

    lorencollins@yahoo.com

  360. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    Sue, what speaks volumes is that as usual, you paint with a broad brush. I do not “trash” the judges, just as one example of your pigeon-holing those who disagree with your analyses.

    You say that “we”, meaning yourself and like-minded commenters, merely return insults. I doubt that, but couldn’t everyone just please agree to get along and debate without name calling?

    Right now, on the other thread, we see Black Lion stating that Sarah Palin is “not bright.” Character assassination in its most insidious form. Anyone who has seen Sarah Palin in her numerous interviews in no way, if he’s honest, can come to the conclusion that she’s “not bright.” She was a mayor and a governor, all while being the mother of 5 children. She’s an accomplished woman and she’s very, very bright.

    That she’s not smart is a typical meme. It ranks right up there with the Beck is a rapist meme and the Bachmann is an idiot meme. Anyone with whom some disagree are subject to nasty, personal invective. Why?

  361. 12/1/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    December 1, 2009 at 5:04 pm
    *Have you ever served this country?*

    No, I haven’t. And I don’t believe you have either. Anyone who had “better than Top Secret clearance” doesn’t describe it that way and doesn’t go around bragging about having been part of an Air Force program where you had access to nuclear weapons. Your insinuations that you are an Air Force veteran are BS. And your insinuations about your clearance is just like your insinuations about your activity in the birther movement: try to make people believe you are an insider with special knowledge and credentials. You’re a big phony.

    That aside, I am sick to death of ultra-conservative former service members trying to insist they are “better Americans” “true Patriots”, the real “Oathkeepers”. Fine examples like Mr. Fitzgerald, Court martialed for stealing and finally drummed into retirement.

  362. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    snoozer posted – Anyone who had “better than Top Secret clearance” doesn’t describe it that way and doesn’t go around bragging about having been part of an Air Force program where you had access to nuclear weapons. Your insinuations that you are an Air Force veteran are BS. And your insinuations about your clearance is just like your insinuations about your activity in the birther movement: try to make people believe you are an insider with special knowledge and credentials. You’re a big phony.

    SYC1959 – Really again, not knowing what you are talking about.

    snoozer – That aside, I am sick to death of ultra-conservative former service members trying to insist they are “better Americans” “true Patriots”, the real “Oathkeepers”. Fine examples like Mr. Fitzgerald, Court martialed for stealing and finally drummed into retirement.

    syc1959 – I am not he, am I. But I will stand with him and the other OathKeepers, that is a fact.

  363. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    sise said, “btw, they did indeed. Stop LYING MGB. What sort of man has to Lie to try and get his way? And please, pick a position and stick with it. Today you have alternately admitted Obama was born in Hawaii, but he still isn’t natural born, now you’re trying to say he wasn’t born in Hawaii. You can’t have it both ways. This is why most people don’t take birtherism seriously

    You lost in a fair election. There will be another one in 2012.”

    Sise, I’m not “lying”. Read the statements from the DoH. Parse them carefully and you will see that THEY did NOT state that he was born in Hawaii. They said they have on file records “verifying” that he was born there. Yet they do not identify of WHAT those records consist, while we know for a fact that they might be nothing more than affidavits attesting to his birth.

    What sort of man? You tell me. Apparently you’re one. Or are you? I’m not.

    Will you please point me to where I supposedly said that Obama was born in Hawaii? I have NEVER said that because, quite simply, along with Phil, I DON’T KNOW where he was born. That’s the gist of the entire problem.

    NOBODY knows where he was born because his mother is dead and there’s NO authenticated documentation that proves where he was born.

    What kind of man won’t produce a simple document when asked, when he claims it exists, and who instead spends millions of taxpayer dollars to avoid producing it?

    In addition, I haven’t discussed his natural born citizenship status today, so far as I recall. You are confusing me with someone else.

    I might say that you are a liar for falsely stating that I said he was born in Hawaii, but I won’t call you names. I shall only say that you must be mistaken or you misread whatever it is that you think I wrote.

    If you don’t take “birthers” seriously, then why, oh, why do you spend so much time and energy answering those with whom you disagree? Trying to drown out our voices? I suppose.

    btw, I didn’t lose the election. McCain did. Some might say that America lost the election, but that depends upon one’s point of view.

  364. 12/1/2009Sue says:

    syc,

    “Unlike them, I have. Here is a tidbit you you. I had better then a “TOP Secret” clearance in the service, was a member of PRP, among other things.
    Just to keep the Obot’s in check, I will be glad to post some of my qualifications. I guarantee they will not like it.
    Unlike some they have slandered and misrepresented, it will be impossible for them to do that to me.
    As John Paul Jones stated – “I have not yet begun to fight!””

    What does your being in the military have to do with the eligibility issue? Or you professing to be a “document expert?” Or, it appears, to profess to be a “constitutional expert?”

  365. 12/1/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman says, “Agreed. You shouldn’t declare a document authentic solely based on a picture of the document. But the document has been backed up by the Dept of Health in multiple statements.”

    Wrong. The DoH has pointedly refused to comment upon the digital COLB. It’s not a “document” because it’s a digital image on third-party blog websites.

    qwertyman: “There are contemporary birth announcements in local papers.”

    There are digital images of these announcements. They exist on anonymous blogs and have no provenance. There is one reporter who claims to have independently seen the announcements in newspaper archives. In any case, the birth of “a son” is announced, but no birth place is given. It was possible for a person to register an out-of-state birth in Hawaii, which would generate just such a birth announcement. No proof of anything here.

    qwertyman: “There are multiple people who personally remember hearing about or being in the same hospital as Obama during his Hawaii birth.”

    Now that’s a new one. We have already thoroughly debunked Ms. Nelson’s nice little “story”, which she herself backtracked upon.

    Who was in the same hospital as Obama during his birth who personally remember seeing him and his mother there? None. Oh, yes, his teacher Ms. Nordyke gave birth in a certain hospital a day later, yet she has NEVER stated that she remembers Obama’s mother or Obama himself being there.

    qwertyman: “The COLB’s number is within two numbers of Nordyke’s birth certificate, further suggesting that the certificates were issued at roughly the same time.”

    Now here’s an interesting claim. Do you remember how, when first presented, there was NO certificate number on Obama’s online COLB and nobody could satisfactorily explain why it was blacked out? Yet after Ms. Nordyke came forward (and later conveniently posted her daughters’ birth certificates online, so much for privacy), suddenly Obama’s campaign came up with a document with a certificate number, which, btw, the DoH has NEVER authenticated as Obama’s birth certificate number. They were asked. They would NOT authenticate even the number.

    qwertyman says, “Birthers are declaring that the Dept of Health has been actively lying for over a year.”

    I don’t know of any “birthers” who declare that the DoH is lying. However, I for one will tell you that I very much suspect that the DoH is trying mightily to split hairs FOR Obama’s sake. Read each and every statement that they have made and pay close attention to HOW they say what they say, and what they do NOT ever say. Each statement is carefully parsed, along the lines of “it all depends upon what the meaning of is, is.”

  366. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    Right now, on the other thread, we see Black Lion stating that Sarah Palin is “not bright.” Character assassination in its most insidious form. Anyone who has seen Sarah Palin in her numerous interviews in no way, if he’s honest, can come to the conclusion that she’s “not bright.” She was a mayor and a governor, all while being the mother of 5 children. She’s an accomplished woman and she’s very, very bright.

    She definitely is politically cunning and has a magnetism that appeals to a certain segment of the population. I don’t think there is anybody that is neutral about Governor Palin.

    Sise, I’m not “lying”. Read the statements from the DoH. Parse them carefully and you will see that THEY did NOT state that he was born in Hawaii. They said they have on file records “verifying” that he was born there. Yet they do not identify of WHAT those records consist, while we know for a fact that they might be nothing more than affidavits attesting to his birth.

    Well of course the DoH doesn’t declare that Obama was born in Hawaii, nobody working at the DoH today was physically present for Obama’s birth. All they have are the vital records to look at. And every vital record they have shows that Obama was born in Honolulu in August 1961.

    Vital records has a specific definition under Hawaii law, referring to birth certificates, death certificates and marriage certificates.

    What kind of man won’t produce a simple document when asked, when he claims it exists, and who instead spends millions of taxpayer dollars to avoid producing it?

    There is not a single birther suit that only wants to see President Obama’s birth certificate. There’s actually no evidence that these suits have cost millions of dollars. Birthers continually cite the FEC filings showing payments to various firms, but that’s like noticing that you spent $100 at McDonalds and assuming you used every cent of that on McFlurries.

    Any lawyer with an ounce of sense will say that the proper response to any suit like this would be to file a motion to dismiss, not to concede to the plaintiff’s demands. Simply doing what the plaintiff is asking you to do in a suit would set a terrible precedent, and would lead to hundreds of suits that would pester and ultimately frustrate the president from performing his duties.

  367. 12/1/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    syc1959:

    Have you ever served this country?

    Absolutely.

    As a commissioned officer in the United States Army Field Artillery I had custodial and operational responsibility for nuclear warheads deployed on the Soviet Border in the Republic of Turkey as an M&A Team Leader in the Turkish/US Logistics Group… a NATO Command. This was before I was even 22 years old. I’ll let you work out the requisite security clearances for the job.

    :P

    I also served with the 2nd ACR (2d Howitzer Battery out of Bamberg) patrolling the border between West Germany and Czechoslovakia, as well as served for several years in the 82d Airborne Division Artillery and on G3 Staff XVIII Airborne Corps.

    I am an Airborne Ranger.

    And by the way, I am also a genealogist and family historian. And I know for a fact that your “analysis” of the COLB is errant BS.

  368. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    snoozer;Uh, how can you tell? You’re saying it’s not because Steve showed you some blurry pictures with arrows and tells you it’s not? What authority has said the COLB is not authentic? The only people who have actually seen it, held it, examined it and wrote about it are the factcheck writers. Steve’s pictures are like Bigfoot pictures – he has to tell you what it is you’re supposed to be looking at and you have to squint and believe. Loren has proven that Steve is just another nobody who is clever enough to prey on people’s ignorance, lack of curiousity to verify what he says and eagerness to believe he’s right.
    _________________________________________

    Actually they are high resolution images. That is the point. I had to crop them to be able to do a side by side comparison.
    Loren ghas NOT proven a thing about me.
    As for Bigfoot, the COLB forgery of Obama is posted everywhere. I don’t see any actual BigFoot pictures. so your point is mute.

    Snoozer; don’t believe me. Believe what the State of Hawaii has stated, regardless of what birth certificate I was refering to.
    They issued that statement prior to the others and it holds up.

  369. 12/1/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Syc…

    The word you were trying for is “moot.” Not “mute.”

  370. 12/1/2009Sue says:

    MGB,

    “Sise, I’m not “lying”. Read the statements from the DoH. Parse them carefully and you will see that THEY did NOT state that he was born in Hawaii.”

    Yes, Dr. Fukino did state that President Obama was born in Hawaii and the birthers have tried to discredit her and her statement ever since the press release.

    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/27/br/hawaii90727082.html
    Obama Hawaii born, insist Isle officials
    By Dan Nakaso
    Advertiser Staff Writer
    “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 Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

  371. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    Per the State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Vital Records.

    Quote “The state seal is imbedded in the certificate by machine and the back of the certificate would have the printed signature of the State Registrar. The lettering is imbedded in the seal.”

    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/hawaiireply.jpg

    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/sealsidebyside21.jpg

    What more does the State of Hawaii have to say.

    Barack Obama’s COLB #3 off FactCheck does not have “State of Hawaii” and Department of Health” it is made up of lines and dashes.

    Not even resembling what the State of Hawaii has indicated in their e-mail.

  372. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue;
    “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…”

    which record, The State of Hawaii maintains that they have birth records [plural] on file.

    Last time I check, people were born once? What happened here.
    Was one record amended by adoption? Like I demonstrate?

    How does one get more then one birth record?

  373. 12/1/2009siseduermapierda says:

    syc1959 says:
    December 1, 2009 at 6:03 pm
    *Actually they are high resolution images. That is the point. I had to crop them to be able to do a side by side comparison.*

    Exactly. You cropped them to manipulate them. You manipulated them and added titles and arrows and instructions that looked “meaningful” when in fact, what you point out means nothing. You can’t determine the authenticity of an original from a photo, especially not a manipulated photo. Sandra Lines is honest enough to admit this. You, on the other hand, a manipulator and prevaricator, not a document expert, manipulated and misrepresented photographs in a way that ignorant people who want to believe you can be misled. You can’t judge the authenticity of the COLB from photos. You’d have to look at it. The factcheck writers did. Utter nonsense from you that doesn’t stand up to even light scrutiny.

  374. 12/1/2009qwertyman says:

    Wrong. The DoH has pointedly refused to comment upon the digital COLB. It’s not a “document” because it’s a digital image on third-party blog websites.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

    When the birth certificate arrived from the Obama campaign it confirmed his name as the other documents already showed it. Still, we took an extra step: We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

    “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

    I’m sure after several weeks of ceaseless harassment, the DoH decided that they were going to stop talking about the COLB altogether because there was real work to do there.

    When we spoke to a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, she said too much was being made of the difference between the so-called “long” and “short” forms.

    “They’re just words,” said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.”

    “There’s only one form of birth certificate,” she said, and it’s been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.

    “When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site,” she said. “That’s the birth certificate.”

    That’s two occasions where the DoH has backed up the COLB.

    There are digital images of these announcements. They exist on anonymous blogs and have no provenance. There is one reporter who claims to have independently seen the announcements in newspaper archives. In any case, the birth of “a son” is announced, but no birth place is given. It was possible for a person to register an out-of-state birth in Hawaii, which would generate just such a birth announcement. No proof of anything here.

    The announcements themselves are evidence. They were generated from hospital records. They’d be admissible in a court under FRE 902(6). If you don’t think that those announcements are real, then you can go to Hawaii and look at microfiche and see for yourself.

    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html

    Further, in a sidebar to this story, you can see that the Honolulu Advertiser, the paper that published the birth announcement, confirms that it had published such a birth announcement.

    Now that’s a new one. We have already thoroughly debunked Ms. Nelson’s nice little “story”, which she herself backtracked upon.

    Who was in the same hospital as Obama during his birth who personally remember seeing him and his mother there? None. Oh, yes, his teacher Ms. Nordyke gave birth in a certain hospital a day later, yet she has NEVER stated that she remembers Obama’s mother or Obama himself being there.

    As much as Phil would want to say it was so, Nelson has never backtracked from her story. She talked with Dr. West about the birth of a boy named Barack Obama in 1961. That’s her story. She hasn’t said that she never had that conversation, she hasn’t said she misremembered.

    As for Nordyke:

    Nordyke was in labor at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital the same time as Obama’s late mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Nordyke said. She gave birth to twins the day after Obama was born, Nordyke said, and her daughters later attended Punahou School with Obama.

    Nordyke herself showed the birth certificates to the paper, the paper didn’t go to the hospital in an attempt to violate privacy laws.

    Yet after Ms. Nordyke came forward (and later conveniently posted her daughters’ birth certificates online, so much for privacy), suddenly Obama’s campaign came up with a document with a certificate number, which, btw, the DoH has NEVER authenticated as Obama’s birth certificate number. They were asked. They would NOT authenticate even the number.

    The factcheck pics showing the birth certificate number were published in 2008, over a year before Nordyke’s story was published in the advertiser in July 2009.

    And of course the DoH is not speaking to birthers at this point. They’ve got real work to do. The question was asked and answered over a year ago. You’ve got bitter Republicans and right wingers grasping desperately to anything negative they hear about Obama, but even informed Republicans think the birther movement is full of crazies.

  375. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue,

    How many birth records do YOU have?

  376. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    qwertyman; Lies again; Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.

    This should spill water on his lies;

    Standard certificate
    The Standard Certificate of Live Birth, issued by the
    National Vital Statistics Division, has served for many
    years as the principal means of attaining uniformity in the
    content of the documents used to collect information on this
    event. It has been modified ineachstateto the extent necessitated
    by the particular needs of the State or by special provisions
    of the State vital statistics law. However, the
    certificates of most States conform closely in content and
    arrangement to the standard certificate.
    The first issue of the standard certificate of birth appeared
    shortly before the formation of the registration area.
    Since then, it has been revised periodically by the national
    vital statistics agency through consultation with State health
    officers and registrars; Federal agencies concerned with
    vital statistics; national, State, andcountymedical societies:
    and others working in the fields of public health, social
    welfare, demography, and insurance. This revision procedure
    has assured careful evaluation of eachitem in terms
    of its current and future usefulness for registration, identification,
    legal, medical, and researchpurposes. New items
    have been added when necessary, and old items have been
    modified to ensure better reporting or in some cases have
    been dropped when their usefulness appeared to be limited.
    The most recent revision of the standard certificate of
    live birth occurred in 1955. It was made in close collaboration
    with the Public Health Conference on Records and
    Statistics and was recommended to the States for adoption
    as of January 1, 1956 (figure 5-1).
    With a few exceptions, only minor changes in content
    and format were made in the 1956 revision of the standard
    certificate. In an effort to obtain a more accurate designation
    for place of residence, the question “Is residence inside
    city limits?” was added. Studies conducted in a few States
    had indicated that this question helped to correctly locate
    the residence of persons living near but outside the corporate
    limits of cities.
    Table 5-A indicates the States that did and those that
    did not include the checkbox item on residence within city
    limits on all or part of the certificate forms which they
    used during 1961.
    Another item, “Is residence on a farm?” was added to
    serve several purposes. Federal and State agricultural
    agencies wanted the information in order to assess the
    health status of the farm population and tomeasure-changes
    in its demographic characteristics. It also seemed that this
    item would aid in correctly allocating the place of residence
    of persons living near but outside cities. The usefulness of
    the farm item has been seriously impaired by the change in
    the 1960 population census definition of a farm; the Bureau
    of the Census set forth definite criteria for classifying farm
    residence, while the certificate in effect asks the informant
    to make a judgment as to whether the mother’s residence is
    on a farm. Thus, a comparable population base is not available
    for the computation of rates.
    Incomplete reporting also lessened the value of the
    item. While 35 States and the District of Columbia adopted
    the farm item on their live birth certificates, in 1959 nonresponse
    was 12 percent for the reportingareas as a whole.
    It was 25 percent or more for 5 States and the District of
    Columbia. For these reasons, tabulations based on this
    item have been discontinued.

    The national birth-registration area was not established
    until 1915, and no birth statistics were published by the
    Bureau of the Census from 1900 to 1914. The original
    birth-registration area of 1915 consisted of 10 States and
    the District of Columbia. The growth of this area is’indicated
    in table 5-1.
    Table 5-1 also presents for each year through 1932 the
    estimated midyear population of the United States and the
    estimated midyear population of those States included in the
    registration system. From 1933 through 1958 the birth and
    death statistics for the United States included 48 States and
    the District of Columbia. Alaska was added in 1959 and
    Hawaii in 1960.

  377. 12/1/2009Loren says:

    MGB wrote:

    Would you, Loren, as a lawyer/judge, accept as incontrovertible proof, with NO supporting three-dimensional documentation, what is posted in digital form at FactCheck blog, considering it to be sufficient to qualify a person for the office of POTUS under the Constitution?

    Naturally. I’ve never seen three-dimensional documentation on any previous Presidential or VP or candidate. I’m sure I never will for future candidates or winners, unless I work for a campaign or an elections office, and even then it’s a longshot. The only way I will ever see three-dimensional documentation on any President will be in their Presidential Library.

    There is no reason to apply to Obama an evidentiary standard that has been applied to no previous President, and which I expect will never be applied to any future one.

    That is, are those photographs/digital images legal and binding PROOF of birth in the USA, to the persons named on the document, and at/on the time and date specified?

    “Legal and binding”? We’re not in a courtroom setting; the rules for admission of evidence at trial don’t apply. Who exactly do you want to hold a physical copy? No judge has asked for a copy. You’re never going to see one. And Obama has no reason to up and mail copies to Phil Berg or Orly; Berg’s last brief outright stated that absolute proof of birth in Hawaii *still* wouldn’t satisfy them.

    What would you consider to be better proof? A digital image of what purports to be a computer-generated abstract of an original birth certificate OR an actual paper document, such as a hospital birth certificate, especially one that has footprints on it, which I assume can be verified against adult footprints?

    Verified against adult footprints? You want the President of the United States to submit to having his foot inked and printed and compared to a baby footprint in an attempt to satisfy people who believe internet rumors?

    And I say “attempt” because as Steve has abundantly demonstrated in this thread, Obama could prove beyond any doubt that he was born in Hawaii, he could produce videotape of himself being delivered in the Honolulu capitol building with JFK as a witness, and Steve and others would STILL be arguing that he’s ineligible. So what incentive is there for him to voluntarily produce anything else?

  378. 12/1/2009Sue says:

    FYI:

    http://wapedia.mobi/en/Birth_certificate
    “3. Birth certificates in the United States
    In the U.S., the U.S. National Center for Health Statistics creates standard forms that are recommended for use by the individual states to document births. However, states are free to create their own forms. [6] As a result, neither the appearance of nor the information within birth certificate forms across different states is uniform. These “forms” are completed by the attendant at birth or a hospital administrator, which are then forwarded to a local or state registrar, who stores the record and issues certified copies when requested [1].”

    My daughter and son were both born in the same State but different cities/hospitals. 20 years apart and their birth certificates are not the same.

  379. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    Sue, Bullshi* and you know it. The design maybe different but the Data is standard.
    You might be able to LIE your way past a few but it will NOT stand.
    You Sue are a lying criminal.

    Phil Post the following and make sure her BS is discovered for Sue is.

    Specifications for collecting and editing the United States Standard Certificates of birth and death — 2003 revisions

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/Guidelinesbirthspecs1101acc.pdf

    2003 Revisions of the U.S. Standard Certificates of Live birth

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/birth11-03final-ACC.pdf

    Specifications for the items on the birth certificate
    NOTE: The specifications now include the changes resulting from the HHS clearance process and the changes recommended by the Data Analysis

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/FinalBirthSpecs3-24-2005.pdf

    GENERAL GUIDELINES
    OVERVIEW
    FINAL REVIEW SCREEN
    SUMMARY LETTER ON GUIDELINES FOR ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS
    Item 2 TIME OF BIRTH
    Item 3 SEX
    Item 4 DATE OF BIRTH (infant)
    Items 5-7, 17, 26 FACILITY NAME; CITY, TOWN OR LOCATION OF BIRTH; COUNTY OF BIRTH;
    FACILITY ID; PLACE WHERE BIRTH OCCURRED
    Item 8b DATE OF BIRTH (mother)
    Item 8d BIRTHPLACE (state, territory, or foreign country)
    Item 9a-g RESIDENCE OF MOTHER: STATE; COUNTY; CITY, TOWN OR LOCATION;
    STREET AND NUMBER; APT. NO.; ZIP CODE; INSIDE CITY LIMITS?
    Item 10b DATE OF BIRTH (father)
    Item 15 MOTHER MARRIED?
    Item 20 MOTHER=S EDUCATION
    Item 21 MOTHER OF HISPANIC ORIGIN?
    Item 22 MOTHER=S RACE
    Item 23 FATHER=S EDUCATION
    Item 24 FATHER OF HISPANIC ORIGIN?
    Item 25 FATHER=S RACE
    Item 27 ATTENDANT=S NAME, TITLE, AND NPI
    Item 28 MOTHER TRANSFERRED FOR MATERNAL MEDICAL OR FETAL INDICATIONS
    FOR DELIVERY?
    Item 29a-b DATES OF FIRST AND LAST PRENATAL CARE VISIT
    Item 30 TOTAL NUMBER OF PRENATAL CARE VISITS FOR THIS PREGNANCY
    Item 31 MOTHER=S HEIGHT
    Item 32 MOTHER=S PREPREGNANCY WEIGHT
    Item 33 MOTHER=S WEIGHT AT DELIVERY
    Item 34 DID MOTHER GET WIC FOOD FOR HERSELF DURING THIS PREGNANCY?
    Items 35a-c, 36a-b NUMBER OF PREVIOUS LIVE BIRTHS- NOW LIVING, NOW DEAD; DATE OF LAST
    LIVE BIRTH; NUMBER OF OTHER PREGNANCY OUTCOMES; DATE OF LAST
    OTHER PREGNANCY OUTCOME
    Item 37 CIGARETTE SMOKING BEFORE AND DURING PREGNANCY
    Item 38 PRINCIPAL SOURCE OF PAYMENT FOR THIS DELIVERY
    Item 39 DATE LAST NORMAL MENSES BEGAN
    Item 41 RISK FACTORS IN THIS PREGNANCY
    Item 42 INFECTIONS PRESENT AND/OR TREATED DURING THIS PREGNANCY
    Item 43 OBSTETRIC PROCEDURES
    Item 44 ONSET OF LABOR
    Item 45 CHARACTERISTICS OF LABOR AND DELIVERY
    Item 46 METHOD OF DELIVERY
    Item 47 MATERNAL MORBIDITY
    Item 49 BIRTHWEIGHT
    Item 50 OBSTETRIC ESTIMATION OF GESTATION
    Item 51 APGAR SCORE
    Items 52, 53 PLURALITY; IF NOT SINGLE BIRTH- BORN FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, ETC.
    (specify)
    Item 54 ABNORMAL CONDITIONS OF THE NEWBORN
    Item 55 CONGENITAL ANOMALIES OF THE NEWBORN
    Item 56 WAS INFANT TRANSFERRED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DELIVERY? IF YES,
    NAME OF FACILITY INFANT TRANSFERRED TO
    Item 57 IS INFANT LIVING AT THE TIME OF REPORT?
    Item 58 IS INFANT BEING BREASTFED?
    File Processing Items State of Birth
    Certificate Number
    Void Flag
    Auxiliary State File number
    Appendix A Country Codes
    Appendix B State, Territory, and Canadian Province Codes
    Appendix C City and County Codes
    Appendix D Hispanic Origin Look-up Table
    Appendix E Race Codes
    SPECIFICATIONS FOR COLLECTING AND EDITING
    THE UNITED STATES STANDARD CERTIFICATES OF BIRTH AND DEATH
    AND THE REPORT OF FETAL DEATH — 2003 REVISION
    INTRODUCTION
    Since the inception of a national vital statistics system, the states and the federal government have worked together cooperatively to promote standards and consistency among state vital statistics systems. The U. S. Standard
    Certificates of Birth and Death, and Report of Fetal Death are the principal means of promoting uniformity in the data
    collected by the states. These documents are reviewed and revised approximately every 10 years through a process
    that includes broad input from data providers and users. In 1997, the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
    appointed a panel of vital statistics data providers and users to evaluate the (1989) certificates. That panel completed
    its work in April 1999, and submitted recommended revisions to NCHS.

  380. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    loren;

    I am contacting the Georgia Bar Assoc. and reporting your conduct. I have also advised the Boise Police to forward the complaint to other agencies concerning your ‘unprofessionsl conduct’
    Lets see your Bona fides.

  381. 12/1/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    sys1959

    Sue, Bullshi* and you know it. The design maybe different but the Data is standard.

    See…. now we have PROOF that you are neither a genealogist nor a family historian.

    The data on the Birth Certificates from different States (or even the same State over different years) varies wildly. Any genealogist who has more than four birth certificates in their possession can verify that fact within seconds of opening his or her files.

  382. 12/1/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Is there anything more pathetic than flaccid threats made over the Internet by simpering mollycoddles of the SYC sort?

    :o

  383. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    More ammo on the Birth Certificate;

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/200XNAT_web_with%20clearance%20revisions-acc.pdf

    This is a current data set for the Standard Birth Certificate,
    Note that this data set is for 200X. Obama’s was done in 1961.

    Here is a DIRECT LINK for the 1961 CDC Natality Stastics and NOTE,
    section 5, the Technical Appendix.

    http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf

    http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/

    For someone who they claim, doesn’t know what I am talking about, I seem to have a mountain of information that backs up EVERYTHING I state, and it’s by the government!

    So there SUE, lie some more!

  384. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    SanDiegoSam ; Another BS artist, states: The data on the Birth Certificates from different States (or even the same State over different years) varies wildly. Any genealogist who has more than four birth certificates in their possession can verify that fact within seconds of opening his or her files.

    Read the facts. The Standard Data was started in 1900, I believe that falls before 1961.

    http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf

    Again, Obot lies and deceit.

    BTW; Obama has three currently forged COLB’s, so that should qualify him, right?

  385. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    I guess, we’ll just have to wait and see.

  386. 12/1/2009Sue says:

    ” syc1959 says:
    December 1, 2009 at 7:35 pm
    Sue, Bullshi* and you know it. The design maybe different but the Data is standard.
    You might be able to LIE your way past a few but it will NOT stand.
    You Sue are a lying criminal.”

    Wow Steve, you have some serious anger issues and it appears you need some anger management classes.

    No, I am not lying and I am certainly not a criminal.

    The keyword you are ignoring is “recommended” not “required.”

    Also please note:

    http://wapedia.mobi/en/Birth_certificate
    “3. Birth certificates in the United States
    In the U.S., the keeping of vital statistics is a state function, because it is not a power assigned by the Constitution to the federal government (under the Tenth Amendment, all powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people), and yet the federal government is extremely dependent upon this state function it lacks direct jurisdiction over, because the Fourteenth Amendment expressly grounds American citizenship upon birth in the United States (a jus soli system of citizenship).”

    “Short forms, known sometimes as computer certifications, are not universally available, but are cheaper than photocopies and much more easily accessible. Information is taken from the original birth record (the long form) and stored in a database that can be accessed quickly when birth certificates are needed in a short amount of time. Whereas the long form is a copy of the actual birth certificate, a short form is a document that certifies the existence of such certificate, and is given a title such as “Certification of Birth”, “Certification of Live Birth”, or “Certificate of Birth Registration”. The short form typically includes the child’s name, date of birth, sex, and place of birth, although some also include the names of the child’s parents. When the certification does include the names of the parents, it can be used in lieu of a long form birth certificate in almost all circumstances [7] . Nearly all states in the U.S. issue short forms certifications, on both state and local levels [11].”

    “3. 1. 3. Other forms
    In addition to short forms and long forms, many registration authorities also have wallet-sized short form birth certifications available, and apostille/exemplified certifications which are hand signed by the registrar and are to be used when being presented before the government of a foreign country, pursuant to the 1961 Hague Convention. Other registration authorities will even issue commemorative certificates, many of which are legal certifications of birth. [12].”

    “Most hospitals in the U.S. issue a souvenir birth certificate which typically includes the footprints of the newborn. However, these birth certificates are not legally accepted as proof of age or citizenship, and are frequently rejected by the Bureau of Consular Affairs during passport applications. Many Americans believe the souvenir records to be their official birth certificates, when in reality they hold little legal value. [13],”

  387. 12/1/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Syc:

    Read the facts. The Standard Data was started in 1900, I believe that falls before 1961.

    How odd… the data was standard more than a decade before Birth certificates were even required. What does that tell you? Come on Syc… use that 3 1/2 pounds of the most complex matter in the universe that sits at the top of your brain stem. For once.

    I challenge you to show me a single birth certificate that contains:

    Item 34 DID MOTHER GET WIC FOOD FOR HERSELF DURING THIS PREGNANCY?

    or

    Item 29a-b DATES OF FIRST AND LAST PRENATAL CARE VISIT

    or

    Item 58 IS INFANT BEING BREASTFED?

    Come on. Show us just one?

    Get a clue, Syc… that list has nothing to do with what does or does not get put on Birth certificates. You are an absolute unadulterated liar to claim you are either a genealogist or a family historian because even the most wet behind the ears novice would not say the profoundly stupid things that you’ve been saying about birth certificates.

  388. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    This is the reason Sue is full of shi&.

    She quotes an on-line encylopedia that can be edited by anyone, I quote the United States Government with OFFICIAL documents that controls the State Agencies responsible for the Vital Records…Unbelievible.

  389. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    Are you willing to go into Court with that Sue.

    Sam, some stastics are gathered and used elsewhere. Boy, you fell into that one BIG time.

  390. 12/1/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Syc:

    She quotes an on-line encylopedia that can be edited by anyone, I quote the United States Government with OFFICIAL documents that controls the State Agencies responsible for the Vital Records…

    At least she understand what she is quoting. You, in contrast, have not the slightest clue.

  391. 12/1/2009syc1959 says:

    Later, fools, I have to fill out more on the complaint.

    Now, the game is afoot.

  392. 12/1/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    That’s the spirit, syc. Run away.

  393. 12/1/2009brygenon says:

    MGB says:

    btw, the State of Hawaii did NOT verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. They stated ONLY that they have “on file” unspecified vital records that assert that he was born in Hawaii.

    Hawaii specified the “original” vital records. I don’t see why you guys have all this trouble with such a clear and straightforward statement:

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

    Show us those vital records and then we’ll determine whether or not we believe they’re sufficient to prove where he was born.

    Your determination is no longer of any use. I’m sure Obama would have liked to have your vote, but the election was more than a year ago.

  394. 12/1/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    Syc:

    Sam, some stastics are gathered and used elsewhere. Boy, you fell into that one BIG time.

    See? You almost got it.

    Now that you’ve acknowledged that your list has nothing to do with birth certificates and instead have to do with statistics gathered at different times in different ways and for different reasons, why not pretend you’re really a genealogist, just for a few moments.

    We know that you have apparently never seen many of these elusive documents and apparently possess none in your own files, but have no fear. You can google scores of examples on-line.

    Pay attention to the data they contain. Compare several of them from different states. Or the same state over different years. Disabuse yourself of the hallucination that the data is standard.

    See how easy that was?

  395. 12/1/2009Loren says:

    Yeah, Sue, like Steve says, how dare you stoop to citing to an online wikipedia! You should follow his example. So when you cut-and-paste from Wikipedia, *don’t* cite to it or acknowledge that you copied whole paragraphs from it, and just let it look like you wrote it yourself.

  396. 12/1/2009Loren says:

    syc1959 wrote:

    I am contacting the Georgia Bar Assoc. and reporting your conduct. I have also advised the Boise Police to forward the complaint to other agencies concerning your ‘unprofessionsl conduct’

    “Unprofessionsl conduct”? I don’t think that term means what you think it means. Especially coming from a fan of Orly Taitz.

    In any case, the fact that I’m upfront about who I am, and that I don’t hide behind fake names or fake credentials, should tell you that I’m not ashamed of the work I do in taking on denialists and conspiracy theorists. And you want to give me publicity? Heck, maybe the Daily Report will run an article about how a conservative Atlanta attorney is battling Birtherism. It’s a catchy angle.

    On the other hand, the fact that you do prefer to hide behind screen names and phantom credentials tells me that you may not prefer the limelight. That you don’t want the real world to know the kind of hooey you’re pushing online.

    Then again, maybe I’m wrong, and I’ll get a notice from the Bar that says “A guy in Idaho has filed a complaint against you for exposing the fact online that he wasn’t actually the credentialed forensic expert he wanted people to think he was in his year-long internet campaign to show that President Obama was secretly born in Mombasa, Kenya.” And that’ll be followed with “This is absolutely the weirdest bar complaint we’ve ever seen.”

  397. 12/2/2009Sue says:

    “I have also advised the Boise Police to forward the complaint to other agencies concerning your ‘unprofessionsl conduct’”

    Uh, somehow I don’t think the Boise Police will be too concerned with alleged “unprofessional conduct” as they have other more important details to contend with like murder, rape, robbery,etc., etc.

  398. 12/2/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    “More Obot lies.” syc1959

    No Obot or Obama loyalist commenting at this blog shares the illusion (or “insult”) that I am a member of, or co-ordinate with, their team.

    “As a decendant of the Mayflower Pilgrims…” syc1959

    There is no hierarchy in a republic or in the sight of God, but apparently syc1959 knows better. How, I cannot imagine…

    “WRONG!!!!! What a fool. British Common law is NOT the basis…I take great offense in people like ‘Who Are You Kidding’…[that are] altering documented history” syc1959

    People like “Who Are You Kidding” who have altered documented history:

    “British Statutes in American Jurisdictions”, Frederick G. McKean, Jr., University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register, Vol. 78, No. 2 (Dec., 1929):

    “A very large group of states recognizes amendatory English statutes prior to the fourth year of James I [1607]; in other words, in force at the time of the landing of the first English-speaking settlers in what is now the United States. The prototype of such law was enacted by the Virginia convention of May, I776, which declared the separation from British rule, framed the first constitution of the state, and ordained that ‘the common law of England, all statutes or acts of Parliament made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of King James the First [1607] and which are of a general nature not local to that kingdom’ should be rules of decision.”

    “Alien Land Restrictions in the American Common Law“, Polly J. Price, The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Apr., 1999):

    “The basic doctrine of English common law familiar to courts in the early United States prevented aliens, those who were not ‘subjects’, from holding land within the territory of the English monarch …. After the Revolution, American courts applied the doctrine in essentially unchanged form, but American judges substituted…key components: “subject” became “citizen;” allegiance was owed to the state, not to the King … As a matter of English law, natural-born or native subjects, as they were termed, were those persons who owed allegiance to the King from birth within his territory … Elsewhere I have related the story of Calvin’s Case, a decision of English judges in 1608 that is widely viewed to be the first extensive, theoretical articulation of the English rule governing allegiance [holding that a natural born subject was any person born within the realm] … In the early decades following the American Revolution, courts embraced Calvin’s Case and perpetuated its underlying doctrine. See, e.g., Martin v. Brown, New Jersey, 1799 [reading in part]: ‘Calvin’s Case has been considered as establishing legal principles, which have been uniformly recognized and approved of whenever occasion offered …The common law of England extended to this country, and was operative here; if that law had made provision for a case of this kind, and had prescribed a rule by which the rights of individuals were to be ascertained and governed, it was wholly unnecessary that any constitutional provision should be made’.” [emphasis applied]

    That would be the position of SCOTUS respecting Article 2(1)(5): in 1787 or now.

    Unfortunately for syc1959 Vattel equals the common law of nations; the common law of nations does not equal the constitution, federal, or state law; SCOTUS will only apply the constitution, federal or state law; Vattel, not being in the constitution, federal or state law, cannot define who is a natural born citizen; therefore SCOTUS, in the absence of a constitutional or federal definiton and by virtue of Erie v. Tompkins (1938) and 28 USC 1652, will turn to (e.g Hawaii) state law (which incorporates English common law) for its definition of a natural born citizen.

    “Customary International Law as Federal Common Law”, Curtis A. Bradley and Jack L. Goldsmith, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 110, No. 4 (Feb., 1997):

    “Under the prevailing pre-Erie [1938] jurisprudence, the law of nations was not viewed as made by any particular sovereign source, especially not by a U.S. constitutional law-making source and especially not by federal courts…In rejecting the notion of a general common law in the federal courts [Erie v. Tompkins], the [US Supreme] Court explained that ‘law in the sense in which courts speak of it today does not exist without some definite authority behind it.’ This…requires federal courts to identify the sovereign source for every rule of decision. Because the appropriate “sovereigns” under the U.S. Constitution are the federal government and the states, all law applied by federal courts must be either federal law or state law. After Erie, then, a federal court can no longer apply CIL [the common law of nations] in the absence of some domestic authorization to do so…”

    On this basis SCOTUS in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004) held that not even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations can be applied in American courts because the “Declaration does not of its own force impose obligations…[and SCOTUS quotes Eleanor Roosevelt]…the Declaration [is] ‘a statement of principles … setting up a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations’ and ‘not a treaty or international agreement … impos[ing] legal obligations’.” This even though the Declaration was endorsed by the US in the UN General Assembly. In this context, when Vattel’s opinion of what constitutes citzenship in the common law of nations is not written into any official document or federal law, it can never “impose obligations” on courts, and has absolutely no chance of being accepted by SCOTUS. syc1959 is in the contradictory position of using foreign influences (Vattel and the law of nations) to exclude foreign influences (from the Presidency). As Justice Scalia wrote in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain 2004:

    General common law was not federal law under the Supremacy Clause, which gave that effect only to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties … creating a federal command (federal common law) out of ‘international norms,’ and then constructing a cause of action to enforce that command…is nonsense upon stilts… That portion of the general common law known as the law of nations was understood to refer to the accepted practices of nations in their dealings with one another (treatment of ambassadors, immunity of foreign sovereigns from suit, etc.) and with actors on the high seas hostile to all nations and beyond all their territorial jurisdictions (pirates). Those accepted practices have for the most part, if not in their entirety, been enacted into United States statutory law…The notion that a law of nations…can be used by a private citizen to control a sovereign’s treatment of its own citizens within its own territory is a 20th-century invention of internationalist law professors and human-rights advocates. The Framers would, I am confident, be appalled by the proposition that, for example, the American peoples’ democratic adoption of the death penalty could be judicially nullified because of the disapproving views of foreigners.” [emphasis applied]

    Even ex-Chief Dualer Donofrio conceded on August 25, 2009 that “people were trying to say that Vattell’s treatise was meant as a codicil to the Constitution. I needed to make it clear this was not true and neither [Vattel's] treatise nor the science of the body of law [of nations] were binding upon the US as to the domestic issue of POTUS eligibility. As to the issue of how it should be legally determined who is POTUS eligible, as the SCOTUS stated in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the court must look outside the Constitution… and certainly one piece of evidence they would be obliged to consider would be the law of nations and Vattell’s treatise… but neither are, by themselves, binding US law…The Constitution only specifically directs Congress to make laws as to naturalization not as to nbc, and I think that’s because – in their minds – the framers understood that nbc needed no Congressional definition…I have argued that nbc status is not available to Obama, but I have not said that there is a case directly on point as to this issue… those who do say that are lying or are simply ignorant.

    Ex-Chief Dualer Donofrio could not allow himself to see that SCOTUS cannot and will not make law by recourse to Vattel and the common law of nations: they need a statutory authority, which is only to be found (via Erie v. Tompkins (1938) and 28 USC 1652) in (e.g. Hawaii) state law (incorporating the English common law definition of a natural born citizen), thus reaching the same conclusion as the court in Martin v. Brown in 1799 cited above. I hope that syc1959 can be sufficiently objective to understand this.

    “…show me ANY legal marriage certificate from Kenya…a tribal marriage is not recognized by the State of Hawaii…If it was bigamy, there would have been no reason of a ‘divorce’ decree.” syc1959

    “African Bridewealth and Women’s Status”, John U. Ogbu (Univ. of California, Berkeley), American Ethnologist, Vol. 5, No. 2 (May, 1978).

    “In sub-Saharan African societies there are three major forms of marriage payments or exchanges in the course of marriage, namely, uxoral [bride's family] payments, viroral [groom's family] payments, and mutual exchanges. Bridewealth is associated only with the viroral payments… What constitutes the bridewealth [marriage exchange] is…the sine qua non for lawful marriage and [becomes], strictly speaking, the sole jural instruments for the transfer of marital rights… African marriages are established according to socially recognized rules, and for the most part these rules involve the payment of bridewealth. It follows that one function of bridewealth is the establishment of legal marriage … colonial administrators… accepted [bridewealth] as ‘a regular feature of a valid customary marriage’.” [emphasis applied]

    1 Obama Sr. married Kezia Grace Aoko in 1957 under the customary marriage laws of Kenya (i.e. the laws of Kenya extant before the British administration) which the British recognized as equal to colonial marriage law and had established local courts to enforce. Under that law the exchange of livestock between the families of the bride and groom [i.e. bridewealth] constituted a marriage contract enforceable in customary law courts. This interview [ http://tinyurl.com/64ebrq ] with Obama Sr.s wife shows that the 1957 marriage was lawfully contracted.

    2 In 1892 Hawaii adopted into their law the common law of England “as ascertained by English and American decisions” (now Hawaii Revised Statutes §1-1). Under the time-honored common law principle of “lex loci celebrationis” a marriage lawfully contracted in another state or jurisdiction, be it American or foreign, is recognized as a legal and valid marriage in Hawaii. On this basis Obama Sr.s marriage in 1957, lawful by the standards of the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902, was thereby a lawful marriage by Hawaii standards.

    3 Ex-Chief Dualer Donofrio conceded on August 26, 2009 that “if the child is not legit then the country of the father has no legal effect upon him and he owes no legal allegiance to his father’s nation.” Given that Obama Sr. was lawfully married in Kenya in 1957, then Obama Jr. is not his legitmate son in British law and, as Donofrio puts it, “owes no legal allegiance to his father’s nation.” In such circumstances, if born in Hawaii, Obama Jr. was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US and no other. Donofrio could not allow himself to see (even when it was explained to him) that British marriage and nationality laws classified Obama as illegitimate and consequently not their citizen: absent dual-nationality Donofrio knew he had no case, he was unable to cope with that, and he refused to address (i.e. make) the opposition’s case until such time as “Obama ever attempts to prove he was not a legitimate child” (August 27, 2009).

    4 According to “Dreams From My Father” (contributed to and proof-read by Ann Dunham) Obama Sr. told AD that his 1957 Kenya marriage was finished by 1961: this AD later conceded to her son was a lie. It can be safely presumed that Obama Sr. also lied to Hawaii authorities. Under Hawaii law a marriage can only be annulled due to bigamy following an complaint from one of the parties or an injured spouse, legal action based on evidence which is not confessions, and the subsequent court decree. For whatever reason, maybe embarrassment or complexity or misinformation (though she did have legal representation), AD proceeded on the basis that her marriage to Obama Sr. was legitimate and chose divorce: without a application being filed by Obama Sr. or Kezia Obama nobody was ever likely to know…

  399. 12/2/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman said, “Vital records has a specific definition under Hawaii law, referring to birth certificates, death certificates and marriage certificates.”

    Among other documents such as affidavits. Or birth records from other countries. Why did they change their terminology from “original birth certificate” to “vital records” (plural)? He wasn’t married there. He doesn’t have a death certificate there or elsewhere. So what OTHER vital record(S) could they have?

    In addition, the DoH never stated that they ATTEST TO THE ACCURACY of any information contained within those vital records they have on file. IF they consist only of affidavits, then they must also be authenticated by the DoH, and they don’t say anywhere that these documents, whatever they are, have been authenticated.

    Sue provided this: “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 Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    “I . . . have SEEN.” What? Records. Do I state that he was born in Hawaii? NO. “Vital records” (plural, nonspecific documents) purportedly “verifying” Barrack (sic) Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    So, could that mean he was born naturally and not via Caesarean section? Or could that mean he is a natural-born citizen of Canada, which is part of America? Or could it be that the documents make these claims but were never authenticated by the DoH, because they’re, say, a birth certificate from another country and/or affidavits from persons who claim to have been present at the birth?

    Why didn’t Fukino use the exact wording of the Constitution? Why did the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii have to be consulted upon the careful wording of this statement and why, btw, does the AG now seem to disavow THAT claim? So curious. So interesting.

    So easy to SIMPLY produce the documents instead of paying lawyers to enter motions to dismiss. Wouldn’t that be so EASY to do, IF those “vital records” do indeed prove that he is a natural born citizen of the United States of America, who was born in Hawaii, as he claims?

    Why won’t he simply authorize Fukino to provide access to any reporters who want to similarly “see” these vital records?

    sise said, “You can’t determine the authenticity of an original from a photo, especially not a manipulated photo.”

    Uh, exactly our point for the past year, since FactCheck posted manipulated photos on their blog.

    Why did FactCheck “manipulate” the photos on their blog? In addition, riddle me this: Why did the exif data on those photos indicate that they were taken just a few days before the passport files were broken into? This was back in March 2008, not even close in time to when FactCheck claimed their “staffers” and “representatives” “spent time” with the COLB in Chicago.

    sise said, “You can’t judge the authenticity of the COLB from photos. You’d have to look at it.”

    Exactly so, sise. What we said. What we say. Let’s SEE the document in three dimensions.

    sise said, “The factcheck writers did.”

    Which writers were they? They do not state in that article that they are the “staffers” or “representatives” who supposedly saw and photographed the document in Chicago. Why don’t they name the person holding the document? Why don’t they NAME the staffers who supposedly saw it?

    The DoH did NOT authenticate the COLB, despite that Politi”fact” link supplied by qwertyman.

    “I guess the big issue that’s being raised is the lack of an embossed seal and a signature,” Okubo said, pointing out that in Hawaii, both those things are on the back of the document. “Because they scanned the front … you wouldn’t see those things.”

    Now here’s someone who sounds not “bright”. How does one emboss a document on the back and NOT on the front? Why do other COLBs that have been scanned very much SHOW the embossed seal right there on the scan? Why doesn’t Obama’s show it? Try scanning a piece of paper that has deep indentations in it and see if you can somehow manage to create a scan that doesn’t clearly show those indentations. Use some common sense, please. Nobody who’s ever used a scanner can possibly believe that the FTS “scan” is a REAL scan of an ACTUAL paper document.

    Okubo: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

    On that we agree. They did NOT authenticate it. They can’t say what it “represents”. Certainly not legal proof of his birth. When she spoke about COLBs, she was speaking IN GENERAL about the difference between long forms and short forms and COLBs versus original birth certificates and the changing forms/documents over the years. She was NOT speaking specifically about Obama’s COLB, especially NOT attesting that it is authentic. They won’t even affirm that they EVER sent a COLB to Obama or his campaign. They won’t supply proof of any invoice where Obama or campaign paid for the copy, as Phil has pointed out numerous times. Why not? Let me guess: No receipt exists because nobody sent a COLB. It looks like her COLB because A real COLB was used as a template. Nobody would rig up a COLB that doesn’t look real. Would they?

    About the birth announcements: See my comment on the newer thread.

    “Nordyke was in labor at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital the same time as Obama’s late mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, Nordyke said. She gave birth to twins the day after Obama was born, Nordyke said, and her daughters later attended Punahou School with Obama.”

    Link please to the source? Did Nordyke assume that she was in labor at the same time? Where does she EVER state that she KNOWS Stanley Ann Dunham (I thought she was Mrs. Obama!) was there with her? She doesn’t. She assumes it because she heard one of the stories that later on claimed he was born in Kapiolani the day before her kids were born.

    “Nordyke herself showed the birth certificates to the paper, the paper didn’t go to the hospital in an attempt to violate privacy laws.” I never said they did. I was talking about Mrs. Nordyke violating her daughters’ privacy by posting their birth certificates in a newspaper article on the Web. btw, Nordyke came forward before that story was posted in July 2009. That was the first story where she showed the birth certificates, but it’s not the first time she was ever mentioned in the news.

  400. 12/2/2009MGB says:

    Loren, all I can say is that I’m disappointed. I had hoped for some honest answers to hypothetical questions from someone who says he’s a lawyer. You won’t even answer whether you as a lawyer or a judge would accept as proof of birth digital images posted on a third-party blog. Instead, you go off onto a tangent about Obama having to “submit” (heaven forbid!) to having his footprints taken. My point was that digital images are not equal to actual paper documents but you seem to want to avoid answering any hypothetical question that MIGHT lend weight to arguments against Obama expecting the citizens of this country to accept ONLY his word and manipulated digital images on a partisan blog as proof of his birth in Hawaii and eligibility under the Constitution.

    Again, I’m disappointed because I was happy to see an admitted lawyer join the discussion. I had hoped for fair debate and intellectual honesty, not distraction, avoidance, and deflection.

  401. 12/2/2009qwertyman says:

    Among other documents such as affidavits. Or birth records from other countries. Why did they change their terminology from “original birth certificate” to “vital records” (plural)? He wasn’t married there. He doesn’t have a death certificate there or elsewhere. So what OTHER vital record(S) could they have?

    You’re paranoid, desperately looking for elephants in shadows. But there aren’t any there.

    In addition, the DoH never stated that they ATTEST TO THE ACCURACY of any information contained within those vital records they have on file. IF they consist only of affidavits, then they must also be authenticated by the DoH, and they don’t say anywhere that these documents, whatever they are, have been authenticated.

    Because nobody in the DoH was physically present at Obama’s birth. All they have are the records that they’ve got. Obama’s birth certificate has been as authenticated as any person’s birth certificate is.

    “I . . . have SEEN.” What? Records. Do I state that he was born in Hawaii? NO. “Vital records” (plural, nonspecific documents) purportedly “verifying” Barrack (sic) Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    So, could that mean he was born naturally and not via Caesarean section? Or could that mean he is a natural-born citizen of Canada, which is part of America? Or could it be that the documents make these claims but were never authenticated by the DoH, because they’re, say, a birth certificate from another country and/or affidavits from persons who claim to have been present at the birth?

    Again, looking for non-existent elephants in the shadows.

    So easy to SIMPLY produce the documents instead of paying lawyers to enter motions to dismiss. Wouldn’t that be so EASY to do, IF those “vital records” do indeed prove that he is a natural born citizen of the United States of America, who was born in Hawaii, as he claims?

    There is not a single birther suit that has ever been filed that only wants to see President Obama’s birth certificate. Every single birther suit alleges Obama is ineligible for other reasons, even if he was born in the US.

    Any lawyer with the slightest bit of competent would respond to a suit like this by drafting a motion to dismiss similar to that drafted by Obama’s lawyers, and they would win on that motion 100 times out of 100 suits.

    Why won’t he simply authorize Fukino to provide access to any reporters who want to similarly “see” these vital records?

    Obama is just as protected by privacy laws as anybody else. And frankly, if I were Obama, I wouldn’t give birthers a damn thing. You guys have become a major part of the base of the Republican Party, and if people like Orly become public figures associated with the GOP, that would be fine with me, from a political perspective.

    Why did FactCheck “manipulate” the photos on their blog? In addition, riddle me this: Why did the exif data on those photos indicate that they were taken just a few days before the passport files were broken into? This was back in March 2008, not even close in time to when FactCheck claimed their “staffers” and “representatives” “spent time” with the COLB in Chicago.

    Citation needed for the claim that FactCheck manipulated photos of the COLB.

    sise said, “You can’t judge the authenticity of the COLB from photos. You’d have to look at it.”

    Exactly so, sise. What we said. What we say. Let’s SEE the document in three dimensions.

    Who do you want to see it? Do you want Obama to mail out 300 million copies to everybody? It’s not getting into a court because no birther case can or will reach a discovery phase. The federal courts are prohibited by the Constitution from giving advisory opinions, and can only adjudicate disputes between parties. There’s no dispute in which the parties have standing, present a non-political question, present a justiciable issue, or state any claim upon which relief can be granted.

    Which writers were they? They do not state in that article that they are the “staffers” or “representatives” who supposedly saw and photographed the document in Chicago. Why don’t they name the person holding the document? Why don’t they NAME the staffers who supposedly saw it?

    The authors of the article were Jess Henig and Joe Miller. It’s likely that they were the ones who saw and photographed the COLB. Why don’t they actually name the person to you at your request? Probably because anybody publicly identified to birthers becomes immediately subject to constant pestering and character assassination. See Judge Carter’s law clerk, the file clerk at the Supreme Court, and many others who have done nothing but get the attention of birthers.

    The DoH did NOT authenticate the COLB, despite that Politi”fact” link supplied by qwertyman.

    Well, you can choose to believe that, but those quotes say what they say.

    Okubo: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

    On that we agree. They did NOT authenticate it. They can’t say what it “represents”. Certainly not legal proof of his birth. When she spoke about COLBs, she was speaking IN GENERAL about the difference between long forms and short forms and COLBs versus original birth certificates and the changing forms/documents over the years. She was NOT speaking specifically about Obama’s COLB, especially NOT attesting that it is authentic.

    They did authenticate the COLB. What’s online is considered a valid birth certificate. What she means is that it’s possible that there was some elaborate conspiracy to defraud Hawaii 48 years ago, as made clear by the conclusion of the article immediately after the “what the image on the site represents” quote.

    They won’t even affirm that they EVER sent a COLB to Obama or his campaign. They won’t supply proof of any invoice where Obama or campaign paid for the copy, as Phil has pointed out numerous times. Why not? Let me guess: No receipt exists because nobody sent a COLB. It looks like her COLB because A real COLB was used as a template. Nobody would rig up a COLB that doesn’t look real. Would they?

    They won’t supply an invoice to you probably because they made the decision to stop talking to birthers altogether. You have no right to see an invoice or receipt of somebody else’s acquiring of a birth certificate. It would be a courtesy, perhaps even a violation of HI privacy laws.

    “Nordyke herself showed the birth certificates to the paper, the paper didn’t go to the hospital in an attempt to violate privacy laws.” I never said they did. I was talking about Mrs. Nordyke violating her daughters’ privacy by posting their birth certificates in a newspaper article on the Web. btw, Nordyke came forward before that story was posted in July 2009. That was the first story where she showed the birth certificates, but it’s not the first time she was ever mentioned in the news.

    That’s between Nordyke and her children. Privacy laws are bidning on the state – a person has the right to do what they want with their birth certificate once they get it – that’s why Obama was legally able to post his own birth certificate on the internet, but it would be illegal for the state of Hawaii to do the same.

    If you know of a previous story discussing Nordyke, I’d love to see a link.

  402. 12/2/2009qwertyman says:

    Loren, all I can say is that I’m disappointed. I had hoped for some honest answers to hypothetical questions from someone who says he’s a lawyer. You won’t even answer whether you as a lawyer or a judge would accept as proof of birth digital images posted on a third-party blog. Instead, you go off onto a tangent about Obama having to “submit” (heaven forbid!) to having his footprints taken. My point was that digital images are not equal to actual paper documents but you seem to want to avoid answering any hypothetical question that MIGHT lend weight to arguments against Obama expecting the citizens of this country to accept ONLY his word and manipulated digital images on a partisan blog as proof of his birth in Hawaii and eligibility under the Constitution.

    Again, I’m disappointed because I was happy to see an admitted lawyer join the discussion. I had hoped for fair debate and intellectual honesty, not distraction, avoidance, and deflection.

    Loren correctly pointed out that we’re not in a court, that there’s never been a trial, that there’s never been discovery. Loren is not the only lawyer and/or law student posting here.

    Of course, at what point did any other president in this country’s history present their birth certificate to any authority? The answer, of course, is never.

    And no, Factcheck is not partisan. Both Dick Cheney and John Edwards cited positively to it during a vice presidential debate.

  403. 12/2/2009smrstrauss says:

    It is interesting that this discussion is about the posted image of the birth certificate. Apparently because the Web image of the document is not the document itself we are supposed to distrust it. But why? What else could we see than an image? If the document were photographed by a newspaper and published, all that we would see would be the image.

    It is not the image that is the proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is the fact that there is an original birth certificate in the file and that that says Obama was born in Hawaii. The officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the COLB accurately reflects the information in the file, that he was born in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)

    More important, only if there is the conjunction of proof that the birth certificate was forged AND proof that Obama was born somewhere else than Hawaii is this worth discussing. But there is absolutely no evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

    There is no documentary evidence of Obama’s mother ever visiting Kenya, no Kenyan birth certificate (plenty of forgeries however), no US document showing that a Kenyan-born child named Obama was granted a US visa to travel to the USA from Kenya in 1961 or that his mother’s passport was amended in Kenya to include him. Without such a document, which would surely have been found by now, how could Obama have traveled from Kenya to Hawaii?

    For the reasons above, the National Review concluded: “The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.”

    Now let us focus for a moment on the claim that the posted birth certificate is forged. The physical document was not shown just to FactCheck. It was shown both to FactCheck and Politifact. To be sure, the folks who checked the document in both places are not document experts, but I recall them doing one interesting thing. They asked the Hawaii authorities whether they had sent a Certification of Live Birth to Obama at about the time when Obama’s campaign said that he received it, and the officials replied in the affirmative.

    Moreover, supposing that the document HAD been forged. The officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the FACTS on the document were correct. Those facts were that Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Those facts are inscribed in the original document in the file, which the two Hawaii officials (in a Republican administration, by the way) have said the Certification accurately reflects. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html).

    Moreover, while the McCain and Hillary Clinton campaigns did not see the physical Obama birth document, they did see the Web image, and if they had suspicions that it had been forged, they would surely have demanded an investigation. The authorities in Hawaii would have taken action if the posted Obama document seemed to them to be different from the copy that they sent him.

    And, we know that Obama has had a US passport in the past, the one that he used to return from Indonesia to Hawaii to attend school. To get that passport, Obama must have shown a US birth certificate, and he did, the COLB from Hawaii or perhaps an earlier version of the document, which he has since lost. In any case, the document that Obama has shown is currently the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and there is not a shred of evidence that it is forged, and there is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

  404. 12/2/2009smrstrauss says:

    It is interesting that this discussion focuses on the image of the birth certificate. Apparently because the Web image of the document is not the document itself we are supposed to distrust it. But why? What else could we see than an image? If the document were photographed by a newspaper and published, all that we would see would be the image.

    It is not the image that is the proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is the fact that there is an original birth certificate in the file and that that says Obama was born in Hawaii. The officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the COLB accurately reflects the information in the file, that he was born in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)

    More important, only if there is the conjunction of proof that the birth certificate was forged AND proof that Obama was born somewhere else than Hawaii is this worth discussing. But there is absolutely no evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

  405. 12/3/2009MGB says:

    smrstrauss: Why don’t you link to the story at National Review, so everyone can read the quote in context?

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJhMzlmZWFhOTQ3YjUxMDE2YWY4ZDMzZjZlYTVmZmU=

    “So, end of story, right? Well, no.”

    Read the ENTIRE story for McCarthy’s opinion. The National Review, as a whole, did not conclude what you said. One writer at the National Review expressed his opinion.

    More tidbits from that article:

    “The information in the certification may be identical as far as it goes to what’s in the complete state records, but there are evidently many more details in the state records than are set forth in the certification. Contrary to the editors’ description, those who want to see the full state record — the certificate or the so-called “vault copy” — are not on a wild-goose chase for a “secondary document cloaked in darkness.” That confuses their motives (which vary) with what they’ve actually requested (which is entirely reasonable). Regardless of why people may want to see the vault copy, what’s been requested is a primary document that is materially more detailed than what Obama has thus far provided.”

    “Yet we now know that this life story is chock full of fiction. Typical and disturbing, to take just one example, is the entirely fabricated account in Dreams from My Father of Obama’s first job after college . . .What’s unnerving about this is that it is so gratuitous. It would have made no difference to anyone curious about Obama’s life that he, like most of us, took a ho-hum entry-level job to establish himself. But Obama lies about the small things, the inconsequential things, just as he does about the important ones — depending on what he is trying to accomplish at any given time.”

    “The fact is that Obama’s account of his background is increasingly revealed as a fabrication.”

    I appreciate smrstrauss for pointing us to this story; however, once you read it, you will understand why he or she did NOT make it easy for you to read the entire article, because therein is a devastating analysis for those who blindly support Obama.

  406. 12/3/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman: Can you let Loren answer for himself, please? I presented a hypothetical and asked Loren a simple question, which he deflected. Why can’t he simply answer a question? You know, like the lady forensic examiner who stated that an online document cannot be accepted at face value. Her honesty and integrity was applauded. Why can’t Loren simply make the same statement? It’s true. It’s obviously true. But you guys simply cannot give an inch, can you? That’s instructive.

    I ask legal questions of keokuk and Loren because they are the only self-avowed lawyers. I take them at their word, although they may be fibbing. However, you don’t say you’re a lawyer or a law student, therefore I don’t address legal questions to YOU. Why do you answer for others when questions are directed at them, not you?

  407. 12/3/2009MGB says:

    qwertyman: “Because nobody in the DoH was physically present at Obama’s birth. All they have are the records that they’ve got. Obama’s birth certificate has been as authenticated as any person’s birth certificate is.”

    How can you know that? A doctor’s signature authenticates the birth. Do you KNOW there’s a doctor’s signature? If it’s based upon an affidavit, persons at the DoH AT THAT TIME were present to make a determination as to the accuracy of the information and to accept it, or reject it as inadequate. You don’t know what those vital records are and you don’t know whether they are sufficient to prove his status.

    You’re paranoid. So afraid that your messiah will finally be exposed. May I heartily recommend to you the article that smrstrauss kindly referred us to. It’s a winner.

    btw, many of those you call “birthers” are former Democrats, now Independents.

    As for FactCheck manipulating the photos, they removed the exif data and decreased the size and resolution of the photos, after originally posting them and after people began to question the exif data and analyze the photos themselves. Ask anyone who’s been following this from the inception of the controversy.

    It’s more likely that the anonymous staffers who allegedly saw the COLB remain unnamed so they have plausible deniability in case it all goes sideways.

    Yes, the quotes at politi”fact” say what they say. They quote a person who actually stated that a piece of paper can be EMBOSSED on one side and not on the other. This person stated IN GENERAL that a COLB is a birth certificate. She did NOT say that Obama’s online COLB is authentic. Quite the contrary, she doesn’t know and can’t or won’t say “what it represents.”

    It’s false to say that the public has no right to see the invoice. Those invoices are public record and SHOULD be released to the public upon request. That they try mightily to avoid following their own laws and regulations speaks volumes.

    You can find your own links to stories about Nordyke. I’m not your secretary. If you doubt me, then prove me wrong. Unlike some, I haven’t been supplied with a ready cache of quotes, links, so-called refutations to spread over the Internet like so much putrid ooze.

  408. 12/3/2009smrstrass says:

    MGB.

    The questions raised in the McCarthy article have all been answered. I regret not posting a link, but I took the quote from a word file that I had saved.

    The bottom line is still. (1) It is crazy to believe that Obama was born in Kenya without proof. (2) The birth certificate that Obama posted is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which was twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. (3) Unless there is evidence that the birth certificate is forged and the officials in Hawaii are lying and that Obama was born in Kenya, there is nothing to discuss.

    We are going round and round that the image that Obama posted was and is an image. (Sure, what else?) What counts is whether the facts on the image were correct. And the officials in Hawaii repeatedly say that that is the case.

    Re: “there are evidently many more details in the state records than are set forth in the certification.”

    Sure, but these are merely nice additional details. What counts is the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. Moreover, it is NOT Obama who does not release the original birth certificate. He cannot release it because he does not have it. He asked Hawaii for a copy of his birth certificate, and Hawaii sent him the Certification, which it sends to everyone. If you would like to see the original, then try to get Hawaii to change its rules. It will show, as McCarthy says, that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “fabricated account in Dreams from My Father of Obama’s first job after college.” I believe McCarthy is wrong in this claim, but even if it is true, what does this have to do with the discussion that the posted birth certificate is either forged or insufficient? It is, by the way, perfectly sufficient since it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii and the only one that Hawaii issues.

  409. 12/3/2009qwertyman says:

    I ask legal questions of keokuk and Loren because they are the only self-avowed lawyers. I take them at their word, although they may be fibbing. However, you don’t say you’re a lawyer or a law student, therefore I don’t address legal questions to YOU. Why do you answer for others when questions are directed at them, not you?

    I can’t believe you’re actually still whining about this. Loren didn’t deflect, he gave you a short answer that told you what about the bill was relevant to you. I gave you a long answer that more fully analyzed the bill and then gave you its relevance to the birthers.

    No, I haven’t told you what I do, and I’m not going to. Heck, there are people on this site who have already said they’re not sure if Loren and keokuk are actually lawyers, and syc actually went so far as to file a complaint with the local police for the crime of…. being mean on the internet maybe?

    You asked a legal question, I gave you a legal answer. Take that or leave it.

  410. 12/3/2009smrstrauss says:

    MGB.

    The questions raised in the McCarthy article have all been answered. I regret not posting a link, but I took the quote from a word file that I had saved.

    The bottom line is still. (1) It is crazy to believe that Obama was born in Kenya without proof. (2) The birth certificate that Obama posted is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, which was twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. (3) Unless there is evidence that the birth certificate is forged and the officials in Hawaii are lying and that Obama was born in Kenya, there is nothing to discuss.

    We are going round and round that the image that Obama posted was and is an image. (Sure, what else?) What counts is whether the facts on the image were correct. And the officials in Hawaii repeatedly say that that is the case.

    Re: “there are evidently many more details in the state records than are set forth in the certification.”

    Sure, but these are merely nice additional details. What counts is the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. Moreover, it is NOT Obama who does not release the original birth certificate. He cannot release it because he does not have it. He asked Hawaii for a copy of his birth certificate, and Hawaii sent him the Certification, which it sends to everyone. If you would like to see the original, then try to get Hawaii to change its rules. It will show, as McCarthy says, that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “fabricated account in Dreams from My Father of Obama’s first job after college.” I believe McCarthy is wrong in this claim, but even if it is true, what does this have to do with the discussion that the posted birth certificate is either forged or insufficient? It is, by the way, perfectly sufficient since it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii and the only one that Hawaii issues.

  411. 12/3/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    MGB:

    Dumb comment #1:

    A doctor’s signature authenticates the birth.

    Wrong.

    Many children are born without the participation or presence of a doctor. And all of them are just as authentically born (and legally deserving of a birth certificate) as those who had doctors.

    Dumb Comment #2:

    You don’t know what those vital records are and you don’t know whether they are sufficient to prove his status.

    Wrong.

    In Dr. Fukino’s original statement back in October she told us exactly what those vital records were. She said they were “Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate.”

    Second, according to US State Department Regulations the COLB itself (let alone the long form) is sufficient to prove his status.

    Dumb Comment #3:

    It’s more likely that the anonymous staffers who allegedly saw the COLB remain unnamed so they have plausible deniability in case it all goes sideways.

    Wrong.

    The staffers are not anonymous. They even signed the article.

    Dumb Comment #4:

    This person stated IN GENERAL that a COLB is a birth certificate. She did NOT say that Obama’s online COLB is authentic.

    Wrong.

    Here is what Politifact reported:

    We e-mailed it to the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records, to ask if it was real.

    “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo told us.

    This was a specific statement about a specific document that was emailed to her. Not a “general statement” of any kind.

    Dumb Comment #5:

    It’s false to say that the public has no right to see the invoice. Those invoices are public record and SHOULD be released to the public upon request.

    Wrong.

    The DoH told Phil explicitly in response to his email that they are not public record.

    How’s that IQ holding up?

  412. 12/5/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    “The thing to remember about the judge [Land] is: he’s the judge.” brygenon

    I almost confused him with Obama’s defense attorney:

    Judge Land: “a ‘short-form’ birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.” [emphasis applied]

    Robert F. Bauer, Hollister v. Soetoro: “publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate showing that he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu Hawaii.” [emphasis applied]

    Anyhow, in “Rhodes v. McDonald, et al” Judge Land wrote “the Court finds that the alleged document [Kenyan BC] is unreliable [not authenticated]…”; about Obama’s alleged COLB, which is only available as online images, Land merely wrote that it “indicates” Obama’s birthplace. The dictionary defines “indicate” as meaning “to state briefly; suggest; hint; intimate; insinuate; imply; to be or give a sign

    Recently at this blog brygenon wrote: “Federal court rulings have already recognized, albeit in dicta, that Obama released his birth certificate.Black’s Law Dictionary defines “dicta” as the “opinions of a judge which do not embody the resolution or determination of the court, and, made without argument, or full consideration of the point, are not the professed deliberate determinations of the judge himself.” Consequently I replied:

    Given that Obama has not produced his COLB (if it exists) in any court, how does brygenon’s allusion to ‘dicta’ rebut my conclusion ‘Obama has not proved [US citizenship or Presidential eligibility] in a form admissible as evidence in any court’? brygenon has said in effect that ‘courts have already recognized, albeit in a form not admissible as evidence in any court etc….’ To a reasonable person this agreement surely concedes the point; however brygenon, under the influence of a kookological cringe theory [echoing brygenon's own words], seems unable to perceive the irrationality of the counterclaim or means to put over a false impression.

    1 “Please cite your source for your above allegations…don’t say Hawaii DOH2 “In birtherdom, one doesn’t have to prove theories. One simply has to believe and not ask any questions.Sue

    Sue has been asked previously but still seems unable to provide answers to my repeated prior questions: Where is the raised seal in Factcheck’s image [ http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ] of Obama’s alleged COLB and how does one find it? Until these prior questions receive answers I am under no obligation to Sue.

    As for the irony of Sue‘s position that Hawaii DOH is an “inadequate” or “unacceptable” source of proof for the fact that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and amended birthdate, which means the alleged COLB Obama placed online is a fake: Hawaii DoH only reply individually to individual UIPA inquiries, so if Sue wishes to be one of those individuals, and “prove her theory” with official DoH information showing it lied by confirming that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and amended birthdate….well, to quote Sue herself: “Bring it on.” Until then, Hawaii DoH’s recent official confirmations that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and amended birthdate, meaning Obama’s alleged COLBs have been faked, stand unrebutted.

    Given a delayed or amended birth filing under Hawaii law is not to be presumed true (i.e. not prima facie), the burden of proof is upon Obama, his attorneys, and loyalists to supply the evidence for Obama’s claim to US citizenship and his eligibility to the Presidency. No evidence = no proof = not eligible. Obama loyalists (if they truly believe Obama was born in Hawaii, is more than a de facto occupier of the Presidency, and has not been complicit in forgery and fraud) could always employ UIPA to compel DoH Director Fukino to fulfill her legal duty to release the documents which informed her July statement on Obama – unless “birthers” do it for them.

    “We’re not in a courtroom setting; the rules for admission of evidence at trial don’t applyLoren

    Behold a new angle being pushed by Obama loyalists in response to changed conditions. Until recently it was constantly droned at unbelievers that Obama’s alleged COLB was proof enough of his citizenship and eligiblity, had been properly authenticated, and would be incontrovertible prima facie evidence in court. Now that Obama’s alleged COLB has been exposed as deficient in all these areas Loren wants us to realize “we’re not in a courtroom setting…the rules for admission of evidence at trial don’t apply” while siseduermapierda thinks Obama’s COLB “isn’t important anymore“. When the facts change, the alibis change.

    “Obama could prove [whatever but] what incentive [has he] to voluntarily produce anything…?Loren

    “…if I were Obama, I wouldn’t give birthers a damn thing … It’s not getting into a court…qwertyman

    Loren and fellow loyalists must come to terms with the fact that it’s out of Obama’s hands now: Director Fukino’s July statement was a gift to “birthers”. Hawaii law (UIPA) can be used through expedited legal action to compel Hawaii DoH to make public Obama’s vital records. The divergences between what DoH have already confirmed about those records and what Obama has placed online are incentive enough for “birthers” to follow through.

    “…the DoH is not speaking to birthers.qwertyman

    DoH has recently confirmed that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate: that makes Obama’s alleged COLBs fakes and means “birthers” were right all along. “Not speaking” is contrary to Hawaii law and may aid and abet felonies.

    “…officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the COLB accurately reflects the information in the file…
    smrstrauss

    smrstrauss is mistaken about what Hawaii DoH have said about Obama’s alleged COLB. Assuming smrstrauss hasn’t read back into this discussion, Hawaii DoH has never said with reference to Obama’s alleged COLB that any detail therein accurately reflects his vital records filing. Indeed how could they, when Hawaii DoH have officially confirmed through UIPA that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended date of birth: meaning, as was explained below, that Obama’s alleged COLB is “unofficial” or faked. For Hawaii DoH to say “the COLB accurately reflects the information in the file” would make them accessories after the fact; that’s why DoH officials have been careful to avoid any such explicit statement.

    “You have no right to see an invoice…a violation of HI privacy laws.qwertyman

    MGB is correct to say “It’s false to say that the public has no right to see the invoice.qwertyman is either very badly misinformed about Hawaii’s laws, or doesn’t care, or he spins to deceive. The Hawaii Uniform Information Practices Act gives the public every right to see that invoice, and every document and record appertaining, while privacy in this case is not an issue. http://tinyurl.com/UIPA-manual

    From the Hawaii UIPA Handbook:

    “All agencies of the state and county governments must comply with the UIPA [which] requires agencies to disclose all ‘government records.’ This term is defined broadly to include any information maintained by an agency that is recorded in any physical form.

    The UIPA requires an agency to make a government record available for inspection and copying unless the agency can show that an exception to disclosure under § 92F-13 authorizes the agency to restrict or deny access to that record.

    UIPA Privacy Exception (§92F-13(1):

    (1) An individual has a significant privacy interest in the information contained in the record; and
    (2) The significant privacy interest is not outweighed by the public interest in disclosure [public interest defined by UIPA as information which promotes governmental accountability].

    UIPA Significant Privacy Interest (§92F-14)

    (1) Medical history, condition, and treatment; (2) Criminal law investigation, except where disclosure is necessary to prosecute or continue the investigation; (3) Eligibility for social services or welfare benefits; (4) Public employment personnel file type information (5) Nongovernmental employment history (6) Financial information; (7) Professional and vocational licensee qualifications (8) Personal recommendations or evaluations; and (9) Social security numbers.

    OIP has further recognized that an individual has a significant privacy interest in his or her home contact information, date of birth, and ethnicity.

    Where an agency cannot identify a significant privacy interest [deemed to be waived when details have been made public], the slightest public interest in disclosure will require the agency to disclose the record.

    It was the difficulties for DoH caused by such a UIPA request that precipitated Fukino’s July statement. As noted earlier, Fukino’s July statement only compounded those difficulties: UIPA requires DoH to make “publicly available” the documents and records behind that statement.

    I hope qwertyman comprehends the democratic significance of the words “…[if] an agency cannot identify a significant privacy interest“, which “OIP has further recognized” is limited to 1-9 above and “home contact information, date of birth, and ethnicity” [waived if made public] , then “the slightest public interest [requires] disclosure”. Maybe qwertyman has some thoughts on how and why DoH may evade its statutory duty and why the American public should not have recourse to the laws (UIPA) that protect them.

    “Artillery…nuclear warheads…Turkey…Airborne…genealogist…family historian…SanDiegoSam

    SanDiegoSam really ought to install dual-key control on the launching of turds ["...BS...Dumb...How’s that IQ holding up"] at fellow contributors: otherwise he could be evicted from this blog the same way as his unwept old-comrade-in-arms HistorianDude.

    HistorianDude was a fanatical Obama loyalist who was drummed out of TRSoL for sadistic aggression and contempt (not least against Phil). HistorianDude was another who couldn’t stop himself fantasizing that readers might be impressed with a resume curiously similar (e.g “Nuclear Warhead Maintenance & Assembly Officer in a NATO unit in the Republic of Turkey.“) to SanDiegoSam.

    I hope we really are dealing SanDiegoSam, because HistorianDude pretending to be SanDiegoSam would have made himself into someone who can never be trusted twice-over.

  413. 12/5/2009qwertyman says:

    Sue has been asked previously but still seems unable to provide answers to my repeated prior questions: Where is the raised seal in Factcheck’s image [ http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ] of Obama’s alleged COLB and how does one find it? Until these prior questions receive answers I am under no obligation to Sue.

    Turn up the grayscale.

    http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/screen-shot-2009-12-03-at-4-40-26-pm.png

    Hawaii DoH’s recent official confirmations that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and amended birthdate, meaning Obama’s alleged COLBs have been faked, stand unrebutted.

    I’ll ask again for some link or proof that the Department of Health has explicitly stated that Obama’s birth certificate filing was delayed, and that the birthdate was amended. You completely failed to answer that question last time.

  414. 12/5/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Hawaii DoH has never said with reference to Obama’s alleged COLB that any detail therein accurately reflects his vital records filing. Indeed how could they, when Hawaii DoH have officially confirmed through UIPA that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended date of birth:”

    Let’s take up the crap about the delayed filing and amended date of birth. It is NOT true. None of it is true. There was a blog that claimed that some answer from the DOH implied this. It is wrong. The DOH never said any such thing, nor did its reply imply it.

    The DOH repeatedly said that the COLB reflects the facts in the file (that Obama was born in Hawaii), and their spokeswoman said that the statements mean that Obama was born in Hawaii. And here is her statement (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html). Moreover, the fact that he was born in Hawaii was confirmed by the notices in the Hawaii newspapers (which were sent out by the government of Hawaii and were not advertisements) which were only sent out for births in Hawaii, and further confirmed by this witness, who recalls being told of his birth in Hawaii (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

    Let us get back to the core claim that the COLB was faked. It would be stupid and unnecessary to fake it if the facts on it were true, and the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that they are true. Moreover, it is meaningless to talk about a faked COLB unless there is an indication that he was born outside of Hawaii. But not only is there no evidence for this, but the chance of it happening without evidence is one in a trillion. There is no evidence of Obama’s mother going to Kenya, no real birth document from Kenya (plenty of forgeries), no US travel document such as a US visa for the child or having him entered on his mother’s passport–records of which would be maintained at the State Department, and which would have been found by now.

  415. 12/5/2009MGB says:

    smrstrauss, It IS crazy to BELIEVE Obama was born in Kenya without proof. I have no PROOF of where he was born and I don’t BELIEVE he was born in Kenya. Where he was born is and should be a FACT, not a belief. I do not KNOW where he was born. PROOF is what’s required for anyone to KNOW where he was born.

    You said, “What counts is whether the facts on the image were correct.” Something else that “counts” is knowing the provenance of that online IMAGE. If it’s forged or in any way changed from what would come out of the Hawaiian database, then that would count very much, imho.

    You said, “It is, by the way, perfectly sufficient since it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii and the only one that Hawaii issues.” Then how about having Hawaii issue one. How about having a cadre of reporters and interested members of the public go to Hawaii where, upon instructions from Obama, the DoH will generate a new Obama COLB from their database. After the DoH certifies that document, let the interested parties compare it to the online COLB and also to the photographs at FactCheck blog.

  416. 12/5/2009MGB says:

    Who Are You Kidding: I welcome your input. Thanks.

  417. 12/5/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Then how about having Hawaii issue one.”

    You have it right. I would be delighted that Hawaii issued one. I am convinced that it will show that Obama was born in Hawaii. But it is up to Hawaii to make that decision. Obama cannot provide the original. He does not have it.

    If you really want the release of the original to happen, write the governor, Linda Lingle. Or petition the legislature.

    They can change the rules to allow copies of the original to be sent out, or to make the birth records file of a president public documents. However, if the do not do this, then we STILL know that Obama was born in Hawaii because they have repeatedly said that he was born in Hawaii, and it would be stupid of them to lie about it because it could easily be found out.

    And, remember that the COLB and the confirmation of the two officials has been further confirmed by the notices in the newspapers and the witness who recalls being told of the birth and the absence of any proof that he was born in Kenya.

    Let’s bring this back to the original discussion. It was alleged that the image of the COLB was forged. I pointed out that (1) there is no evidence that it was forged, and if there were then McCain and Hillary would have been all over the situation. (2) It would be stupid to forge the image if the facts on the image are the same as the facts in the files. The officials have said repeatedly that the facts on the image are the same as the facts in the files.

    Finally, the whole discussion is pointless unless there are facts that the both the COLB is wrong AND that Obama was born somewhere else than Hawaii.

  418. 12/7/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    1 I take it from qwertyman‘s silence on the matter that he concedes he was mistaken when he wrote “You have no right to see an invoice…[and it could be] a violation of HI privacy laws“.

    “Turn up the grayscale.qwertyman

    2 I really do sympathize with qwertyman if he believes that he can discern something meaningful in the grayscale image at the nativeborncitizen blog, but if he recalls I asked to be shown i) a Hawaii seal, in ii) this image: http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal Whatever qwertyman would like to see, or imagines he can see, in the grayscale image, it is undeniable that iii) the grayscale image is not the Factcheck image in dispute but another manipulated image, and iv) the grayscale image does not depict a Hawaii seal. qwertyman has succumbed to the temptation of doing for Obama loyalism exactly what he condemned Polarik and syc1959 as doing for “birthers”. Given qwertyman wrote in contradiction of himself earlier in this discussion (December 1) that “You shouldn’t declare a document authentic solely based on a picture of the document.“, and with nothing better than simply more Factcheck images supporting the claim that a Hawaii “seal” is to be found in Factcheck‘s http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal , there is nothing that can “declare this [alleged] document authentic” – well nothing apart for the statement of the Factcheck bloggers…..

    3 “…link or proof that the…filing was delayed, and that the birthdate was amended…qwertyman

    “…the delayed filing and amended date of birth. It is NOT true. None of it is true.smrstrauss

    Readers may detect a certain irony in qwertyman and smrstrauss being fully prepared to trust the word of Factcheck bloggers who claim that they handled Obama’s alleged COLB with its “seal”, yet not being prepared to take the word of those who have received or seen official confirmations from Hawaii DoH issued according to the law that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate.

    The difference between relying on the statements of the Factcheck bloggers and those who have received official DoH UIPA confirmations is that the validity of the confirmations can be tested: the statement of the Factcheck bloggers is take it or leave it (see point 4). It is very easy to test if Hawaii DoH have issued an official confirmation, for example, of Obama’s amended birthdate. qwertyman and smrstrauss merely have to inquire of Janice Okubo, the Public Information Officer for the Hawaii Department of Health [ http://tinyurl.com/Okubo-DoH ] whether, in response to a UIPA request sent on Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:20 am (“Dear Dr. Fukino, I request an electronic copy of the proof offered to establish/verify ‘Date of Birth’, for an amendment to be made to President Obama’s birth certificate…“), she replied:

    TO: [any and all names redacted]

    FROM: Janice Okubo,

    DATE REQUEST RECEIVED: 10/8/09

    DATE OF THIS NOTICE: 10/29/09

    Notice is provided to you that your request:

    [....] Will be granted in its entirety.

    [....] Cannot be granted because: [....] Agency does not maintain the records. [....] Agency needs a further description or clarification of the records requested. [....] Request requires agency to create a summary…from records not readily retrievable.

    [ X ] Is denied in its entirety

    [....] Will be granted only as to certain parts…”

    Additional UIPA requests concerning a delayed filing of Obama’s vital records have received exactly this official response from Okubo on behalf of Hawaii DoH. Hawaii DoH by law (UIPA) are only permitted to a) disclose a record, b) admit they do not maintain a record, c) ask for clarification, or d) deny access to an existing record: by denying access to records sought in a formal UIPA requests Hawaii DoH are confirming they maintain the records requested. Hawaii DoH’s denial of access to Obama’s delayed filing and the document(s) supplied to amend the birthdate constitute official confirmation that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate.

    Any doubtful reader (including qwertyman and smrstrauss) who is unsure that Hawaii DoH ever issued these confirmations should make the recommended inquiries and requests and tell readers here if they have received a contrary UIPA response from Hawaii DoH: otherwise the fact of the delayed filing and the amended birthdate Obama’s of vital records is conceded.

    4 “The officials have said repeatedly that the facts on the image are the same as the facts in the files.smrstrauss

    It’s impossible to test the statement of the Factcheck bloggers when at no time has any DoH official confirmed any detail with specific reference to Obama’s alleged COLB or even that they issued it.

    Fukino’s two statements only mention an “original birth certificate” and “original vital records” which, under rigorous analysis, mean just about anything.

    Okubo admitted [ http://tinyurl.com/PF-Ok-Jn08 ] she could not go beyond doubt when speaking of the image of Obama’s alleged COLB she was sent by Politifact; when asked directly in subsequent interviews Okubo has refused to acknowledge Obama’s “online COLB” as genuine [ http://tinyurl.com/WND-Ok-Ag09 ] and has emphatically “responded by noting that she is not the registrar, and that she does not have the authority to verify certificates.” [ http://tinyurl.com/24a-Ok1-09 ]

    In Obama loyalists’ favorite Okubo quote (“This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate“) nowhere in the sentence has Okubo actually said “DoH issued that COLB to Obama and it’s genuine in every detail“. That would have been easy to say but Okubo chose not to say it. 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 ABC 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 ABC on the Twelfth of Never, 20XX“. Until law enforcement comes 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.

    5 “DOH never said any such thing, nor did its reply imply it.smrstrauss

    For smrstrauss to call me a liar (“DOH never said any such thing“) and then immediately claim “nor did its reply imply it ” is, presumably, unintentionally comedic.

    The only way smrstrauss can know that “DOH never said any such thing” is if he has possession or knowledge of actual official UIPA responses from Hawaii which, in reply to separate requests for Obama’s delayed filing or documents which supported an amended birthdate, state that the request “cannot be granted because….[the] Agency does not maintain the records”. Given such information from smrstrauss is conspicuous by its absence (not surprising when DoH are hardly likely to dis-confirm their own official confirmations) this means smrstrauss is speaking without a basis in fact: given the matter of DoH UIPA responses is a matter of fact and not opinion, smrstrauss‘s assertions fall into category of, shall we say, “factual inexactitude”.

    Also conspicuously absent was any encouragement from smrstrauss for readers to prove (or disprove) Obama’s delayed filing and amended birthdate for themselves by making their own UIPA requests: smrstrauss would prefer readers to be reassured by his own claims which have no basis in fact. That smrstrauss has not made any UIPA request to Hawaii DoH, and doesn’t seem to want anyone else to do so, reveals what smrstrauss truly believes about the factual status of Obama’s delayed filing and the amended birthdate.

    Galileo told the world that his telescope proved moons orbited Jupiter and Venus had phases: critics told the world that Galileo was lying because they knew that Jupiter could not possibly have orbiting moons and Venus could not possibly have phases. Galileo to Kepler, 1610:

    “What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.

    I invite critics to look through the telescope: smrstrauss angrily calls me a liar on no factual basis. Some people never learn.

    6 “Obama cannot provide the original [BC]. He does not have it…They can change the rules to allow copies of the original to be sent out…smrstrauss

    a For smrstrauss to write that Obama “does not have it [a pre-COLB birth certificate]” is to make another statement based on no known fact i.e. another “factual inexactitude”. If Obama did not own the birth certificate he claimed to find in “Dreams From My Father“, then what birth certificate(s) did Obama use as a driver, college student, world traveler, college professor, or state and US senator before a COLB was allegedly issued to him in June 2007? Is it probable that a responsible and leading personality never had or threw away or lost his pre-COLB birth certificate(s)?

    b Hawaii law devolves upon DoH Vital Records great discretion; the administrative rules its operates are usually self-imposed, although it has led the public to believe otherwise. There is nothing in Hawaii law or DoH rules that forbids it from issuing a long form certificate whenever and to whomever DoH Vital Records chooses. If smrstrauss knows of a Hawaii law or DoH rule which rebuts this, I’d like to know.

    7 “…[if] the image of the COLB was forged…McCain and Hillary would have been all over the situation.smrstrauss

    This is known as the logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance. For example, Stalin loyalists in Soviet Russia used to say “If only Stalin knew about the purges and the camps, he would put a stop to it.” The purges and the camps continued unabated, therefore (according to smrstrauss) Stalin didn’t know anything about them. Very comforting for Stalin loyalists, very naive, and very very wrong.

    8 “…discussion is pointless unless…the COLB is wrong AND…Obama was born somewhere else than Hawaii.smrstrauss

    If Obama’s alleged COLB is “wrong” that means no one has any reason to believe anything Obama has claimed and that voters and campaign donors were duped. Furthermore, the perceived “necessity” to amend the birthdate on Obama’s alleged COLB (if that COLB ever existed), and then illegally remove the summary of reasons for the amendment which should have been printed on that alleged COLB, means that every voter and campaign donor has every incentive to discover the facts behind the cover-up, whatever they are. When a significant privacy interest (see below) cannot be identified UIPA mandates that even the slightest public interest in governmental accountability requires disclosure of records: that’s how a functioning democracy should work.

  419. 12/8/2009qwertyman says:

    Readers may detect a certain irony in qwertyman and smrstrauss being fully prepared to trust the word of Factcheck bloggers who claim that they handled Obama’s alleged COLB with its “seal”, yet not being prepared to take the word of those who have received or seen official confirmations from Hawaii DoH issued according to the law that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate.

    Once again, at best you are making an inference. There’s no official confirmation. There’s no explicit statement. The UPIA form regarding Notice to Requester has no line for if a particular record does not exist. It has a box to check off if a record does not exist, but then says which agency would have that record.

    In addition, we need to see the unedited letters both to the DoH and their response. If the request to the DoH was for dozens of documents, and they replied denied in full, that does not imply that every one of those documents actually exists, it just says that you will not be getting either of them.

    The difference between relying on the statements of the Factcheck bloggers and those who have received official DoH UIPA confirmations is that the validity of the confirmations can be tested: the statement of the Factcheck bloggers is take it or leave it (see point 4). It is very easy to test if Hawaii DoH have issued an official confirmation, for example, of Obama’s amended birthdate. qwertyman and smrstrauss merely have to inquire of Janice Okubo, the Public Information Officer for the Hawaii Department of Health [ http://tinyurl.com/Okubo-DoH ] whether, in response to a UIPA request sent on Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:20 am (“Dear Dr. Fukino, I request an electronic copy of the proof offered to establish/verify ‘Date of Birth’, for an amendment to be made to President Obama’s birth certificate…“), she replied:

    TO: [any and all names redacted]

    FROM: Janice Okubo,

    DATE REQUEST RECEIVED: 10/8/09

    DATE OF THIS NOTICE: 10/29/09

    Notice is provided to you that your request:

    [....] Will be granted in its entirety.

    [....] Cannot be granted because: [....] Agency does not maintain the records. [....] Agency needs a further description or clarification of the records requested. [....] Request requires agency to create a summary…from records not readily retrievable.

    [ X ] Is denied in its entirety

    [....] Will be granted only as to certain parts…”

    Additional UIPA requests concerning a delayed filing of Obama’s vital records have received exactly this official response from Okubo on behalf of Hawaii DoH. Hawaii DoH by law (UIPA) are only permitted to a) disclose a record, b) admit they do not maintain a record, c) ask for clarification, or d) deny access to an existing record: by denying access to records sought in a formal UIPA requests Hawaii DoH are confirming they maintain the records requested. Hawaii DoH’s denial of access to Obama’s delayed filing and the document(s) supplied to amend the birthdate constitute official confirmation that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate.

    You are making inferences from a denial.

    Q: Can you give me this, this, that and those?
    A: No.

    That doesn’t imply that this, this, that and those all actually exist, especially when there is no standard entry in case some of those requests are for documents that exist and some of them are for documents that don’t exist.

  420. 12/8/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    yet not being prepared to take the word of those who have received or seen official confirmations from Hawaii DoH issued according to the law that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate.

    We don’t need to take your word. Your own “evidence” refutes you.

    There is no such confirmation from the Hawaii DoH in anything you have posted.

  421. 12/9/2009MGB says:

    smrstrauss: You said, “It is, by the way, perfectly sufficient since it is the official birth certificate of Hawaii and the only one that Hawaii issues.” I said, “Then how about having Hawaii issue one.”

    So, you see, I wasn’t talking about the original, vault certificate. I was talking about the COLB. Let’s see Hawaii issue a new one, with media and interested persons standing right there to watch it come off the printer, out of their database, and be certified. That’s what I would like to see.

  422. 12/9/2009MGB says:

    Who Are You Kidding: Way to go. Confuse them with logic.

  423. 12/9/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “So, you see, I wasn’t talking about the original, vault certificate. I was talking about the COLB. Let’s see Hawaii issue a new one, with media and interested persons standing right there to watch it come off the printer, out of their database, and be certified. That’s what I would like to see.”

    What in the world for? The facts on the COLB are the same as on the original. The officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the COLB reflects the facts on the original.

    The only reason to forge a COLB would be if the facts on the COLB were different than on the original. The officials, in a Republican administration and with no reason to lie, repeatedly say that the document in the file means that Obama was born in Hawaii. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)

  424. 12/9/2009SanDiegoSam says:

    MGB:

    Let’s see Hawaii issue a new one, with media and interested persons standing right there to watch it come off the printer, out of their database, and be certified. That’s what I would like to see.

    To bad nobody cares what you “would like to see.”

    The legal standard has been met. If you don’t like it, tough.

  425. 12/9/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    1We don’t need to take your word.SanDiegoSam

    The tone of SanDiegoSam‘s comment (Phil posts, readers comment) is reminiscent of the greatly unmissed HistorianDude, who recklessly provoked the ignominy of being kicked off TRSoL through his sadistic aggression and narcissistic contempt towards contributors and Phil. Given both HistorianDude and SanDiegoSam have been unable to restrain themselves from boasting about an oddly similar resume, contributors are placed in the bizarre position of deciding whether SanDiegoSam is actually that suitable case for treatment HistorianDude trying to simulate being rational. As SanDiegoSam uttered three “factual inexactitudes” in three short sentences, I’m gravitating to the opinion that SanDiegoSam‘s (perhaps that should be HistorianDude‘s) deceit has eventually worn through, especially given SanDiegoSam has chosen to ignore the question of his identity–credibility as posed in an earlier comment within the discussion. Who’d want to be associated with HistorianDude?

    Take the way SanDiegoSam lets prejudice cloud his reading comprehension: nowhere in my comment did I say anyone should take my word that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate. Actually I noted the irony of qwertyman and smrstrauss being fully prepared to take the word of those whose statement could not be tested (the Factcheck bloggers) over the word of those whose word could be tested (those in receipt of DoH UIPA responses). That subtle but significant difference apparently eluded SanDiegoSam‘s undertanding of what he read.

    In contrast to SanDiegoSam‘s less than objective reading, my comment whole-heartedly encouraged doubtful readers to test for themselves whether Obama’s vital records involved a delayed filing and an amended birthdate by making their own (quote) “recommended inquiries and requests and tell readers here if they have received a contrary UIPA response from Hawaii DoH.SanDiegoSam is foisting onto readers a “factual inexactitude” by trying to suggest anything else.

    Indeed, it tells against SanDiegoSam‘s confidence in his own position that he has not encouraged readers to make their own inquiries and requests. My quite reasonable assumption is that SanDiegoSam does not believe the results of such inquiries and requests will uphold his position, and is hoping nobody will go beyond his word alone. Readers can judge for themselves.

    2Your own “evidence” refutes you.SanDiegoSam

    In terms of “my own evidence” an objective appraisal would have concluded that “my own evidence” is internally consistent. Hawaii DoH’s confirmation through UIPA that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing (30 days or more after birth) alongside an alleged COLB which claims Obama was born on August 4, four days before his birth was filed, requires an amended birthdate to make sense. When Hawaii DoH were asked through UIPA for access to the document(s) submitted to amend Obama’s birthdate, access to the document(s) was denied: if the document(s) did not exist DoH would have responded that the document(s) were “not maintained“. Consequently, the delayed filing and anomalous birthdate are reconciled by the official confirmation from DoH of an amended birthdate: “my own evidence” thus proves internally consistent, and SanDiegoSam‘s observation is “factually inexact“.

    3There is no such confirmation from the Hawaii DoH…SanDiegoSam

    The only way SanDiegoSam can know that “There is no such confirmation from the Hawaii DoH” is if he has possession or knowledge of actual official UIPA responses from Hawaii which, in reply to separate requests concerning Obama’s amended birthdate or Obama’s delayed filing, state that the request “cannot be granted because….[the] Agency does not maintain the records“.

    Given SanDiegoSam has not claimed to have possession or knowledge of the necessary UIPA responses (probably being afraid such claims can be easily disproved, as DoH are hardly likely to dis-confirm their own official confirmations) no veracity should be attributed to SanDiegoSam‘s assertion that “There is no such confirmation from the Hawaii DoH…” Simply, without official DoH UIPA dis-confirmations SanDiegoSam cannot possibly know; SanDiegoSam does not have (= does not claim to have) any such dis-confirmations; therefore SanDiegoSam‘s assertion is his third “factual inexactitude“.

    Or the fourth, if one doesn’t accept the mask.

    Notice to Requester has no line for if a particular record does not exist. It has a box to check off if a record does not exist, but then says which agency would have that record.qwertyman

    qwertyman in a previous comment succumbed to the temptation of self-contradiction and has done it again in this comment. How are these two statements by qwertyman logically congruent: “no line for if a particular record does not exist” and “it has a box to check off if a record does not exist“?

    qwertyman‘s attempted escape from self-contradiction only makes sense if a record which does not exist in an agency’s files (skeptical marks) “must somehow exist in another agency’s files” and an agency under UIPA is forced to complete “Agency believed to maintain records__________” after it has checked both “[......] [Request] cannot be granted” and “[......] Agency does not maintain the records“.

    First, this escape is circular, given it assumes the record exists somewhere (just not Hawaii DoH!), thus undermines qwertyman‘s position.

    Second, for his escape from self-contradiction to have succeeded qwertyman also had to get us to swallow the notion of Hawaii legislators having bungled when they “forgot” to include an option for an agency to answer UIPA requests by responding, without reference to another agency, that they “do not maintain the records“. As qwertyman concedes that both “[......] [Request] cannot be granted” and “[......] Agency does not maintain the records” are contiguous on UIPA notifications, use of both permits an agency to indicate they do not hold a record; nothing in UIPA constrains the agency to indicate anything more or refer to another agency. The relevant section from the official UIPA Handbook:

    (3) Where agency is unable to disclose the record or part of the record, the notice must state that: (a) The agency does not maintain the record; (b) The agency requires a further description or clarification of the requested record to identify and search for the record; or (c) The request requires the agency to create a summary or compile information not readily retrievable.

    Option 3a: that is how Hawaii DoH could have (were it true) indicated there had been no proof submitted to amend Obama’s birthdate. In fact DoH responded by indicating that access “[ X ] Is denied in its entirety“: working out what that means is a matter of simple logic.

    “If the request to the DoH was for dozens of documents, and they replied denied in full, that does not imply that every one of those documents actually exists.qwertyman

    qwertyman is not applying sufficient intellectual resources to the problem that confronts him. The form of words used in the UIPA request I transcribed (“the proof offered to establish/verify ‘Date of Birth’, for an amendment [to Obama's vital records]“) is taken directly from Hawaii DoH rules concerning “major administrative amendments” to a vital record. These rules require an affidavit and “documentary proof corroborating the information to be corrected” (or a second affidavit) to accomplish a major administrative amendment to a vital record.

    Whatever the proof submitted in corroboration of an amendment to Obama’s birthdate comprises, Hawaii DoH have denied access to those document(s) in entirety; had nothing been submitted to prove a birthdate amendment the UIPA notification would have returned “[access] cannot be granted because….[the] Agency does not maintain the records“. Therefore Hawaii DoH does indeed maintain “the proof offered to establish/verify ‘Date of Birth’, for an amendment [to Obama's vital records]“, whatever the document(s) might be, and only UIPA legal action will prise it out into the public domain. Such a lawsuit is perfectly available under UIPA, with no impediment of “standing”, and may be expedited.

    It should be understood that discussion here of Obama’s amended birthdate does not exhaust the likelihood of further amendments to Obama’s vital records: that possibility awaits disclosure by other UIPA requests.

  426. 12/9/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “smrstrauss being fully prepared to take the word of those whose statement could not be tested (the Factcheck bloggers)”

    Answer: I pointed out that the physical copy of Obama’s birth certificate was shown to BOTH FactCheck and Politifact. And I pointed out that the facts on the posted birth certificate were repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii.

    Re: “Hawaii DoH’s confirmation through UIPA that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing”

    Answer: They have not said any such thing.

    Re: “ When Hawaii DoH were asked through UIPA for access to the document(s) submitted to amend Obama’s birthdate, access to the document(s) was denied: if the document(s) did not exist DoH would have responded that the document(s) were “not maintained“.

    Answer: Who says they would have said “not maintained”? This is all speculation, and it isn’t even logical speculation.

    Here is how you find out if there was a delayed filing or if the documents were amended:

    You ask: “Was there any document in the file applying for a late filing? Yes/No” and you ask: “Was there any document in the file applying for an amendment to a document? Yes/No”

    If you get a Yes, then you can say that there was a late filing or an amendment, but you haven’t got anything like that. And the guys who were supposed to ask the questions apparently did not even ask the Yes/No question about a late filing or an amendment. BUT, more likely, she or he did, and got a NO, and they just didn’t tell. In any case, there is NO proof that there was a late filing. (A four day delay between birth and registration is not a late filing. That is normal, especially when the birth takes place on a Friday.)

    Re: “the official confirmation from DoH of an amended birthdate”

    Answer: There is NO official confirmation from DoH of an amended birth date.

    The DoH did not say “yes” to the question “Was there an amended birth date?” Nor did they answer “yes” to the question: “Was there an application for an amendment in the file?” Or, it is possible that they actually answered NO to such a question, and whomever asked the question did not publish the answer. But, in any case, there is NO confirmation of any amendment in the file.

    The fundamental facts remain: (1) There is no evidence that the COLB was forged (two guys who will not give their names have claimed that it is forged, but there is no other evidence, and if there were any solid suspicions of it being forged, the McCain and Hillary campaigns and the state of Hawaii would have been all over the situation.) (2) The officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the facts on the COLB are the same as in the files, so what would be the point in forging it? (3) There is even a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in August 1961 (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html).

    Re: “Let’s see Hawaii issue a new one, with media and interested persons standing right there to watch it come off the printer, out of their database, and be certified. That’s what I would like to see.”

    Answer: And I’d like to see a sunset over Lake Como. It would be unnecessary to print out another COLB because the facts on the COLB are the same as those in the files. No matter how many COLBs you print out, the facts will all be the same. There isn’t a shred of evidence that the COLB was forged, and why forge it if the facts are the same as on the original in the files, which has been repeatedly confirmed by the two officials in Hawaii?

  427. 12/10/2009qwertyman says:

    qwertyman is not applying sufficient intellectual resources to the problem that confronts him. The form of words used in the UIPA request I transcribed (“the proof offered to establish/verify ‘Date of Birth’, for an amendment [to Obama's vital records]“) is taken directly from Hawaii DoH rules concerning “major administrative amendments” to a vital record. These rules require an affidavit and “documentary proof corroborating the information to be corrected” (or a second affidavit) to accomplish a major administrative amendment to a vital record.

    1. Request denied because we don’t maintain that record.
    2. Request denied because we don’t maintain that record. Agency that does: _____________________

    I can understand why you would cling to the proposition that there is no difference between #1 and #2. It makes your “DoH tacitly admitted fraud by not including a date of amendment on Obama’s birth certificate” argument work. I can also understand why you continuously refuse to provide a link to an actual pdf of the letter (again, feel free to redact any names). Further, under your logic, if a UIPA request for Batman’s birth certificate returned as “request denied in full,” you would infer that the DoH maintained a copy of Batman’s birth certificate.

  428. 12/10/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “For smrstrauss to write… Obama did not own the birth certificate he claimed to find in “Dreams From My Father“, then what birth certificate(s) did Obama use as a driver, college student, world traveler, college professor, or state and US senator before a COLB was allegedly issued to him in June 2007? Is it probable that a responsible and leading personality never had or threw away or lost his pre-COLB birth certificate(s)?”

    Answer: In order to get a passport or a driver’s license, you must show a birth certificate. For these documents Obama may have used a copy of the original birth certificate (they were not issuing COLBs until recently). But it is likely that he lost this.

    Why? Because we know that he did not have a birth certificate in his possession in 2007. Why? Because he asked Hawaii in that year to send him a copy of his birth certificate. We know that he asked Hawaii to send him a copy of his birth certificate because in the checking by either FactCheck or Politifact they asked the Hawaii authorities if they had sent Obama a COLB in 2007, and the answer was yes.

    Re: “Is it probable that a responsible and leading personality never had or threw away or lost his pre-COLB birth certificate(s)?”

    YES. People do lose their birth certificates (in fact, it is very frequent), and we know that Obama asked for one in 2007.

    Obama’s book, I am told, said that he found his original birth certificate “in an old book” when he was a child. What did Obama do after he saw his birth certificate in the old book? Maybe he left it in the old book and put the book back where it came from. What happens to old books when people move house? They get thrown out.

    Getting back to the allegation that the COLB was forged or that there was something wrong with it. The officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the COLB has the same facts on it as in the files.

  429. 12/10/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    you…cling to the proposition that there is no difference between #1 and #2qwertyman

    Given he’s prone to self-contradiction, the logic of qwertyman can be somewhat distorted.

    In reply to a UIPA request an agency in Hawaii can reply: 1. You may inspect the record; 2. We do not maintain the record; 3. Access to the record is denied in entirety; 4 Access to the record will be granted in part; 5. Clarify the request; 6. Look somewhere else for the record – try here: ____. Replies 2 and 6 (qwertyman‘s #1 and #2) are totally different.

    Hawaii DoH’s notifications in answer to requests for records concerning Obama’s amended birthdate and delayed filing have never contained answer Number 6 (Look somewhere else for the record – try here ___).

    Hawaii DoH’s notifications in answer to requests for records concerning Obama’s amended birthdate and delayed filing are always answer Number 3: Access to the record is denied in entirety. Simple logic establishes the difference between 3 (Access to the record is denied in entirety), and 2 (We do not maintain the record): it’s the difference between something and and nothing. That something being the actual records concerning Obama’s amended birthdate and delayed filing.

    if a UIPA request for Batman’s birth certificate returned as ‘request denied in full’…qwertyman

    Again qwertyman‘s logic is somewhat distorted. Hawaii DoH cannot return answer Number 3 (Access to the record is denied in entirety) for a request to inspect Batman’s records because it doesn’t have any; its reply would be answer Number 2 (We do not maintain the record). In Batman’s case it’s the difference between nothing and something. That nothing being the non-existence of records concerning Batman.

    Answer Number 2 = nothing = no record. Answer Number 3 = something = a record. Hawaii DoH’s notifications in answer to requests for records concerning Obama’s amended birthdate and delayed filing are always answer Number 3 = something = a record.

    …refuse to provide a link to an actual pdf of the letter’…qwertyman

    I have no intention of placing online potentially identifying UIPA PDF notifications forwarded in confidence to me or potentially identifying data from e-mails. The difference between the Factcheck bloggers and the UIPA requesters is that the statements of the UIPA requesters can be tested.

    I wholeheartedly encourage anyone with doubts concerning the UIPA confirmations discussed here to make personal inquiries or UIPA requests to Hawaii DoH or participate in UIPA legal action to order DoH Director Fukino to release all documents and records she consulted before issuing her July statement.

    Conversely, it’s quite obvious that qwertyman has no intention of testing, or encouraging others to test, anything he’s been told by Obama and the Factcheck bloggers: but history goes with the testers, not the true believers, that’s why we’re not grunting this across a cave.

  430. 12/10/2009qwertyman says:

    In reply to a UIPA request an agency in Hawaii can reply: 1. You may inspect the record; 2. We do not maintain the record; 3. Access to the record is denied in entirety; 4 Access to the record will be granted in part; 5. Clarify the request; 6. Look somewhere else for the record – try here: ____. Replies 2 and 6 (qwertyman’s #1 and #2) are totally different.

    Here’s the UIPA manual.
    http://www.state.hi.us/oip/UIPA%20Manual%205aug08.pdf

    Page 43 seems to be the form that you received, based on your prior “transcript” of the post from December 7, 2009 at 6:48 pm.
    These are the options for a response to a request for documents:

    Will be granted in its entirety.
    Cannot be granted because
    Agency does not maintain the records. Agency believed to maintain records: ____________ Note this is all on one line
    Agency needs a further description or clarification of the records requested. Please contact the
    agency and provide the following information:_________________________________
    _____________________________________________________________________
    Request requires agency to create a summary or compilation from records not readily retrievable.
    Is denied in its entirety
    Will be granted only as to certain parts

    This is the entire range of potential responses on that form. Note that there is no (what you call) Answer #2. Just what you call Answer #6. They also provide lines for justifications for a denial. This is why I want to see a pdf of the letter. You can redact the names and the dates, I really don’t care.

    Hawaii DoH’s notifications in answer to requests for records concerning Obama’s amended birthdate and delayed filing are always answer Number 3: Access to the record is denied in entirety. Simple logic establishes the difference between 3 (Access to the record is denied in entirety), and 2 (We do not maintain the record): it’s the difference between something and and nothing. That something being the actual records concerning Obama’s amended birthdate and delayed filing.

    Again, it seems according to your last post the form you’re looking at is page 43 of the UIPA manual that I linked to. There is no answer that merely says “We do not maintain that record.” There is only an answer that says “We do not maintain that record; this is the agency that does.”

    You could even tell me which type of form you’re looking at, because the form that you seem to be looking at only has the latter potential response.

    “…refuse to provide a link to an actual pdf of the letter’…” qwertyman

    I have no intention of placing online potentially identifying UIPA PDF notifications forwarded in confidence to me or potentially identifying data from e-mails. The difference between the Factcheck bloggers and the UIPA requesters is that the statements of the UIPA requesters can be tested.

    For the third time, it would not be hard to redact all names and dates. What I’m interested in is the actual form that you got in response and the agency justification, if any, that was written. I’ve also been lied to by birthers too many times to take them at their word about anything.

  431. 12/11/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Hawaii DoH has never said with reference to Obama’s alleged COLB that any detail therein accurately reflects his vital records filing.”

    Indeed they did, and they further said that the fact that the files show his place of birth means that he was born in Hawaii (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html).

    Re the speculation based on an assumption about the DOH answer that the file was amended. There is absolutely no evidence that anything in the file was amended. The two officials state categorically that the file shows that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  432. 12/12/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    “…it is likely that he lost this [pre-COLB birth certificate]…Hawaii in that year to send him…smrstrauss

    smrstrauss is continuing to make suppositions about Obama and his alleged birth certificates that have no known basis in fact: however comforting that may be for him, other people are liable to regard it as wishful thinking.

    “…it is likely that he lost this [pre-COLB birth certificate]… ” – Supposition.

    “…he asked Hawaii in that year [2007] to send him a copy of his birth certificate… ” – Supposition.

    “…FactCheck or Politifact…asked the Hawaii authorities if they had sent Obama a COLB in 2007, and the answer was yes…..” – No evidence.

    I cannot find any references at FactCheck or Politifact supporting smrstrausss claim that FactCheck or Politifact were told by Hawaii DoH that they sent Obama a COLB. Unless smrstrauss can provide a reference his claim must be regarded as wishful thinking. The link to swamppolitics does not function and not suprisingly goes absolutely nowhere.

    “…officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the COLB has the same facts on it as in the files…” – Untrue.

    I cannot find any reference supporting smrstrauss‘s claim that Hawaii DoH have even once said the alleged COLB Obama placed online is genuine. I showed below that Okubu has refused to verify Obama’s COLB and Fukino has never mentioned it: smrstrauss does not dispute that. Unless smrstrauss can provide a reference his claim must be regarded as wishful thinking.

    Supposition, no evidence, and untruth: it is clear that smrstrauss has no intention, or is incapable, of subjecting Obama’s claims for his alleged COLB to even minimal critical thinking, and therefore cannot offer critical thinkers even the semblance of a rational case.

    “…There is no answer that merely says ‘We do not maintain that record.’ There is only an answer that says “We do not maintain that record; this is the agency that does.qwertyman

    This is how the pertinent part of a UIPA notification appears:

    NOTICE IS PROVIDED TO YOU THAT YOUR REQUEST:

    [SEPARATE LINE 1]………….[....] Will be granted in its entirety.

    [SEPARATE LINE 2]………….[....] Cannot be granted because

    [SEPARATE LINE 3]…………………[....] Agency does not maintain the records. Agency believed to maintain records:________

    [SEPARATE LINE 4]…………………[....] Agency needs a further description or clarification of the records requested. Please contact the agency and provide the following information:

    [SEPARATE LINE 5]…………………[....] Request requires agency to create a summary or compilation from records not readily retrievable.

    [SEPARATE LINE 6]………….[....] Is denied in its entirety [....] Will be granted only as to certain parts based upon the following exemption provided in HRS § 92F-13 and/or § 92F-22 and other laws cited below.

    1 All UIPA notifications are the same.

    2 The part of a UIPA notification that worries qwertyman is “Agency does not maintain the records. Agency believed to maintain records:_____

    3 qwertyman‘s version of the notification “We do not maintain that record; this is the agency that does” is a distortion. qwertyman‘s version of a UIPA notification is not faithful to the original meaning; qwertyman has introduced a semi-colon where there is NO semi-colon i.e. after “We do not maintain that record…“, neither is there the connector “…this is “.

    4 An official a UIPA notification (as above) places a period after “Agency does not maintain the records.[Period] ” which denotes a non-defining or independent clause. When a sentence has only a single clause, that clause is always an independent or non-defining clause. Nothing further need follow a non-defining and independent clause. Conversely, a dependent or defining clause is never stopped with a period: it is dependent on the rest of the sentence for meaning and must not be interpreted beyond the sentence. The part-sentence which follows this sentence is a defining or dependent clause, as indicated by its colon: “Agency believed to maintain records:[Colon]” The sentence “[....] Agency does not maintain the records.[Period]” reads independently and, when necessary, was designed to be treated independently. This action would be fully consistent with the interpretation given by the Hawaii Office of Information Practices (the agency which administers UIPA) at its FAQs webpage:

    “What are the possible responses to your request?

    Full disclosure: All requested information is disclosable.

    Partial disclosure: The record contains both disclosable and non-disclosable information. Certain information must be segregated before copies of the record are provided.

    No disclosure: The requested information is not disclosable.

    Request cannot be filled: the record is not maintained by the agency that received the request; the requester needs to clarify what information is being sought; or no such records exist. The UIPA does not apply to the requested record.” [separate categories, emphasis applied to the first]

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/guidancefaqs.html

    The burden is upon qwertyman to demonstrate why the plain meaning of both the UIPA notification and the OIP FAQs should not be accepted as they read. Unless this happens it isn’t necessary to give any further time to the matter, not least because even if we assume theoretically the UIPA notification and OIP FAQs read as qwertyman imagines, whereby “[....] Agency does not maintain the records.[Period]” is only used when directing UIPA requesters to another agency, how could it support his contention that Obama’s vital records do not involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate? To the contrary, surely? The facts are that Hawaii DoH has consistently denied access to existing records, has never directed UIPA requesters to another agency, and recent OIP guidance is that agencies must indicate when a record does not exist. This can only have one meaning.

    “…redact all names and dates. What I’m interested in is the actual form that you got…qwertyman

    I must continue to insist that I shall not be placing potentially identifying files or e-mails online, or conveying to qwertyman who sent them to me. Even if the most fanatical Obama loyalist forwarded me a file or an e-mail, I would still not put it online. Emotions run high on everything connected with Obama’s eligibility and nobody should be exposed to abuse and hazard, which wouldn’t be the case if Obama allowed it to go through official channels.

    If qwertyman is still confused about what DoH UIPA notifications contain, and is wary of being misled, he need only make personal UIPA requests to Hawaii DoH: in the event qwertyman is returned a UIPA notification which does not substantiate my position, he can have the satisfaction of proving me wrong right here.

    As this is never going to happen, others readers can be assured that DoH have indeed confirmed, by denying access, that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate. Such is the recent unambiguous guidance from the Office of Information Practices which administers UIPA: denial of access to records should be interpreted as only applying to records which exist; if records do not exist the agency (e.g. DoH) must indicate this in its UIPA notification. That Obama’s vital records most definitely involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate can also be deduced from the fact that in July 2009, as a precipitate reaction to ground-breaking UIPA requests to Hawaii DoH, Director Fukino issued a statement in which she said she had seen Obama’s “original vital records“; her previous statement in October 2008 referenced an “original birth certificate“. DoH jargon can define “original birth certificate” as different possible entities but it is always just one tangible thing; the new term “original vital records” indicates the re-consideration of more than one thing, more than one record, which DoH are not in a position to deny exist.

  433. 12/14/2009syc1959 says:

    SanDiegoSam says: The legal standard has been met. If you don’t like it, tough.

    after MGB posted:

    Let’s see Hawaii issue a new one, with media and interested persons standing right there to watch it come off the printer, out of their database, and be certified. That’s what I would like to see.
    To bad nobody cares what you “would like to see.”

    The fact remains that the State of Hawaii has declared they hold more then one record on Barack Obama. Last I heard, people were born only once. So how does one get more then one record?

    Legally they can only provide the last record, if the original is sealed, such as in the case of adoption. Therefore whatever the original one states would be different then the one that might be released.

    And no the legal standard has not been met, if it had Obama would not be fighting any lawsuit, would he?

    ***********
    qwertyman says: Turn up the grayscale.

    The image that you refer to is inaccurate. Here is a better one, but you might ask yourself, WHY are all the lettering and the date stamp visible on this, but there is no indication of any embossing.

    http://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/birth_certificate_3edgeexp575.jpg

    The gray scale has no merit.

  434. 12/14/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “The fact remains that the State of Hawaii has declared they hold more then one record on Barack Obama. Last I heard, people were born only once. So how does one get more then one record?”

    Answer: Most likely there are records in the same file about when the file was accessed and by whom, and also records showing when the COLB was issued.

    Re: “And no the legal standard has not been met, if it had Obama would not be fighting any lawsuit, would he?”

    Total crap. There never was a lawsuit against Obama just for the birth certificate, and the vast majority of them (and I read by far most of them) did not even ask that Obama show his birth certificate to the court. All the lawsuits before the election tried to stop the election, and none of them (and I read them all) even asked that he show his birth certificate to the court. That accounts for by far the bulk of the cases. The bulk of the cases after the election were to stop the Electoral College from voting, stop the certification of the election by Congress or stop the Inauguration. In short, the lawsuits against Obama were to stop him from being president, not to get the birth certificate.

    Re:“…it is likely that he lost this [pre-COLB birth certificate]… ” – Supposition.

    Answer: IT is highly probable however. Many people lose their original birth certificates. We know that the COLB has a 2007 date on it and that the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed that the facts on the COLB are the same as on the original and that this means that Obama was born in Hawaii. (See below for the citation.)

    Re: “…he asked Hawaii in that year [2007] to send him a copy of his birth certificate… ” – Supposition.

    Answer: While I cannot confirm this, it is highly likely because the COLB has the 2007 date on it, and the officials in Hawaii never said “we did not send a COLB to Obama in 2007.”

    Re: “I cannot find any references at FactCheck or Politifact supporting smrstrausss claim that FactCheck or Politifact were told by Hawaii DoH that they sent Obama a COLB. Unless smrstrauss can provide a reference his claim must be regarded as wishful thinking. “

    Answer: I regret to say that I cannot find it either. This does not mean that it did not happen. That is the way that I remember it, but I am unable to show the citation now.

    However, this is not critical to the argument. It merely eliminates a confirmation. The fact is that the Department of Health of Hawaii DID send a COLB to Obama in 2007.

    We know this from the fact that when the department twice confirmed the facts on the COLB the officials did not say at that time: “We did not send a COLB to Obama in 2007.”

    In both the confirmation situations the officials looked into the file, and would have known from the documents in the file whether or not a COLB was sent in 2007 because there would have been a record of a request for a COLB in the file. If there was no such request, and yet Obama had posted a COLB with a 2007 date on it (which was the case), they would have known that something was wrong. That would have been an opportunity for them to say “this document is forged.” But instead they said that the original birth certificate in the file means that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    You say that they did not say that? Yes, they did.

    As quoted by the Web site of the Chicago Tribune:

    “Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?

    “”Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”” (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)

    Re: “The link to swamppolitics does not function and not suprisingly goes absolutely nowhere.”

    Here it is again:
    http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html It works just fine now.

    Re: “…officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said that the COLB has the same facts on it as in the files…” – Untrue.

    Re: As you see by the swamppolitics site, they said that the original document means that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is what the COLB said also.

    Re: “I cannot find any reference supporting smrstrauss’s claim that Hawaii DoH have even once said the alleged COLB Obama placed online is genuine. “

    They never said that the document was genuine, though this comes close:

    “Asked about that document, Okubo 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)

    What they said was that the original shows that Obama was born in Hawaii, as shown above, and as the link to Swamppolitics shows. Moreover, they never said that the document was forged either.

    Re: “I showed below that Okubu has refused to verify Obama’s COLB and Fukino has never mentioned it:”

    Funkino and the other official in Hawaii, also never said that the COLB was NOT genuine, which is just as importanat as them never saying that it was genuine. And they have repeatedly said that there is an original document in the files, and said to the Chicago Tribune’s Swampolitics that this meant that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “How could it support his contention that Obama’s vital records do not involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate? “

    Although this is not addressed to me, I’d like to comment that there is no solid evidence, only extended interpretation of the rules, that shows that there is any amendment or delayed filing. There certainly was no delayed filing because the notices in the Hawaii newspapers went out only about ten days after Obama’s birth was registered. If there had been an amendment in the file, and it affected the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii, then the officials would have said so when they made their two statements. Or, they would not have made the two statements.

    Re: “others readers can be assured that DoH have indeed confirmed, by denying access, that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended birthdate. “

    Baloney. Only an interpretation. The officials in Hawaii state without any qualification that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that is the key fact.

    Getting back to the first allegation, that the COLB was forged. There would be no purpose in forging it so long as Obama was born in Hawaii, and it would be risky for someone to forge a COLB if there was anything different on the COLB from the documents in the files. IF there had been a difference on the published COLB from the documents, the officials in Hawaii could have said it. And, most likely they WOULD have said it. That would have been a violation of Hawaii law, and a fraud, and the person who did it would not deserve to win the election. But they didn’t say that there was anything wrong with the COLB, so there wasn’t anything wrong with the COLB.

    While we only know that two officials looked into Obama’s file, in fact the file is open to virtually anyone in the Hawaii government and probably other government agencies as well. No action taken. Nothing wrong with the COLB.

  435. 12/15/2009syc1959 says:

    smrstrauss says Answer: Most likely there are records in the same file about when the file was accessed and by whom, and also records showing when the COLB was issued. “…he asked Hawaii in that year [2007] to send him a copy of his birth certificate… ” – Supposition.

    *******************

    Everything that smrstrauss posted is a “possibility”, but not factual. Facts are based in reality and not conjecture like his ramblings.

    Born in Hawaii is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as even Obama’s web-site maintained that he was a ‘NATIVE’, and that is a stretch as Obama has documented the he was under the British Nationality Act of 1948 [his legal jurisdiction] and even title 8 and the 14th Amendment require jusrisdiction as part of the requirement, and that is not a suggestion.

    Just as another point of interest. This will cause the Obot’s shorts to be in a wad.
    The date stamp is applied by hand – correct. Unlike the embossed seal which is applied my machine.
    Therefore what is the likelyhood of the date stamp to be in exactly the same place on different documents, the Hawaiian Blank template, the DailyKos image [which was the first one to be released].

  436. 12/15/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “Born in Hawaii is not a ‘Natural Born Citizen’”

    Yes it is. The original meaning of Natural Born, which comes from the British common law and the laws in the American colonies before the revolution is simply “born in the country” (except for the children of foreign diplomats).

    That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    And this is what the Wall Street Journal said about Natural Born:

    “such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)”

    And the Wall Street Journal said:

    “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.”

    Re: Supposition. Here are the facts. Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Not only is it the official birth certificate, it is the ONLY birth certificate that Hawaii sends out (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).

    That being the case, how can Obama show anything other than that document unless he has a copy of the original and we do not know that he has a copy of the original. It is supposition that he has a copy of the original. It is more likely that he asked for a copy of the original in 2007.

    The officials in Hawaii have never said that there was anything wrong with the image of the Certification of Live Birth, and they have repeatedly said that the facts on the document in the files MEANS that Obama was born in Hawaii. (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html)

    There is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii. His Kenyan grandmother did not say that he was born in Kenya. She said that he was born in Hawaii. Listen to the complete tape, until after the question “Whereabouts was he born?” http://www.obamacrimes.info/Telephone_Interview_with_Sarah_Hussein_Obama_10-16-

    The National Review said: ““The theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that he was smuggled into the U.S., and that his parents somehow hoodwinked Hawaiian authorities into falsely certifying his birth in Oahu, is crazy stuff.”

    The Wall Street Journal said:

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

  437. 12/16/2009syc1959 says:

    smrstrauss, again you confuse British common law and the law of the United States.

    However if you want to cry, read this;
    Black’s Law Dictionary backs up Vattel’s Laws of Nations

    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.

    Again, jurisdiction is required.

    The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “not owing allegiance to any other.”
    In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and NOT SUBJECT to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    Now, what allegiance was Barack Obama Sr under and what law or jurisdiction was he governed by, and what Act also governed Barack Obama Sr’s children – The British Nationality Act of 1948.

    But let us continue and not confuse you;

    Rep. Bingham, commenting on Section 1992, said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parentS (plural) NOT OWING allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.

    Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee when the 14th Amendment was written said,
    “… ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens’… that means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? NOT OWING allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

    Now, let us move onto this;

    The Origin of Government and Laws in Connecticut
    JESSE ROOT, 1798

    These rights and liberties are our own, not holden by the gift of a despot. Our government and our rulers are from amongst ourselves; chosen by the free, uninfluenced suffrages of enlightened freemen; not to oppress and devour, but to protect, feed, and bless the people, with the benign and energetic influence of their power (as ministers of God for good to them). This shows the ignorance of those who are clamorous for a new constitution, and the mistake of those who suppose that the rules of the Common Law of England are the common law of Connecticut, until altered by a statute.

    However I would prefer to again, quote one of our Founding Fathers;

    “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the
    time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
    manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
    may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform
    to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson
    to William Johnson, 1823

  438. 12/16/2009syc1959 says:

    smrstrauss,
    Again note that the word “CITIZENS” is used PLURAL, meaning more then one.

    Black’s Law Dictionary backs up Vattel’s Laws of Nations

    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.

  439. 12/16/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “smrstrauss, again you confuse British common law and the law of the United States.”

    NO. This does not depend on British common law. It only depends on the meaning of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Since about sixty to seventy percent of the writers of the Constitution were lawyers, they had British common law in mind (not Vattel), but they did not say that the Constitution depends on common law or that the common law affects the Constitution. They simply said “Natural Born,” which at the time meant “born in the country” (except for the children of foreign diplomats.)Sure, that stemmed from the Common Law, but that was the meaning at the time.

    Re: Blacks Law Dictionary and “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. Again, jurisdiction is required.”

    Answer. Our law holds that if you are in this country, and people who are born in this country are in it, then you are subject to its jurisdiction. ALL of us are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA if we are in it, except for foreign diplomats. EVEN dual nationals who are in this country are subject to its jurisdiction.

    The same thing applies to allegiance. If you are born in the USA, even if you are a dual national, your legal allegiance (under our law, and the other law is irrelevant) is entirely to the USA. That is our law. A dual national who fought against the USA and is captured by the USA may get off if he was born overseas. If he was born in the USA, he is guilty of treason. That is because under our system (and under the common law as well) allegiance stems from the place of birth.

    James Madison said:

    “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”
    So, under both jurisdiction and allegiance, a person born in the USA is subject to the USA (except for the children of diplomats).

    Re: “Now, what allegiance was Barack Obama Sr under and what law or jurisdiction was he governed by, and what Act also governed Barack Obama Sr’s children – The British Nationality Act of 1948.?”

    He was born in the USA. He had total allegiance to the USA under US laws.

    Re: “Rep. Bingham, commenting on Section 1992, said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parentS (plural) NOT OWING allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.

    Only the US-born children of foreign diplomats owe allegiance to a foreign country. All other children born in the USA (now that the exception for Indians has been removed) is considered to have allegiance to the USA.

    Re: ‘Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee when the 14th Amendment was written said,
    “… ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens’… that means ’subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? NOT OWING allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

    As said, if you are born in the USA, you were born under the jurisdiction of the USA and you are considered to owe allegiance to the USA. The exception was the children of foreign diplomats (and Indians not taxed).

    Re: “who suppose that the rules of the Common Law of England are the common law of Connecticut, until altered by a statute.”

    I have already said that the Common Law does not apply to Natural Born. Only the meaning of Natural Born at the time of its writing applies, and it meant “born in the country.”

    Re Jefferson: Yes, but not a word was said during the debates or in the Federalist Papers or in any of the letters of the framers that indicated that a Natural Born Citizen was anything other than a citizen born in the USA. To be sure, Jay said to Washington that the purpose of the Natural Born clause was to exclude foreign influence. But it only excludes foreigners and naturalized citizens from becoming president. It does not exclude the US-born children of foreigners.

    Andrew Jackson, Old Hickory, was born of TWO foreign parents, both from Ireland. It is said that they were naturalized before he was born. There is actually no proof of it. It is said that because he was born before the Constitution, he doesn’t count, the fact that his parents may not have been US citizens is irrelevant. But they STILL were two foreigners, whether he was born before or after the Constitution, and IF they were naturalized (which is as I say not proven), they were still two foreigners. This fact did not affect Old Hickory.

    Now, let’s look at how the term Natural Born was used at the time of the writing of the Constitution.

    “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.”

    In other words, since there was no naturalization before the Constitution, the people who resided in the states were either those born in the states or aliens. And the term for born in the states was Natural Born. Natural Born was the term for Native Born in those days. Native Born was used rarely. Natural Born was used all the time, and it always meant “born in the country.”

    The quotation was from St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings, which was published in 1803. As late as World War I, men who registered for the draft were asked whether they were citizens, and if they were, whether they were Naturalized or Natural Born.

    The first Constitution of the State of New York, in 1777, which was written mainly by John Jay, reads:

    “Every foreigner of good character, who comes to settle in the State, having first taken an oath of affirmation or allegiance to the same, may purchase or by other means acquire, hold and transfer land or other real estate, and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.”

    I suspect you will try to argue that a Natural Born citizen is different from a Natural Born subject, but in fact the early US State Constitutions mainly used the term Subject, that they were familiar with. In any case, the issue is not with subject or citizen, it is with the meaning of Natural Born. In this example it is highly unlikely that “natural born” means a person born in the state with two parents who were citizens. Why should a foreigner after one year get all the rights of that exclusive group, when it is so simple to give him or her the rights of a person born in the state. And that is what it meant. So the use of the term is just the same as in Blackstone, Natural Born just means born in the state.

    The statute of Pennsylvania regarding elections of 1799 clearly shows that Natural Born simply means citizen at birth because there are no alternatives, a person is either Natural Born, naturalized or a foreigner who is not eligible to vote. There is no category of native-born but not Natural Born. it reads: “That the elector is required to take an oath, 1, that he is a natural born citizen of the state &c; or 2 That he is a natural born citizen of some other of the United States; or 3, that having being a foreigner or alien, he has been naturalized.” (http://books.google.com/books?id=ERgvAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA251&dq=%22a+natural+born+citizen%22&lr=#v=onepage&q=%22a%20natural%20born%20citizen%22&f=false)

    Alexander Hamilton also uses natural born as a synonym to native born (indeed, at the time only Natural Born was used, “native born” was rare). he wrote: “The position is founded on that clause of the British act of navigation, which forbids any but a natural-born or naturalized subject to exercise the occupation of a merchant or factor, in any of the British dominions in Asia, Africa, and America.’

    As you can see, there were only two options, natural born or naturalized, everyone else was a foreigner. (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1382&search=%22natural+born%22&layout=html#a_1602437)

    Finally, the Supreme Court. The key case, the one most recent that affects the subject and which overturns Dred Scott and the Minor case, is Wong Kim Ark. In it, the court ruled six-to-two, that being born in the USA makes one a citizen. And, as part of the ruling, the court ruled that being born in the USA is the same thing as being Natural Born. It said that Natural Born means being born in the country (except for the children of diplomats).

    It said: “: “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.”

    To make it clear. It said: “Every child (unless of a foreign etc)…was a natural-born.” And it said: “the same rule was in force in the English colonies.” And it said that the same rule continued under the Constitution.

    EVERY CHILD.

    That is why the Wall Street Journal concluded: “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.”

    And that is why Yale Law Review wrote: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” (Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988)

    The assertion that to be Natural Born requires two US citizen parents and/or excludes dual nationals was raised in an e-mail campaign to the electors of the Electoral College, not one of the 365 votes Obama won on Nov. 4 changed. It was raised with the Congress that confirmed the election. Not one Congressman had an objection. Only a few birthers hold the two-parent view.

  440. 12/16/2009syc1959 says:

    smrstrauss
    Wow – 5 pages of total BS.

    The framers did not use British Common law as a basis or reference to the United States Constitution. Why would they use laws from which they were distancing themselves and gaining their freedom. Here is what they used, and from one of the founders themselves.

    December 1775
    “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”?

    You also claim, “He was born in the USA. He had total allegiance to the USA under US laws.”

    Again nothing more then a claim, there is no proof, other then what Obama has stated in plain English

    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.”

    Re: “Rep. Bingham, commenting on Section 1992, said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parentS (plural) NOT OWING allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”.
    This single statement contradicts John Jay’s statement to George Washington.

    Sole allegiance to the United States of America, your OWN statement states Obama was under the jurisdiction of Kenyan/British Law and his jurisdiction was to a foreign country.

    You have by yourself, proven that Obama is not, can not, nor ever be a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ of the United States, but in fact is a ‘Natural Born Subject’ of a foreign country.

    You’re doing nothing but throwing crap and hoping something sticks.

  441. 12/16/2009syc1959 says:

    Just to keep smrstrauss, in the holiday spirit, let us define governance and jurisdiction.

    Governance relates to decisions that define expectations, grant power, or verify performance. It consists either of a separate process or of a specific part of management or leadership processes. Sometimes people set up a government to administer these processes and systems.

    In terms of distinguishing the term governance from government (both of them nouns) – “governance” is what a “government” does. It might be a geo-political government (nation-state), a corporate government (business entity), a socio-political government (tribe, family, etc.), or any number of different kinds of government. But governance is the kinetic exercise of management power and policy, while government is the instrument (usually, collective) that does it. The term government is also used more abstractly as a synonym for governance, as in the Canadian motto, “Peace, Order and Good Government”.

    In simple english, Barack Obama being governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, and as such was a member of the British empire, regardless of where he was, both born or living he was covered by the laws of the British empire, that is called jurisdiction. In this case, Personal jurisdiction as an authority over a person, regardless of their location, which is able to make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility. Here in again, ‘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.’

    Therefore, Barack Obama was governed by foreign law, was protected by these foreign laws, and his citizenship status was not only governed, provided, and issued by the same foreign laws.

  442. 12/19/2009Peter says:

    “Of course, at what point did any other president in this country’s history present their birth certificate to any authority? The answer, of course, is never.”

    Of course at what point did any other writer in the forum’s history permit you to mindlessly and mechanically parrot back their comments just so that you could toss in these nonsense statements. The answer, of course, is never.
    For nearly two years, Obama stonewalled every local and state authority by failing to release his real long-form BC, just as the liars snd frauds in the DNC and lamestream media had forced McCain to show his real BC before the election, have now helped a illegal President use his office to continue this charade.

    Is that it?

    BTW, these line by line deconstructions of yours have to stop.

  443. 12/19/2009Peter says:

    The State of Hawaii never issued Obama’s 2007 Certification of Live Birth. They have never said they did and have always refused to authenticate it.

    Obana and his Campaign never receive a copy of his Certification of Live Birth, nor had they asked for one.

    Obama’s 2007 COLB does not exist and never did.

    The Obama Campaign never sent any copies of Obama’s 2007 COLB to any reporters or blogs, such as Daily Kos, Politifact, and Factcheck.

    Factcheck never saw or photographed a real COLB belonging to Obama.

    Everything that we’ve been told about Obama’s COLB is tota garbage.

  444. 12/19/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re Governance.

    OUR laws are what count.

    NO foreign law has any effect within the United States unless we want it to. If a dual citizen is drafted by a foreign country, we do not send him to the foreign country unless we want to. Our legal system says that our courts decide. So no one in the USA is “governed” by a foreign law. If we do not want him to be governed, he isn’t.

    In the foreign country, their laws apply, of course. But we are discussing US law here.

    A foreign law does not amend or overcome our laws. If a foreign country has a law that says that X is a citizen of that country, and the USA considers that X is a citizen of the USA, as far as we are concerned he IS a citizen of the USA. If a foreign law says that X is a citizen of that country and we consider he is a Natural Born Citizen of the USA, the foreign law does not have any effect, he is a Natural Born Citizen.

    This has always been the way that the American courts rule, on any kind of law. And it is a damn good thing. We cannot let some other country govern us, or govern our citizens, or decide (even if it decided 47 years ago) who is eligible to be our president. And the same for other laws too, of course. We simply do not allow foreign laws to apply unless we allow them to apply. That means we decide, our court system governs.

    So dual nationality has no effect on Natural Born status. To think that it has effect is to think that some foreign country can affect our elections. Moreover, since at the time of the writing of the Constitution, Natural Born meant “born in the country,” no foreign law can affect that. Someone who is Ohio-born cannot be made not Ohio-born because of some other country’s governance.

    Re: “The framers did not use British Common law as a basis or reference to the United States Constitution.”

    The did not grandfather the British Common Law, if that is what you are saying (though the first Constitution of the Sate of New York [ 1777] DID grandfather British Common Law, by saying that it applied in New York unless and until a New York statue was passed.). But they used Natural Born the way that it was used in the common law, not the way that it was used in Vattel.

    They were 60-70% lawyers, and I have gone through books upon books of their writings, and when they use Natural Born, they always use it to mean “born in the country.” That is the way that it was used in the common law, of course, but they were not saying “we adopt the common law,” they were just using the words Natural Born the same way as in the common law. At the time, the phrase Native Born was not popular, but Natural Born was very popular, and it was always used to mean “born in the country.”

    Re: “. Why would they use laws from which they were distancing themselves and gaining their freedom.”

    As I said, it is not the common law, it is the use of the term Natural Born. However, you are wrong that they wanted to distance themselves from the Common Law to the extent you believe. As I said, the first Constitution of New York, written largely by John Jay, grandfathers the common law by saying that it applies until a New York statute comes along.

    Quotes:

    “XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.” (http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ny-1777.htm)

    (The 19th of April 1775 was of course the date of the battles of Lexington and Concord.)

    Re: “Here is what they used, and from one of the founders themselves.”

    Yes Ben Franklin wrote a note in 1775, a dozen years before the Constitution, saying that he appreciated a book by Vattel. But that translation of Vattel DID NOT USE THE WORDS ‘NATURAL BORN.” It said that the “indigines” (whatever that may mean) are born in the country of two citizen parents. The words “Natural Born Citizen” were not substituted for “indigines” until a translation of the book many years after the Constitution was written.

    At the time, Natural Born was used in Blackstone to mean “born in the country.” (And Blackstone was a far more read book among the framers than Vattel.)

    Moreover, Vattel did not say that the leader of a country should be even a citizen, much less an indigines. He gives several examples of countries picking their kings and emperors from the nobility of foreign countries, and he never says that that is a bad thing.

    When writing a constitution about a REPUBLIC, the monarchist Vattel is not the best source. Also, we know that Vattel recommended some things that the framers did not adopt, such as a state religion.

    Sure, Vattel was an expert on international law, and that is the way that the writers of the time used him. But the selection of a president is domestic law.

    The critical fact is that there is no letter by any framer or any leader of the Revolution that says “we will used Natural Born the way that Vattel used it.” And, for that matter, there is none that says “let us require that the president have two citizen parents.” There is nothing in the Constitution, the Federalist Papers or in any letter, book or essay written at the time.

    In their letters and writings, over and over, the framers and other leaders of the time used Natural Born to mean “born in the country.”

    Re: Rep Bingham. I grant that that was his opinion. It is one opinion. It does not say that the framers used the words “Natural Born” two mean “two US parents” because none of them did. It says that that is what he thinks. Well, his opinion was overturned by the Wong Kim Ark case, which repeatedly says that all children born in the USA are Natural Born. That should hardly be shocking. It is like saying that all children born in Ohio are Ohio-born. But in this case, the court (ruling six to two) was stressing that all children born in the area have the rights of citizens BECAUSE they are Natural Born. This does repeatedly cite the Common Law, but the ruling says that that was the situation in the laws of the colonies and the early states as well.

    Re: “He had total allegiance to the USA under US laws.” Again nothing more then a claim, there is no proof,”

    Here is the proof in the words of Madison: “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

    According to our law, which still applies by the way, you HAVE to have allegiance to the USA if you are born in the USA. You may consider yourself a citizen of another country. You may have dual nationality, but if you were born in the USA, it is treason to fight against it. Legally, you must have allegiance to the USA. Some people who were born in the USA do not have real allegiance, that is true. But as far as the law is concerned, the criterion of allegiance that applies in the USA is the place of birth.

    So, the framers did not use Natural Born as Vattel did. They used it the way Blackstone did, and the Supreme Court has confirmed that EVERY child born in the USA is Natural Born. Which is why those two Senators said it, and the Yale Law Review said it, and the Wall Street Journal said it, and the 365 electors that Obama won agreed (not one voted differently) and the members of congress who confirmed the election agreed (not one objected).

    To be sure, there are times, when a small minority can be right and all the rest wrong. IN this situation, however, the ruling decision requires a majority on the US Supreme Court, which is highly unlikely given the overwhelming majority of legal opinion that the original meaning of Natural Born, which is the one that applies to Obama, just means born in the country.

    I have always thought that the idea that a president must have two citizen parents and be born in the country is a little like requiring someone to wear both suspenders and a belt. You can wear either suspenders or a belt, both is unnecessary.

    And, finally, if the framers of the Constitution had meant “two citizen parents” THEY WOULD HAVE SAID IT.

  445. 12/19/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    It is highly probable [Obama lost this pre-COLB birth certificate]…
    While I cannot confirm this [Obama asked Hawaii DoH for a COLB in 2007] it is highly likely…
    Hawaii never said ‘we did not send a COLB to Obama in 2007….’
    I regret to say that I cannot find it either. This does not mean that it did not happen.
    They [Hawaii DoH] never said that the document was genuine, though this comes close…
    Funkino and the other official in Hawaii, also never said that the COLB was NOT genuine…
    …they didn’t say that there was anything wrong with the COLB, so there wasn’t anything wrong with the COLB.
    No action taken. Nothing wrong with the COLB.

    All these quotes are from the comment by smrstrauss on December 14, and this must be some kind of record at TRSoL: every point made by smrstrauss is a logically fallacious argument from ignorance. To argue from ignorance is to admit that even though no evidence supports an argument, it must be true as no evidence refutes it. That smrstrauss had a susceptibility to this logical fallacy was pointed out in my example of Stalin loyalists to counter smrstrauss‘s claim about McCain’s and Hillary’s inaction over Obama’s possible ineligibility: If only Stalin knew about the purges and the camps, he would put a stop to it. The purges and the camps continue unabated, therefore Stalin [or McCain and Hillary] doesn’t know anything about it. Here are other examples of arguing from ignorance:

    a Our nation and our people were more moral and happier in the past: we should get back to doing things the time-honored way.

    b The people have been manipulated and don’t know what’s good for them: our radical action liberates their Future.

    c I am convinced that WND is hidden in Iraq, since no-one has come forward with proof that there is no WMD in Iraq.

    d You only use 10% of your brain: our techniques of mental efficiency release undreamt-of power.

    e You can’t prove Obama was not born in the US; that proves Obama was born in the US. [see below]

    The correct response to an argument from ignorance is to suggest further investigation but this is exactly what the proponent wishes to avoid. Consequently arguing from ignorance can be characterized as wishful thinking or, at its worst, bad faith: an argument is proposed as “valid” but in reality the proponent has already decided it is “valid”. Psychiatrists have termed this “rationalization“.

    There is more to the world than smrstrauss‘s wishful thinking and to be taken seriously he must show more respect for readers’ intelligence and powers of observation.

    You say that they [Hawaii DoH] did not say that [confirmed COLB as genuine]? Yes, they did…As you see by the swamppolitics site, they [Hawaii DoH] said that the original document means that Obama was born in Hawaii.smrstrauss

    smrstrauss offers a link to the Chicago Tribune offshoot swamppolitics dated November 3, 2008: the day prior to the presidential election. Okubo is alleged to have said “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying” in reply to the question “Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?“. Readers will have noticed that in this alleged quote, contrary to smrstrauss‘s wishful imaginings, Okubu does not state it as being within her knowledge that Obama was born in Hawaii, rather Okubo is alleged to be giving her version of what Fukino might be saying in her October 2008 statement. There has never been any suggestion that Okubo has ever seen Obama’s DoH Vital Records file and hearsay such as this is categorically not persuasive evidence, never mind there are prior and subsequent contradictory statements from Okubo herself, where several times Okubo states that neither she nor any Hawaii DoH official will or can answer the question swamppolitics claim was answered. These examples from several sources:

    August 14, 2008

    [We] attempted to have the Hawaiian Department of Health (DOH) verify that the information publicly released in the COLB on the Obama site was accurate, making the argument that a public display of the document was in essence ‘disclosed by a public figure in a public venue for examination.’ Janice Okubo, director of communications for the DOH, responded in an email message this morning: ‘Our attorney general advised us that Hawaii state law prohibits the Dept. of Health from verifying information contained in a vital record…’

    July 17, 2009

    I repeatedly asked Okubo to confirm that she had verified that what’s on file matches what’s shown on Obama’s sites and others. She repeatedly refused to confirm that…I repeatedly asked her to respond with a “yes” or a “no” as to whether she had verified that there’s a match, and she repeatedly responded by noting that she is not the registrar, and that she does not have the authority to verify certificates.

    July 28, 2009

    Okubo [was asked] last night how Fukino could comment on Obama’s particular birth records without violating [Hawaii] statute. ‘I’m not a legal authority, and you’d have to talk to someone who is a legal authority,” Okubo said. “I don’t have that kind of legal expertise.”

    In a previous interview, Okubo also refused to answer a direct question…about whether Obama’s original long-form birth certificate still was on file with the Hawaii DOH, responding: “I cannot comment on any specific vital statistics records belonging to any individual because that is against the law in Hawaii.”

    August 02, 2009

    In response to a direct question…the Hawaii Department of Health [i.e. Okubo] refused to authenticate either of the two versions of President Obama’s short-form Certificate of Live Birth, or COLB, posted online – neither the image produced by the Obama campaign nor the images released by FactCheck.org. Janice Okubo, the public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, also had no explanation for why Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s initial press release last October and subsequent press release last week also avoided declaring the posted images to be of authentic documents

    Given Okubo’s alleged swamppolitics statement is totally inconsistent with the prior and subsequent statements Okubo has made about Obama’s vital records, readers are left with a simple judgement to make: if Okubo before and since her alleged swamppolitics statement has on every occasion refused to authenticate Obama’s alleged vital records, and indeed emphasized in those prior and subsequent statements that it was outside her personal competence and in her belief illegal for anyone at DoH to make public statements authenticating Obama’s alleged vital records, who is telling the truth about what Okubo is alleged to have stated to swamppolitics about Fukino’s October 2008 statement? swamppolitics or Okubo herself?

    no solid evidence…that shows that there is any amendment or delayed filing…If there had been an amendment in the file, and it affected the question of whether Obama was born in Hawaii, then the officials would have said so…no delayed filing because the notices in the Hawaii newspapers went out only about ten days after Obama’s birth was registered.smrstrauss

    First, “no solid evidence…” can be dismissed as smrstrauss‘s habitual arguing from ignorance or wishful thinking, unless he is in possession of communications from Hawaii DoH which dis-confirm that Obama’s vital records involve an amended birthdate or delayed filing.

    Second, “officials would have said so…” is again more of smrstrauss‘s habitual arguing from ignorance or wishful thinking.

    Third, “no delayed filing because [of] the notices in the Hawaii newspapers” treats us to more of smrstrauss‘s habitual arguing from ignorance or wishful thinking. We have no knowledge of how Obama’s birth announcement was placed in the Hawaii newspapers; there has been speculation, but no facts. The announcements are just as likely have been private notices paid for by Obama’s relatives as derived from an official list.

    Rather than being restricted to statements made out of the depths of smrstrauss‘s habitual arguments from ignorance or wishful thinking, readers can discover for themselves from Hawaii DoH (through UIPA) whether Obama’s vital records involve an amended birthdate or delayed filing. When Hawaii DoH respond that access to a record is “denied in entirety” the public recently have been assured by the Hawaii Office of Information Practices that the record they seek exists. In which case, some requesters through UIPA have ascertained from Hawaii DoH responses that Obama’s birth records involve an amended birthdate and, given the required summary of reasons for the amendment are not printed on the alleged COLB, this omission makes Obama’s alleged COLB “unofficial” or illegal. Other requesters through UIPA have ascertained from Hawaii DoH that Obama’s original birth record involved a delayed filing and that the delayed filing had no substantiating documentation as required by law (Obama’s alleged COLB says it was “FILED” but not “ACCEPTED”): whoever attempted to register Obama’s birth never returned with the necessary affidavits or documents and so never completed the process to establish legal proof of birth in Hawaii.

    The facts of Obama’s amended birthdate and delayed filing conform to DoH Director Fukino’s statement of July 2009 that DoH had Obama’s “vital records [plural] maintained on file“, which unexpectedly and curiously superseded her October 2008 statement that DoH had “Obama’s original birth certificate on record“: the July statement was issued in response to the first UIPA requests being made to Hawaii DoH and DoH have refused any explanation for the change in terminology or how “vital records [plural]” differ from a “birth certificate” and how “on file” differs from being “on record“.

    Readers can make their personal contribution to the truth with their own highly specific UIPA requests or by supporting efforts to have Director Fukino fulfil her legal duty under UIPA to make public all the documents and vital records which she consulted prior to her July statement concerning Obama. This is the democracy in action UIPA was intended to achieve.

    The fact that smrstrauss discourages anyone from taking their own UIPA action is enough for readers to gauge what smrstrauss actually believes about the validity of Obama’s vital records, about the probity Obama’s alleged COLB, and about democracy in action.

    The date stamp is applied by hand…syc1959

    Not to stir controversy, but only to discover the facts, could syc1959 say where this information was obtained?

    …what Act also governed Barack Obama Sr’s children – The British Nationality Act of 1948.” syc1959

    Only Barack Obama Sr.’s legitimate children, if born outside British sovereign territory, would have been affected by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Given Barack Obama Sr. in British law was not legally married to Ann Dunham, in terms of the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902, the British Kenya Legitimacy Act 1931, and Section 32(2) of the BNA 1948, as an illegitimate child Barack Obama Jr. was not a British citizen by descent, assuming hypothetically he was born in Hawaii. Unless syc1959 can show with reference to British Kenyan law that Obama Sr. was not legally married in Kenya in 1957, then he has no case sustainable in logic or the law. If under British Kenyan law Obama Sr. was legally married in 1957 to Kezia Aoko then all dual nationality, or compromised allegiance, or split jurisdiction claims against Obama Jr. have no basis in law. Ignoring the problem won’t make it go away, detracts from syc1959‘s credibility, and will foreclose the argument.

    Furthermore, smrstrauss and syc1959 can spare us all the quotes from the speeches or writings of present or past legislators or scholars: Erie v. Tompkins (SCOTUS 1938) ensures that no federal court will ever pay them the slightest heed.

    Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii. Not only is it the official birth certificate, it is the ONLY birth certificate that Hawaii sends out.smrstrauss

    This claim goes beyond smrstrauss‘s habitual arguing from ignorance or wishful thinking.

    I wrote below on December 7: “There is nothing in Hawaii law or DoH rules that forbids [DoH] from issuing a long form certificate whenever and to whomever DoH Vital Records chooses. If smrstrauss knows of a Hawaii law or DoH rule which rebuts this, I’d like to know.

    smrstrauss has not supplied the law or rule which forbids Hawaii DoH from issuing a long form certificate whenever and to whomever DoH chooses, because no such law or rule exists to be found. So why is smrstrauss repeating the “factual inexactitude” that Senator Obama or President Obama could in no way procure his 1961 long form birth certificate from Hawaii DoH (if it exists) when he knows that statement isn’t true?

  446. 12/21/2009smrstrauss says:

    Concerning the allegation that Obama’s birth records must be either amended or delayed filings (or both) based on answers by the DoH to UIPA filings.

    I have shown previously that the notices in the newspapers were placed by the government of Hawaii, and were not ads, and in any case appeared about ten days after the birth, which knocks out the idea of a delayed filing. These notices have been found in separate places, in the records of the newspapers, and most recently in a microfilm in a university.

    Now, as to the possibility of an amendment. I accept the logic that if a file exists and the law says you cannot see it, the DoH replies “denied,” and that if there is no such file, the department replies “no such file.”

    But did the person who asked the questions and recorded the responses accurately reflect the response of the DoH? Did the DoH, in responding to multiple questions, accurately place the response to number 23, say, instead of to question 22?

    To be sure of the results, you had best ask the question again, and do it yourself. Do not rely on a “birther” blogger who may be willing to see the response to question 22 as the response to 23?

    Moreover, to be scientifically accurate, it would be best to check the logic of the situation by filing similar queries about someone else’s birth certificate, someone who you know had NO amendments in the file, or someone who HAD amendments in the file, or both. Then, if the response to the NO amendment is “no file” and the response to the HAD amendment is “is denied,” then you can say with certainty that the logic holds and that the response to Obama indicated an amendment.

    I notice that you are willing to believe an unnamed blogger, when you are unwilling to believe the government spokeswoman of Hawaii (in a Republican administration) who, if she lied or misstated could at the very least be fired. You believe not merely that this unnamed blogger (was it Miss Tickley?) said the truth about the response, but that she accurately recorded the responses to the questions, not mixing them up.

    And, you believe that the DoH accurately and honestly responded to the questions in this case, where you believe that Okubo lied when she spoke to SwampPolitics. But it is more likely that the DOH mixed up the answers than that Okubo lied or made a mistake, and since all of this relies on understanding of Hawaii’s UIPA filing, it is possible that the DOH made a mistake on that as well. If it did, then its response that the request is denied is simply its mistake. It shouldn’t have said that legally, but it did. If so, then the answer is meaningless. But, it is more likely that Miss Tickley (or whomever) mixed up the answers.

    IF there were an amendment in the file, would this mean that Obama was not born in Hawaii? No, the COLB says he was born in Hawaii. The witness says he was born in Hawaii. The statement by Okubo says that he was born in Hawaii. The statements by the officials repeatedly indicate that he was born in Hawaii.

    Most amendments to birth certificates run along these lines: Entry Anne E. Smith, change to Ann. Ann E. Smith, change to Smyth. So, you might have something along these lines Bereck Obama, change to Barack. That would be amusing, but it would not show that Obama was born outside of Hawaii.

    Should the original document be released to show what really occurred? Yes, that would be wonderful. But complain to Hawaii, not to Obama. He does not have the original (as I say, it is highly likely he lost it, and even if he didn’t, it is certainly in Hawaii). Why doesn’t Hawaii release the originals? You say that it can under current law. I say maybe to that, and that if not, it can change the law or the regulations. Why doesn’t it do it? Well, remember that Hawaii is under a Republican governor.

    In any case, if it does release the original, the original will show, as the COLB did, that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  447. 12/21/2009smrstrauss says:

    Concerning the allegation that Obama’s birth records must be either amended or delayed filings (or both) based on answers by the DoH to UIPA filings.

    I have shown previously that the notices in the newspapers were placed by the government of Hawaii, and were not ads, and in any case appeared about ten days after the birth, which knocks out the idea of a delayed filing. These notices have been found in separate places, in the records of the newspapers, and most recently in a microfilm in a university.

    Now, as to the possibility of an amendment. I accept the logic that if a file exists and the law says you cannot see it, the DoH replies “denied,” and that if there is no such file, the department replies “no such file.” But did the person who asked the questions and recorded the responses accurately reflect the response of the DoH? Did the DoH, in responding to multiple questions, accurately place the response to number 23, say, instead of to question 22?

    To be sure, you had best ask the question again, and do it yourself. Do not rely on a “birther” blogger who may be willing to see the response to question 22 as the response to 23?

    Moreover, to be scientifically accurate, it would be best to check the logic of the situation by filing similar queries about someone else’s birth certificate, someone who you know had NO amendments in the file, or someone who HAD amendments in the file, or both. Then, if the response to the NO amendment is “no file” and the response to the HAD amendment is “is denied,” then you can say with certainty that the logic holds and that the response to Obama indicated an amendment.

    I notice that you are willing to believe an unnamed blogger, when you are unwilling to believe the government spokeswoman of Hawaii (in a Republican administration) who, if she lied or misstated could at the very least be fired. You believe not merely that this unnamed blogger (was it Miss Tickley?) said the truth about the response, but that she accurately recorded the responses to the questions, not mixing them up.

    And, you believe that the DoH accurately and honestly responded to the questions in this case, where you believe that Okubo lied when she spoke to SwampPolitics. But it is more likely that the DOH mixed up the answers than that Okubo lied or made a mistake, and since all of this relies on understanding of Hawaii’s UIPA filing, it is possible that the DOH made a mistake on that as well. If it did, then its response that the request is denied is simply its mistake. It shouldn’t have said that legally, but it did. If so, then the answer is meaningless. But, it is more likely that Miss Tickley (or whomever) mixed up the answers.

    IF there were an amendment in the file, would this mean that Obama was not born in Hawaii? No, the COLB says he was born in Hawaii. The witness says he was born in Hawaii. The statement by Okubo says that he was born in Hawaii. The statements by the officials repeatedly indicate that he was born in Hawaii.

    Most amendments to birth certificates run along these lines: Entry Anne Smith, change to Ann Smith. Or, Ann Smith, change to Ann Smyth. So, you might have something along these lines Bereck Obama, change to Barack. That would be amusing, but it would not show that Obama was born outside of Hawaii.

    Should the original document be released to show what really occurred? Yes, that would be wonderful. But complain to Hawaii, not to Obama. He does not have the original (as I say, it is highly likely he lost it, and even if he didn’t, it is certainly in Hawaii). Why doesn’t Hawaii release the originals? You say that it can under current law. I say maybe to that, and that if not, it can change the law or the regulations. Why doesn’t it do it? Well, remember that Hawaii is under a Republican governor.

    In any case, if it does release the original, the original will show, as the COLB did, that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  448. 12/21/2009smrstrauss says:

    The original purpose of this blog, as shown by its title, was to discuss the question of whether Obama’s posted birth certificate was forged. The original post noted that the people at FactCheck who had written about the document were not forensics experts. This is true, of course. But the fact that the checkers could not check the document in the detail required by forensics does not make the document false.

    I have argued, and so far I have not seen a reply, that it is pointless to forge a document unless the facts on it are different from the original or unless the original does not exist.

    While it is absolutely true that the officials in Hawaii have never confirmed that the posted document is not forged, they also have not said that it is forged. What they have said, repeatedly, is that based on the facts in the file, Obama was born in Hawaii. They have done this at least twice, once before and once after the election.

    Someone has said from time to time that Hawaii DoH did not say this. But here are the words of an official spokesman in one of these responses:

    Quotes:

    “Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?

    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

    End quotes

    Notice that this is a flat statement. It does not hedge by saying that the document MAY show. It says that the statement of Fukino says that the document shows.

    This statement does not allow wiggle rooom that there are many different kinds of birth certificates or that, as alleged, a person could obtain a Hawaii birth certificate with the statement of one parent and no confirmation of place of birth. It simply says YES, that the vital records that Fukino has personally seen MEAN that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    You said: “Okubo is alleged to be giving her version of what Fukino might be saying in her October 2008 statement.”

    To be sure, but that is the way that spokesmen work. This is a statement about the meaning of the statement. You have said that there is no evidence that Okubo herself looked at the file. There is no evidence that she did not either. I have read, though I cannot remember where, that the rules allow virtually anyone in government to look at the file and that as a result dozens, perhaps scores of people have already, and that this has probably included members of the police, the DA’s office, and perhaps the FBI. This is all speculation, though it is not impossible. It does not show that Okubo herself looked into the file. But there is no evidence that she DID NOT look into the file, and in any case her statement is out there and has not been corrected.

    Unless this statement is a lie or a mistake, the document in the file must unquestionably show that Obama was born in Hawaii. It cannot be a certificate that could be obtained without providing proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. It cannot, of course, be a foreign birth certificate (which was not allowed at the time) or a certificate of Hawaiian birth. It must be a document that Fukino cannot waffle about and say “this MAY show.”

    Only if the spokeswoman is mistaken or lying about the document or Fukino is can the document in the file show that Obama (1) was born somewhere other than Hawaii, or (2) was some kind of document that did not show clearly and absolutely that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Mistakes and lies are, of course, always possible. But this statement was on the blog of a newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, and since then it has been repeatedly cited, and the DoH could at any time have retracted or corrected it. It did not.

    Why in this case would someone lie? If that lie were found out, the consequences to the liar would be severe. The advantage of lying in this case is not clear at all. The officials are members of a Republican governor’s administration. And, the first statement was made while the election was underway. In short, there is a poor risk-reward to lying that the original documents MEAN that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    You have pointed out that the SwampPolitics statement appears to contract other statements such as:

    “August 14, 2008

    “[We] attempted to have the Hawaiian Department of Health (DOH) verify that the information publicly released in the COLB on the Obama site was accurate, making the argument that a public display of the document was in essence ‘disclosed by a public figure in a public venue for examination.’ Janice Okubo, director of communications for the DOH, responded in an email message this morning: ‘Our attorney general advised us that Hawaii state law prohibits the Dept. of Health from verifying information contained in a vital record…’”

    But the statement that Obama was born in Hawaii actually does not contract the statement about the law.

    The statement about the AG says that the DoH could not legally say something. But the statement to SwampPolitics does in fact say something. How can it be that at one time Fukino says that it was illegal to reveal that information, and later the department does reveal that information?

    Answer, Fukino may have been right when she said that the law forbid the DoH from disclosing, or she may have been wrong. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STATEMENT IS A LIE. If it is illegal, she should not have done it. If it is legal, then bully. But the fact is, this statement was made, and it was not corrected or changed.

    In at least one of the other statements you have cited alleging that Fukino said that she could not confirm, she was referring to the accuracy of the physical document, not to the facts on the document. You cited: “ In response to a direct question…the Hawaii Department of Health [i.e. Okubo] refused to authenticate either of the two versions.”

    Yes, she has refused to authenticate an image of a document. That makes sense. But that is different from authenticating the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    This has happened repeatedly. In the statement that was commented on by Okubo, and in the previous statement, the one that was not commented on by Okubo. That first statement was interpreted by the press to mean that the DoH was saying that Obama was born in Hawaii at that time.

    If this was wrong, the DoH could have corrected that impression. Not to correct it would, of course, have been aiding Obama in the election. It can be argued that it is not a lie to simply leave a mistaken impression, but why do it when with a word, on the record or off, it could be corrected?

    So we have the conjunction of a COLB that says that Obama was born in Honolulu in 1961, and the officials in Hawaii first giving the impression that they confirm that he was born in Hawaii and then actually confirming it in a flat statement. As I said, it would only be worthwhile forging the COLB if it were not possible to get a COLB that said that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet the statements of the officials and of this witness who recalls being told of the birth (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html) all seem to show that Obama was born in Hawaii and that therefore the COLB would say that too.

    Also, we know that Obama’s father and mother were in Hawaii in 1961, and we have no evidence at all that they traveled to Kenya at any time during that year. We do not even know whether Obama’s mother had a passport.

    We know that it would have been a relatively expensive trip, with no direct flights, and that pregnant women rarely made such trips in those days, and that Yellow Fever was endemic in Kenya, and that pregnant women rarely traveled from the USA to a country with Yellow Fever. We know that there has been no US travel document found showing that Obama traveled from Kenya to Hawaii. We know that there has been no official Kenya documents (plenty of forgeries however). We know that the grandmother did not say that Obama was born in Kenya. We know that the full version the tape shows that she says that he was born in Hawaii. In short, there is no proof that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii.

    Now, let’s get back to the fact that the people at FactCheck did not have forensic qualifications. Since no other president’s birth certificate was released, much less checked by forensic specialists, why ask the question?

    Since the officials in Hawaii have made statements that in one case gave the impression and in the other flatly said that the original means that Obama was born in Hawaii, why ask the question?

    As the Wall Street Journal has said, from the COLB, we know that Obama was born in Hawaii as well (and in my opinion often much better) than we know that previous presidents were born where they are reported to have been born. To be sure, the document does not show the name of the hospital. But that is Hawaii’s decision, not Obama’s. Hawaii might be able to release the original under current rules, as someone on this site has said. Or, it could change the rules, as I said, but either way, it is up to Hawaii. Still, unless and until they release the original, there is a LOT of evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii, and none that he was born anywhere else.

    Re: My statement: “While I cannot confirm this [Obama asked Hawaii DoH for a COLB in 2007] it is highly likely…” and your statement: “If only Stalin knew about the purges and the camps, he would put a stop to it.”

    I continue to believe that it is UNLIKELY that Obama has a copy of his original birth certificate because (1) people lose their birth certificates frequently; (2) People seldom ask government for new copies of their birth certificates when they have their originals. That being the case, it is likely that he asked for that copy in 2007 because that is the date on the posted COLB. It has been said on this site that the DoH never confirmed that they sent a COLB to Obama in 2007. Yes, but they never denied it either.

    Re: “We have no knowledge of how Obama’s birth announcement was placed in the Hawaii newspapers;”

    This is not speculation. It has been reported, and confirmed by at least one of the newspapers in Hawaii, that the notices were placed by the government of Hawaii, and millions of people have read that newspaper’s report and recall the situation of government notices at the time.

    Moreover, we can see with our own eyes every notice follows exactly the same format: Name of parents, address, son/daughter, date. These are not ads; they are notices. AND they appeared in the newspapers on the dates specified. About a week or ten days after Obama was born. This cannot be a notice of a delayed filing. The notices say Obama was born on Aug. 4, and they appeared in two newspapers, one on Aug 14, and the other, this (http://thebruceblog.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/view-obamas-birth-announcement-in-hawaii-newspaper-taken-from-library-microfilm/) on Aug 13. The 13th was the weekend after Obama’s birth, and the 14th the Monday after.

    I have read, but cannot cite, that under law at the time, a delayed filing had to be at least a month after the birth. So, if this is true, then there wasn’t a delayed filing. If not, then there wasn’t much of a delay. The allegation that there was a delayed filing, is contradicted by the statement of the witness (http://www.buffalonews.com/494/story/554495.html) which shows that this was an ordinary hospital birth.

  449. 12/22/2009Phil says:

    smrstrauss,

    The original purpose of this blog, as shown by its title, was to discuss the question of whether Obama’s posted birth certificate was forged. The original post noted that the people at FactCheck who had written about the document were not forensics experts. This is true, of course. But the fact that the checkers could not check the document in the detail required by forensics does not make the document false.

    I have argued, and so far I have not seen a reply, that it is pointless to forge a document unless the facts on it are different from the original or unless the original does not exist.

    While it is absolutely true that the officials in Hawaii have never confirmed that the posted document is not forged, they also have not said that it is forged. What they have said, repeatedly, is that based on the facts in the file, Obama was born in Hawaii. They have done this at least twice, once before and once after the election.

    At the moment, I can respond thusly to the above.

    First, please don’t confuse my “blog,” in general, with a singular “post,” in specific. I think I know what you meant when you were referring to this posting; after all, my blog’s entitled, “The Right Side of Life,” not “The Eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama.”

    Secondly, while there have been some that have doubted the overall authenticity of the image of the alleged HI COLB for Mr. Obama, the main issue remains that only a very small handful of individuals have ever had the original alleged document in hand to physically inspect.

    In my view, Internet images come and go; it’s what’s on the original document that matters. Further, as I’ve repeatedly said, a lot of credence would be led to the original document’s authenticity if evidence of its origination were actually known, meaning who originally procured it and/or where’s the receipt of said procuring transaction? To me, this would be a very simple, and obvious, step towards substantiating the original document.

    Of course, many have subsequently posited, “What’s the point, Phil? Why should anyone need to see evidence of the transaction? Isn’t the fact that an original document exists good enough?” While these are excellent questions, my point has been that since there’s a serious lack of original background documentation substantiating who this President is, what is the problem in questioning these credentials? After all, if anyone thinks that the President has nothing further to prove, then I say, “Good on you” if that’s your stance. That is neither my stance nor do I think it’s necessary to belittle individuals such as myself for not being satisfied with what’s been revealed to date (not saying that you, smrstrauss, have done this, but my site maintains commentary where this has occurred frequently).

    And yes, it is true that certain individuals from the great State of Hawaii have made certain proclamations concerning Mr. Obama’s birth place. The problem with this scenario as it is currently laid out is that it again puts a hurdle, as it were, between original documentation and we, the People. As I’ve mentioned, some of we, the People, want to see the original documentation. No, this doesn’t mean that some of we, the People, must physically inspect the original documentation; that’s a practical non-issue.

    But how about this: let’s have the HI Department of Health actually confirm that, say, the COLB is that of Mr. Obama. That has never been confirmed. And that would be such a simple thing to do. Yet they may be legally restricted from doing so, unless they received approval from an “interested” party to do so. A bit of a catch-22, no?

    I can agree, however, that the lack of specifics doesn’t necessarily mean something negative, nor does it necessarily mean something positive. And that’s why we question.

    -Phil

  450. 12/23/2009smrstrauss says:

    Phil,

    There are a group of people who believe in alien space travelers and that these aliens have landed and that the bodies of some of them are stored in Rosewell, New Mexico.

    It turns out that each time the government releases facts that show that these allegations are false (most recently by showing that balloons that were found were part of the monitoring of Soviet nuclear tests) belief in the Rosewell aliens increases, not decreases. Few people that I know believes in the tooth fairy, but if there were a government report published that quoted a thousand parents admitting that they had given the money, not the fairy, belief in the tooth fairy would increase, not decrease.

    Why this happens I do not know, and I’m sure is hard to explain. In the case of Obama, any news on the subject, either anti-Obama, such as Sarah Palin saying that the topic is worth discussing, or pro Obama, such as a Hawaii officials stating that he had seen the original documents and that this means Obama was born in Hawaii, is used to drum up more birther blogs. Any news, one way or another, increases the number of birther blogs. So, it is possible that even if Hawaii did as you suggested, stated that the COLB was Obama’s, birther activity would not decrease but would increase.

    My own experience with this occurred about six months ago when a state legislator in Hawaii, a Democrat, said that he was going to sponsor legislation to make the original birth certificate available. I do not know what happened to this idea. Perhaps it is still being discussed, or not. And, I should say at this point that I am in favor of such an idea–though I think it is unnecessary–because I am convinced that the original will show that Obama was born in Hawaii. But, it is the reaction of the birthers to this news that is important. When I pointed to the legislator’s comment, the reaction was that he would be doing it only because a “perfect” forgery had been created and slipped into the file. This, ironically, conforms with what the Wall Street Journal commented, which was that if the original were published, birthers would claim that it was forged.

    Nevertheless, I do believe that the original should be released, but that it is Hawaii, not Obama, who can and should release it. And, if Hawaii chooses not to release it, that does not mean that Obama was born somewhere else than Hawaii.

    I believe that if there were sufficient public desire to have all presidents’ belly-buttons made public, then the presidents should make their belly-buttons public. But, the criterion for sufficient public desire is spelled out in our system. It is a majority sufficient to pass legislation in Congress. In this case, nothing like that is anywhere near possible on a national scale. But, we forget, it only need happen in the legislature of the State of Hawaii. So, if you want Hawaii to release the original or to confirm the COLB, that is where the action should take place. It is your right, and mine, to lobby that legislature, and the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, to release the original or confirm the COLB. I would like this because I am convinced there are no questions. You would like this because you are convinced that there are questions. It seems the desire goes across ideological lines and embraces both logical possibilities.

    Why then doesn’t it happen?

    I suspect mainly because there isn’t much real pressure for it to happen. The people in Hawaii are not strongly concerned about this issue, being worried about more dollar-and-cents things. And, as supplementary reasons legislators and the governor likely hold the view that it is (1) unnecessary since the COLB is official and its facts have been repeatedly confirmed; (2) releasing the original or confirming the COLB would probably not quiet the birthers anyway (the “perfect forgery” claim); and (3) It would increase, not decrease birther activity.

    These points have some weight, though I disagree with them. Still, I stress, it is Hawaii’s decision, and if it decides not to release the original and not to confirm the COLB, this still does not mean that Obama was born somewhere else than Hawaii. Unless and until Hawaii released or confirmed the COLB, we would have to make our decision on the place of Obama’s birth from the evidence that currently exists, which is the COLB itself, the repeated confirmations of the officials, the witness who recalls being told of the birth and the absence of credible information showing that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

    For what it is worth, I am in favor of the “Birther Bill,” the one sponsored by a small group of Republicans that would require that future candidates for president show their birth certificates. Howeve, he. However, there would have to be some minor changes to handle situations like New Orleans, where the birth records were wiped out by the flood. Also, no restrictions on the location of birth in the USA. Birth in Washington DC should be just as eligible as in Boise.

    As has been pointed out here a million times, Obama was the first and is so far the only US president to have shown his birth certificate to anyone, much less put it on line. I think that it was in part because of this fact that accounts for some of the birther activity. There were no birthers for the presidents who did not show their birth certificates. If the law were passed requiring presidents to show belly-buttons, I suspect there would be critics claiming that the photo is not the really belly. Thus, the more that is said officially about Obama’s birth certificate, the more the speculation increases. So, there’s an argument to be made not to say anything more or release any more information which as I have said is one factor on Hawaii’s mind.

    Conversely, this ( http://s46.photobucket.com/albums/f111/unique_astrology/Unsorted/?action=view&current=McCainBC.gif), which most birthers tend to accept as McCain’s birth certificate, is probably not. It says on it that McCain was born at Colon Hospital, while McCain himself wrote that he was born at the family hospital on the Naval Base. Why many birthers accept this posted document a McCain’s birth certificate is hard to say. Perhaps because it reminds us tht McCain never posted a birth certificate at all. This alleged BC was not posted by his campaign, and no BC was posted by his campaign. Moreover, some birthers allege that McCain’s status was checked by the Senate, but it turns out that McCain did not show his birth certificate to the senators either. They merely took his word that he was born at the naval base (which surely seems likely given that his father was stationed there) and that both parents were US citizens (which again seems highly likely, but was not proven).

    This again seems to show that less information is more, that the fact the McCain did not show a document helped keep down demand that he show a document before election day. After election day, of course, there was no need.

    As you have said there continue to be “questions” about Obama’s background. But many of the questions are based on deliberate lies.

    For example, there are continual assertions that Obama must have had a foreign passport because he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, and “Pakistan was on the no-travel list.” But Pakistan was not on any no-travel list in 1981, so this is a lie, and the motive behind the lie is fairly obvious.

    It is also a lie, in a different way, for Berg to post an “affidavit” from a guy who is using a pseudonym, Rev. K Whatever. But an affidavit cannot use a pseudonoym, so this is not one. Moreover, a second affidavit, this time from from the Rev. Ron Whatever, says that Obama’s grandmother said that Obama was born in Kenya. But the tape recording shows that the grandmother actually said “America, Hawaii” after she was asked “Whereabouts was he born?” and the affidavit makes no mention of this. WND, which is a key leader in whipping up the birther movement, gives only one side to the story. For example, it continually says things like “there continue to be questions about Obama’s place of birth.” But it never reports that no one even knows that Obama’s mother had a passport in 1961. Nor does it explain how if a child were born in Kenya, he could get from there to the USA without a visa or a change to his mother’s passport while she was in Kenya (if she were ever in Kenya), and that why if such a thing took place, the visa or the change to the passport has not been found.

    So the continuing questions about Obama’s place of birth are largely explained by the hatred that inspires the Pakistan lie and the WND lack of objectivity. To this we can add the normal credulity of Americans (high percentages believing in witches, ghosts, aliens-in-New-Mexico, the US government having brought down the Twin Towers), Etc. Fortunately, few believe in the Tooth Fairy.

    Still, I believe that even the credulous have the rights of a democratic republic. If the group that has questions about Obama’s background convince either Congress or the legislature of Hawaii to release the original document or to confirm the COLB then this would happen. But, if it doesn’t happen, there is still no evidence that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii, and still the legal COLB confirmed by the officials and the witness that he was born in Hawaii.

    Those who would like to see Obama’s original birth certificate will be shocked to know that their legal representatives have very seldom asked to see it. Such cases usually claim that Obama was not born in the USA or lost citizenship in Indonesia or is not natural born due to his father, but they do not ask for the court to order Obama to show his birth certificate to the court. This is strange. Why not?

    By the way, I still have no explanation why someone would forge a COLB if the key facts in the file (born in Hawaii in 1961) would lead to generating a COLB that says “born in Hawaii in 1961″ for simply filling in the form and paying the $10 (which has probably already occurred, but if it didn’t would be possible due to what the Hawaii officials and the witness say). Why forge something if can, and probably did, get it normally?

    Going around once more. But, you may say, the original should be shown or the COLB confirmed. Sure, why not? You want that, and I want that. But it is up to Hawaii to do it, and if it doesn’t, that still doesn’t mean that Obama was not born in Hawaii

  451. 12/23/2009Phil says:

    smrstrauss,

    Phil,

    There are a group of people who believe in alien space travelers and that these aliens have landed and that the bodies of some of them are stored in Rosewell, New Mexico.

    It turns out that each time the government releases facts that show that these allegations are false (most recently by showing that balloons that were found were part of the monitoring of Soviet nuclear tests) belief in the Rosewell aliens increases, not decreases. Few people that I know believes in the tooth fairy, but if there were a government report published that quoted a thousand parents admitting that they had given the money, not the fairy, belief in the tooth fairy would increase, not decrease.

    Why this happens I do not know, and I’m sure is hard to explain. In the case of Obama, any news on the subject, either anti-Obama, such as Sarah Palin saying that the topic is worth discussing, or pro Obama, such as a Hawaii officials stating that he had seen the original documents and that this means Obama was born in Hawaii, is used to drum up more birther blogs. Any news, one way or another, increases the number of birther blogs. So, it is possible that even if Hawaii did as you suggested, stated that the COLB was Obama’s, birther activity would not decrease but would increase.

    While I don’t doubt that there are individuals who are only interested in continuing to smear the President, my quest started as and continues to be one of the truth.
    My own experience with this occurred about six months ago when a state legislator in Hawaii, a Democrat, said that he was going to sponsor legislation to make the original birth certificate available. I do not know what happened to this idea. Perhaps it is still being discussed, or not. And, I should say at this point that I am in favor of such an idea–though I think it is unnecessary–because I am convinced that the original will show that Obama was born in Hawaii. But, it is the reaction of the birthers to this news that is important. When I pointed to the legislator’s comment, the reaction was that he would be doing it only because a “perfect” forgery had been created and slipped into the file. This, ironically, conforms with what the Wall Street Journal commented, which was that if the original were published, birthers would claim that it was forged.

    I have seen nothing further concerning HI State Sen. Will Espero’s original claim.

    And regarding the forgery claim, I’ve already posted about that issue.

    As has been pointed out here a million times, Obama was the first and is so far the only US president to have shown his birth certificate to anyone, much less put it on line.

    And as I will continue to point out, that claim is false.

    Conversely, this ( http://s46.photobucket.com/albums/f111/unique_astrology/Unsorted/?action=view&current=McCainBC.gif), which most birthers tend to accept as McCain’s birth certificate, is probably not. It says on it that McCain was born at Colon Hospital, while McCain himself wrote that he was born at the family hospital on the Naval Base. Why many birthers accept this posted document a McCain’s birth certificate is hard to say. Perhaps because it reminds us tht McCain never posted a birth certificate at all. This alleged BC was not posted by his campaign, and no BC was posted by his campaign. Moreover, some birthers allege that McCain’s status was checked by the Senate, but it turns out that McCain did not show his birth certificate to the senators either. They merely took his word that he was born at the naval base (which surely seems likely given that his father was stationed there) and that both parents were US citizens (which again seems highly likely, but was not proven).

    This again seems to show that less information is more, that the fact the McCain did not show a document helped keep down demand that he show a document before election day. After election day, of course, there was no need.

    Your last 9 words sum up any sort of response to what you’ve just commented RE: Sen. McCain. Everything else concerning his records is essentially academic at this point.

    Going around once more. But, you may say, the original should be shown or the COLB confirmed. Sure, why not? You want that, and I want that. But it is up to Hawaii to do it, and if it doesn’t, that still doesn’t mean that Obama was not born in Hawaii

    And, of course, you haven’t addressed his British citizenship at birth, regardless of his geographical birthplace.

    -Phil

  452. 12/24/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: And as I will continue to point out, that claim is false.

    You quote WND, which is hardly a reliable source. However, reading through it, it makes only one reference to a birth certificate, George Bushes, which it say is listed as filed with the university. If so, there would be one BC of one former president where it could be found. But, of course, this does not say that the document was made public before either of Bush’s elections. Moreover, it has not been proven to be Bush’s BC, much less subjected to forensic analysis.

    A lot of other stuff was listed as shown voluntarily or by investigation, but no other birth certificate. Apparently no one wanted to see Truman’s BC or Eisenhower’s or Kennedy’s or Nixon’s or Ford’s–you get my point.

    Re Dual Nationality. It simply does not affect Natural Born status any more than it could affect Ohio-born status. If you were born in Ohio, you are Ohio-born and no law, especially not a foreign law, can take that away. The same holds for Natural Born, which at the time of the writing of the Constitution merely meant “born in the country.” Natural Born came from the common law and the laws in the American colonies, not from Vattel (who wrote in French, and whose translation did not use the term “natural born” until after the Constitution.)

    To say that Dual Nationality affects Natural Born status is to say that a foreign law affects our Constitution. It doesn’t. Our law holds that if you were born in the USA, your allegiance must be to the USA, and no foreign law can change that.

    You have indeed discussed the forgery claim. But you have not answered the questions why someone would forge a document if he could obtain a document that says the same thing legally. Nor have you said that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

    You have said earlier that the fact that the original is not shown or that Hawaii does not confirm the COLB (as opposed to the facts on the COLB, which it has repeatedly confirmed) puts a barrier between the citizens and the documents. Sure, but you do not discuss that there is a method to change this situation, which is to lobby Hawaii to change the rules. And, you do not admit that if Hawaii does not change its rules, it is Hawaii’s fault–not Obama’s. And, finally, you do not comment on the fact that if Hawaii does not change its rules, this does not change the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  453. 12/25/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    I have shown previously that the notices in the newspapers were placed by the government of Hawaii, and were not ads…smrstrauss

    smrstrauss has shown nothing except his inability to control a bad habit of wishful thinking because there is no evidence that the newspaper announcements were exclusively derived from a Hawaii DoH list. smrstrauss‘s claim that “millions of people…recall ” that the newspaper announcements of births in Hawaii came exclusively from DoH is in reality even more speculative than belief in Roswell aliens because it’s based on the unsubstantiated ruminations of a single individual:

    Advertiser columnist and former Star-Bulletin managing editor Dave Shapiro was not at either paper in 1961, but he remembers how the birth notices process worked years later when both papers were jointly operated by the Hawaii Newspaper Agency — which no longer exists.” [Honolulu Advertiser, November 9, 2008]

    Uncorroborated hearsay is not evidence and, unless smrstrauss has other sources, his claim to have “shown” something about the newspaper announcements has no more evidential basis than the tooth fairy.

    Did the DoH, in responding to multiple questions…smrstrauss

    If smrstrauss had read more closely my preceding comment he would have observed that I cautioned readers to make “highly specific UIPA requests” to Hawaii DoH. The Hawaii DoH responses I cite have been in reply to parallel highly specific UIPA requests from the public (not bloggers) concerning Obama’s amended birthdate and delayed filing. There is no possibility of ambiguity or misinterpretation. Anyone tempted to follow smrstrauss in (yet again) wishfully thinking or arguing from ignorance that “multiple questions” or a “mistake” has led to confusion or bungling on the part of DoH is encouraged to make their own highly specific UIPA requests to Hawaii DoH or support the effort to bring Hawaii DoH into compliance with the laws of Hawaii at http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/

    …you believe that the DoH accurately and honestly responded to the questions in this case, where you believe that Okubo lied when she spoke to SwampPolitics. But it is more likely that the DOH mixed up the answers than that Okubo lied or made a mistake.smrstrauss

    …Fukino may have been right when she said that the law forbid the DoH from disclosing, or she may have been wrong. BUT THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE STATEMENT IS A LIE.smrstrauss

    If it was legal for Okubo to say on November 3, 2008 that Obama was born in Hawaii then why didn’t Fukino say that in her statement of October 31, 2008? Indeed such a question was posed to Fukino that same day:

    1. Did that statement (or any other official statement from the state government) confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii , as some have assumed?

    2. Did that statement (or any other official statement from the state government) confirm that the certificate you have on file matches the one on Obama’s website?

    3. Is it illegal under Hawaii state law to confirm where Obama was born, or to confirm that the certificate you have on file matches the one on Obama’s website?

    To which Okubo replied on Fukino’s behalf:

    Dr. Fukino has said that her statement stands on its own, and she does not feel there is any need for further comment.

    Hawaii State law protects the birth records of all individuals born in our state under all circumstances. State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record.

    Again, contrary to the alleged quote by Okubo at swamppolitics and cited by smrstrauss, but fully in accord with every other quote attributed to DoH officials, neither Fukino nor Okubo said on October 31, 2008 that Obama was born in Hawaii and indeed reiterated their position that DOH is prohibited by law from disclosing or verifying vital records.

    But this is not the most disturbing aspect of the matter. If we are being asked to assume that Okubo was telling the truth to swamppolitics about Obama being born in Hawai, we are also being further asked to assume that Okubo was telling the truth in her many statements (including those on behalf of Fukino) when she says it is illegal for DoH to disclose or verify vital records. Given smrstrauss is asking readers to believe that Fukino and Okubo have issued apparently illegal disclosures or verifications of elements of Obama’s vital records, then what other illegalities have Fukino and spokesperson Okubo perpetrated? On the other hand, if it was not illegal for Fukino and Okubo to disclose or verify elements of Obama’s vital records (although it was unequivocally and officially stated by Okubo for DoH that the legal advice of the Hawaii Attorney General was to the contrary), what other lies have Fukino and Okubo told? (It could only have been a lie – if such it was – and not a mistake, because the authority of the Hawaii Attorney General was cited for the policy.) The only way to resolve the question of whether Fukino and Okubo have been acting illegally or lying is for the records and legal advice behind Fukino’s statements to be made public as required by UIPA. The effort to bring Hawaii DoH into compliance with the laws of Hawaii at http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/ is designed to make this happen.

    …IF there were an amendment in the file, would this mean that Obama was not born in Hawaii? No, the COLB says he was born in Hawaii….smrstrauss

    Given that Obama’s alleged COLB does not contain a printed summary of the reasons for his amended birthdate or notes his delayed filing, this makes the alleged COLB “unofficial” or illegal. Consequently, what the alleged COLB says about where Obama was born is hardly to be trusted.

    …[a] delayed filing…is contradicted by the statement of the witness which shows that this was an ordinary hospital birth.smrstrauss

    That smrstrauss would seriously cite the layered hearsay of Barbara Nelson’s story (an unknown someone told a non-practicing doctor Rodney West (deceased) who told Nelson in 1961 that Obama had been born but didn’t say where) as proof of Obama’s birth in Kapiolani Hospital is evidence only of smrstrauss astonishing credulity. That Nelson also claims in her story that when Obama Sr. visited Punahou School in 1971 he hadn’t seen his son for eight years, when in fact Obama Jr. had relocated with his mother to Seatlle before August 19, 1961, establishes conclusively that Nelson is not to be trusted.

    He does not have the original [birth certificate]…it is highly likely he lost it…smrstrauss

    Arguing from ignorance, or wishful thinking, is a habit smrstrauss clearly finds hard to control.

    Why doesn’t Hawaii release the originals? You say that it can under current law. I say maybe to that…smrstrauss

    smrstrauss saying “maybe to that” only means he has contrived not to check relevant Hawaii law and so finds it hard to concede the truth.

    It cannot be a certificate that could be obtained without providing proof that Obama was born in Hawaii…smrstrauss

    Under Hawaii law DoH have been tasked with receiving all notifications from the public of births in the state: however official acceptance of such notifications is another matter and a filing could await acceptance indefinitely. DoH rules permit the issuance of a non-certified abbreviated copy of whatever DoH holds on file.

    The scans of the alleged COLB placed at Daily Kos and Fight the Smears have no discernable seal; one photo at FactCheck has no discernable seal [ http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ], another FactCheck photo has a seal which is circular when it should be elliptical; and the apparent machine stamped signature and rubric alleged to be on the reverse of Obama’s COLB is not shown to be connected to Obama’s alleged COLB. This highly suspicious pattern is consistent with the highly suspicious behavior of DoH officials and the highly suspicious information confirmed through UIPA.

    …I have argued, and so far I have not seen a reply, that it is pointless to forge a document unless the facts on it are different from the original or unless the original does not exist…smrstrauss

    Obama’s alleged COLB does not contain a printed summary of the reasons for his amended birthdate, making the alleged COLB “unofficial” or forged; Fukino and Okubo have been acting illegally or lying in the matter of Obama’s vital records; Obama is “mistaken” about being born in Kapiolani Hospital; and images of Obama’s alleged COLB have no discernible or physically impossible embossed seals. Why? Whoever originally filed a delayed notification of Obama’s birth never returned with the necessary affidavits or documents to complete the process to establish legal proof of birth in Hawaii: an amended birthdate, an uncertified COLB or a blank swiped from the web, erasing or withholding the amendment, and the missing or fraudulently applied seals are deliberately intended to conceal this fact.

    You have said that there is no evidence that Okubo herself looked at the file. There is no evidence that she did not either…smrstrauss

    Arguing from ignorance, or wishful thinking, is a habit smrstrauss clearly finds hard to control. Okubo has issued numerous statements claiming that Hawaii statute 338-18 limits access to vital records to those with a direct and tangible interest: by Okubo’s standards she is not such a person and it is assumed that smrstrauss believes her. Okubo’s future alibi will be she knew and relayed only what Fukino told her.

    Yes, she [Fukino via Okubo] has refused to authenticate an image of a document.smrstrauss

    In which event smrstrauss‘s defense of Obama’s eligibility has no basis in fact.

    …we have no evidence at all that they [Obama's parents] traveled to Kenya at any time during that year.smrstrauss

    smrstrauss makes the assumption that birth in Kenya is the only explanation for Obama’s birth not having been proved to Hawaii DoH in 1961: thus if there is no evidence of travel by Obama’s parents to Kenya he must have been born in Hawaii. This argument is the logical fallacy of a false dilemma. In fact there are at least three other scenarios which explain the facts but in truth they are immaterial. The US Constitution absolutely requires the President to be a natural born citizen: this status must be certain and proved, it cannot be suppositional or merely presumed.

    Why in this case would someone lie? If that lie were found out, the consequences to the liar would be severe.smrstrauss

    This does not have to remain a mystery for smrstrauss for much longer: the legal effort being co-ordinated at http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/ is directed at finding the answer to smrstrauss‘s question.

  454. 12/26/2009smrstrauss says:

    Re: “And, of course, you haven’t addressed his British citizenship at birth, regardless of his geographical birthplace.”

    There is a simple and short answer to this. Dual Nationality does not affect Natural Born status. Since Natural Born’s original meaning from the common law allowed the children of all foreign countries who were born in England or the colonies to be Natural Born subjects, that included children of foreign countries who considered the children of its citizens to continue to be citizens.

    To think that dual nationality takes away the Natural Born status of a child born in the USA is to think that a foreign law affects our law. It doesn’t. As far as US law is concerned–and it is the ONLY law that matters in the USA–a child born in the USA owes compete allegiance to the USA.

    Dual Nationality simply does not affect. That is why Obama won all the 365 electoral votes he won on Nov. 4 2008 because NONE of the electors believed the baloney about requiring two citizen parents. And that is why Obama’s election was confimed unanimously by the Congress, because none of them believed the baloney about requiring two citizen parents. And none of them, who are by far mainly lawyers, believe that Dual Nationality affects Natural Born status either.

  455. 12/28/2009smrstrauss says:

    When two statements contradict each other whom do you believe?

    Who Are You Kidding (WAYK) says that we cannot possibly believe the statements of the DoH because (1) at one time they said that they could not make such statements legally; and (2) according to WAYK’s interpretation of answers to a legal filing the Obama birth certificate was either amended or delayed or both (I can’t figure what WAYK claims) and therefore the DOH could not say flatly that the files show that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Yet the officials DID say (and I will quote them) that the original documents in the files show that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    WAYK says that it was illegal for them to say that. Yes, but does that make it untrue? It was illegal in Tennessee at one time to teach about Evolution. It seems the folks who taught about Evolution in violation of that law were strongly convinced that it was true. Also, the Hawaii statement may not even be illegal. All we know is that at one time the DOH thought it was illegal. The statement that Fukino made was after the discussion of whether it was legal or illegal.

    In any case, she has not been prosecuted for making the statement, and she certainly has not been prosecuted for making a fraudulent statement, which would be the case if she said that Obama was born in Hawaii and either (a) he wasn’t or (b) it was not certain.

    Here is what Fukino said in her most recent statement in July:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….” (
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm)

    As I said, this is an absolute statement. It says that the original records verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. It does not say “may have been born in Hawaii.” It does not say that the original was amended or delayed (both of which could occur without affecting the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii). It simply says that the original shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Why should this be a lie? There is no motive to lie, she is a member of a Republican governor’s administration. If she lied, it could be caught easily, and she would at the very least be dismissed.

    Here is what Fukino said in October: “”Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said. (
    http://www.kitv.com/politics/17860890/detail.html).

    This carefully written statement (why should statements NOT be carefully written?) clearly does NOT say that Obama was born in Hawaii. It only says that Obama’s BC was on file. However, we do know that in 1961 foreign birth certificates could not be filed in Hawaii and that amended birth certificates and certificates of Hawaiian birth required delays between the birth and the filing of at least a month. There was no delay in filing the registration as shown by (1) the date of the Registration, Aug 8, only four days after the birth (on a Friday); and (2) the notices in the newspapers, which appeared about ten days after the birth.

    WAYK says that I have not shown that all the birth announcements were from the government. The reports in the Hawaiian newspapers say that they were and the fact that they all followed the SAME FORMAT (if you place a paid ad, you have the right to word it anyway you want to). In 1961 credit cards were not yet popular (!!) so the grandparents could not have just phoned in an ad, they would have had to go to the two newspaper offices with cash.

    Moreover, as a former journalist, I recall very well that birth announcements could not just be phoned in even when they were advertisements. Why not? Because of the chances of expensive libel suits. To place such an ad, people had to come in and show the birth certificate. The government notice, based on the birth certificate, did not run the risk of libel.

    In any case, the notices of Obama’s birth appeared about ten days after his birth. Yet WAYK claims that there was a delayed filing due to interpretation of the responses to the UIPA responses. Could WAYK be making a mistake about what the DoH must say or not say? Yes. Could the DoH be making a mistake about what it must say or not say? Yes. Is WAYK impartial? We do not know. Is the DoH impartial? There is no evidence that it isn’t. It is after all under a Republican governor, and it faces severe legal and job-related threats if it is lying. So, what did it say?

    Along with the Oct. 31 statement, the spokeswoman for the DoH told the SwampPolitics (Chicago Tribune) site, twice, that the statement by Fukino means that Obama was born in Hawaii. She said (quotes):

    Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?

    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

    End quotes.

    If this is a lie, then the DoH has lied repeatedly about Obama’s place of birth. And the DoH is not the only government agency that can access that file. If there were a suspicion that the DoH lied, it could be accessed by the police and DA. For that matter, they can probably look at the file anyway. It is far too risky to lie, and they haven’t. Also, their statement that Obama was born in Hawaii was confirmed by the witness who recalls being told of his birth in 1961.

    WAYK claims that the witness is lying or unreliable. But the fact is that she wrote about a birth to a woman named Stanley (Obama’s mother’s first name) to her father, also named Stanley. Was she making up the name of her father? Was she making up that she wrote to him? To be sure, Dr. West may have retired by that date, there are some reports of that. But he was not dead and he had friends who continued to practice in the hospital. All that it takes is that one of them told West and West told the witness. This is hearsay, but it is believable. Even more believable is the fact that the COLB that Obama posted is the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii.

    Further confirming evidence that Obama received a Hawaii BC that said that he was born in Hawaii is the fact that he had a US passport when he traveled to Indonesia with his mother when she remarried, and a US passport when he returned from Indonesia to go to school. If he did not have a US passport, he would have had to get a US visa on a foreign passport, and the application for that visa would be recorded, and would have been found by now. So, he had a US passport, and to get it he had to prove that he was born in the USA. What did he use, the original or a COLB? Most likely the original, but that does not mean that he still has it. People frequently lose their birth certificates.

    So, there is legal proof, with tremendous confirmation, that Obama was born in Hawaii, and no legal or other proof that he was born anywhere else.

    Re: “his claim to have “shown” something about the newspaper announcements has no more evidential basis than the tooth fairy.”

    All follow exactly the same format. The reports say that the newspapers did not accept short birth advertisements at the time. You say that the reports are false, but you have no evidence that they are false. Even if this were true, a paid birth announcement would have to be accompanied by proof of birth to protect the newspaper against a libel suit. The evidence is strong that the notices were placed by the government, and in any case they appeared in the newspapers about ten days after Obamas’ birth.

    Re: “The Hawaii DoH responses I cite have been in reply to parallel highly specific UIPA requests from the public (not bloggers) concerning Obama’s amended birthdate and delayed filing. There is no possibility of ambiguity or misinterpretation.”

    Sure there is. The DoH say flatly that Obama was born in Hawaii. We have only your interpretation of their responses that, you say, indicates that this repeated statement is false. Moreover, you fail to answer my comment which was that even if there were an amendment, most amendments are minor, such as spelling mistakes. So, even if there were an amendment, it would not affect the statements that Obama was born in Hawaii, but you say that your interpretation is right and the statements wrong. YOU have no proof and are merely speculating.

    Re the long discussion of the statement being illegal. Maybe it is illegal, but is it a lie? If it is illegal, I suggest you write to the AG that he prosecute and the governor, Linda Lingle, that she fire these guys. Better still, write her that the officials who head her DoH in your opinion lied when they said that Obama was born in Hawaii. If after that she doesn’t fire them or worse, we know that she does not believe that the records show anything other than Obama’s birth in Hawaii, and that she doesn’t think that it is was an egregious illegality to reveal that Obama was born in Hawaii even though the law MAY (or may not) say that they shouldn’t.

    Re: “The only way to resolve the question of whether Fukino and Okubo have been acting illegally or lying is for the records and legal advice behind Fukino’s statements to be made public.”

    I would be delighted for this to happen. If the original document is made public, it will show, as the DoH has repeatedly said, that Obama was born in Hawaii. If the original is not made public, that is Hawaii’s decision, not Obama’s. If they decide not to release the original, does that mean that Obama has something to hide? Not necessarily. Does it mean that Obama was not born in Hawaii? Certainly not. It only means that they think it is unnecessary to make an exception to the normal rules and release the original.

    Re: “That Nelson also claims in her story that when Obama Sr. visited Punahou School in 1971 he hadn’t seen his son for eight years, when in fact Obama Jr. had relocated with his mother to Seatlle before August 19, 1961, establishes conclusively that Nelson is not to be trusted.”

    I don’t trust WAYK. Where do you get the idea that Obama relocated to Seattle? And, if it is true, what does that have to do with him going to the Punahou School in 1971? What does it have to do with Obama’s father not seeing him for eight years? If he did see him, are you saying that he saw him in Seattle? What is your evidence that Obama senior was in Seattle?

    Re: “He does not have the original [birth certificate]…it is highly likely he lost it…”

    People do lose their original birth certificates. It is rare for people to ask for copies of their birth certificates when they already have them. QED, he probably lost it. It is highly likely he lost it.

    Re: “only means he has contrived not to check relevant Hawaii law and so finds it hard to concede the truth.”

    Sadly, we know that laws are often broken. You believe that one was broken when the officials made the statements. In the case of not sending out copies of the original I have not cited a law, which after all could be broken, I simply cite the statements of the DoH that they do not send out the originals anymore.

    Quotes:

    “Is it possible to obtain certificates for my third and fifth children?

    Answer: No, you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.

    The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.

    The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said. (
    http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html).

    End Quote

    This does not say that it is illegal for Hawaii to issue copies of the long-form. It says that Hawaii does not issue copies of the long-form.

    Re: “DoH rules permit the issuance of a non-certified abbreviated copy of whatever DoH holds on file.”

    What does this have to do with anything?

    Re: “The scans of the alleged COLB placed at Daily Kos and Fight the Smears have no discernable seal; one photo at FactCheck has no discernable seal [ http://tinyurl.com/FC-File-woSeal ], another FactCheck photo has a seal which is circular when it should be elliptical; and the apparent machine stamped signature and rubric alleged to be on the reverse of Obama’s COLB is not shown to be connected to Obama’s alleged COLB. This highly suspicious pattern is consistent with the highly suspicious behavior of DoH officials and the highly suspicious information confirmed through UIPA.”

    Most of the images of the COLB do not show the seal because they only show the front of the document. They should have shown the back, but they forgot. YOU say that the seal should be elliptical. I say that it should be round. I say that if a round seal were shown and it should have been elliptical, then the officials in Hawaii (who are under a Republican governor) would have screamed bloody murder and claimed that there was a forgery. They didn’t. Instead they repeatedly said that the files show that Obama was born in Hawaii. IF this were not true, OR if there were a forgery, there would be no reason to make such statements.

    Re: “Obama’s alleged COLB does not contain a printed summary of the reasons for his amended birthdate.” IF it were amended. Only your interpretation shows that it was amended. Also, there is no indication that a COLB would ever show a summary of reasons for an amendment. If you find a Hawaii COLB from someone else that was amended and has the reasons for the amendment on it, you might have some evidence. However, since there is no proof that this was amended, the COLB is still the legal official document and the two confirmations substantiate it.

    Re: “claiming that Hawaii statute 338-18 limits access to vital records to those with a direct and tangible interest: by Okubo’s standards she is not such a person and it is assumed that smrstrauss believes her.”

    Sad. That referred to people outside of the Hawaii government. Inside the government the file can be accessed by virtually anyone, and Fukino and Okubo would be among those that could have looked (Linda Lingle herself maybe). In any case both Fukino and Okubo have said that the original shows that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “In which event smrstrauss’s defense of Obama’s eligibility has no basis in fact.”

    You are kidding. The two statements confirm the FACTS on the COLB not that the COLB is authentic. If the facts are accurate, then Obama must have been born in Hawaii.

    Re: “The US Constitution absolutely requires the President to be a natural born citizen: this status must be certain and proved, it cannot be suppositional or merely presumed.”

    Our host has quoted a WND article that says that Bush’s birth certificate is on file at a university in Texas. Has it been authenticated? How about Clinton’s or JFK’s or FDR’s?

    As the Wall Street Journal says:

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

    The release of the obsolete birth certificate would not “resolve the issue” to those for whom it is not already resolved. They claim without basis that today’s birth certificate is a fake; there is nothing to stop them from claiming without basis that yesterday’s is as well.”

    Re: “This does not have to remain a mystery for smrstrauss for much longer: the legal effort being co-ordinated at http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/ is directed at finding the answer to smrstrauss’s question.”

    Sure sure.

  456. 12/31/2009Who Are You Kidding says:

    [Who Are You Kidding] says that it was illegal….but does that make it untrue?smrstrauss

    …the Hawaii statement may not even be illegal. All we know is that at one time the DOH thought it was illegal.smrstrauss

    smrstrauss at first gives the impression of not reading carefully or misunderstanding what I have written and then contradicts himself by acknowledging that Hawaii DoH itself did in fact ask the public to believe that disclosure or verification of Obama’s vital records was illegal. I clearly wrote that it was Okubo and Fukino themselves who officially informed the public, consequent to advice they claimed to have been received from the Hawaii Attorney General, that disclosure or verification of Obama’s vital records was illegal. I have my opinion about whether disclosure was illegal but my opinion did not influence anything Fukino and Okubo said or did, and it is the statements and actions of Fukino and Okubo which are under examination.

    [Okubo or Fukino have] not been prosecuted for making the statement, and [Okubo or Fukino] certainly [have] not been prosecuted for making a fraudulent statement, which would be the case…smrstrauss

    The Hawaii Attorney General (by withholding the UIPA-requested advice given to Fukino concerning her July 2009 statement) and Director Fukino (by withholding UIPA-requested departmental policy materials not conceivably exempted on privacy grounds and the UIPA-requested records and documents consulted before making her July statement) are both defying Hawaii law: smrstrauss‘s faith in those who defy the law is not rational, unless he also believes the law should be defied to protect Obama.

    [Fukino's July statement implies] Obama was born in Hawaii. Why should this be a lie? There is no motive to lie…smrstrauss

    I have never written that Fukino lied in her July statement; that statement (which smrstrauss concedes was very carefully written) allows Fukino enough room to protect Obama without resorting to a downright lie. Fukino does not say that she, as Director of Hawaii DoH verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii, she says that Obama’s “original vital records” (which Fukino has merely “seen“) verify his birth in Hawaii. Fukino has also verified (by denying access) that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing, and again has verified that no substantiating affidavits or documentation were submitted. If Obama’s vital records “verify” his birth in Hawaii, what verifies his vital records? According to Fukino, nothing. Fukino’s July statement is not a lie, but neither is it “the whole truth”, which is what the law will demand.

    …as a former journalist…smrstrauss

    As a former journalist one might have imagined that smrstrauss would be familiar with the journalistic principle that a story which has only a single ultimate source (as with Nelson or Shapiro) is no better than gossip, unless the source is incontrovertible. Given Nelson’s ultimate source is unknown and Shapiro does not hide the fact he did not work at the Advertiser or Star-Bulletin until “years later“, these are hardly incontrovertible sources. As a former journalist smrstrauss really must do better: for a start, he certainly isn’t supplying the evidence asked of him. Furthermore, as a former journalist, smrstrauss may be interested to learn that the Society of Professional Journalists supports informational copies of birth certificates being made publicly available.

    To place such an ad, people had to come in and show the birth certificate…smrstrauss

    It may have been smrstrauss‘s experience that “people had to come in and show the birth certificate“, but it’s surprising that, as a former journalist smrstrauss, has not adequately researched the matter. Had he done so he would have discovered that it was not the universal practice in 1961. If smrstrauss wishes readers to believe that it was a DoH list which alone provided the data for newspaper birth announcements in Hawaii in 1961 he must supply at least one incontrovertible source or at least two other credible sources for his claim. Right now, smrstrauss has supplied none.

    Is the DoH impartial? There is no evidence that it isn’t.smrstrauss

    smrstrauss humor may be unintended but is not less enjoyable for that. DoH impartial? Why then, taking just one example, does it defy Hawaii law by refusing to provide UIPA-requested departmental materials subject to no conceivable privacy restrictions, but which would allow an examination of its statements and conduct in the matter of Obama’s vital records?

    ‘There is no possibility of ambiguity or misinterpretation.’ Sure there is.smrstrauss

    It will not have escaped readers notice that DoH and Obama get every benefit of smrstrauss‘s doubt, while those who ask questions of Obama and DoH get none.

    [Obama's vital records] could be accessed by the police and DA…Inside the government the file can be accessed by virtually anyone…smrstrauss

    smrstrauss should have learned to subject his thoughts to critical analysis in order to avoid his unsociable habit of arguing from ignorance or wishful thinking. The usual argument of loyalists has been that Obama’s original vital records are private and Obama is only our defending civil rights by refusing to have these records made public. smrstrauss‘s novel twist (based on wishful thinking) is to say that if law enforcement (which purportedly has access to Obama’s original vital records, which are not federal records) has not prosecuted Obama or whoever crafted his alleged COLB, then law enforcement (on review of Obama’s original vital records) has concluded Obama’s alleged COLB and his original vital records are legal and valid. The logical flaws in this position are embarrassingly obvious; it’s the factual inadequacies that need to be exposed. Hawaii law 338-18 makes it illegal for anyone without permission of DoH to gain access to an original vital record unless they are the individual named, a family member, guardian, representative, his or her estate, adoptive parents, an alimony or insurance claimant, property co-owner, or a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. Unless smrstrauss is proposing that DoH can permit whomsoever it chooses outside the regulations to inspect original Hawaii vital records, then law enforcement or government officials must obtain judicial permission to inspect a Hawaii vital record. If smrstrauss does believe that DoH can permit whomsoever it chooses to inspect original Hawaii vital records could he please cite the law, rule, or regulation which allows such access and why DoH denies its existence? Indeed, UIPA requests by smrstrauss may provide details of any access permitted by DoH to outside agencies, if he now trusts it not to bungle or misinterpret them. Otherwise….

    I don’t trust [Who Are You Kidding]. Where do you get the idea that Obama relocated to Seattle?smrstrauss

    It’s most surprising that smrstrauss is unaware of the fact that Obama Jr. and his mother were living in the state of Washington before August 19, 1961. News stories of this fact abound. For example, this link establishes their address http://tinyurl.com/SeattleTimes-BO-Jan09 and this link establishes the earliest recorded date of their presence http://tinyurl.com/SADO-UW-TScript

    [[Obama] had a US passport when he traveled to Indonesia [1966]…and a US passport when he returned from Indonesia [1971]smrstrauss

    As readers have come to expect, smrstrauss offers no evidence to support his claim, merely an argument from ignorance or wishful thinking: i.e. “we don’t know what passport Obama had in 1966 and 1971, therefore Obama had an American passport”. Other equally likely possibilities don’t fit smrstrauss‘s prejudices and so are never to be mentioned. smrstrauss may be unaware that FOIA requests for SAD’s travel records returned three simple successive entries in the Honolulu airport log from 1982-4. Homeland Security said NO travel records prior to 1982 are on file for anyone anywhere. Even if they were, DHS won’t release records through FOIA on any living person. smrstrauss may also be unaware that in March 2008 a long-time employee of the firm headed by Obama’s campaign national security advisor (since appointed Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism http://tinyurl.com/Politico-JB ) illegally accessed Obama’s State Department file while retained on extended contract; consequently, Obama’s State Department file is not to be relied on unless subjected to thorough cross-checking with other records.

    I suggest you write to the AG that he prosecute and the governor, Linda Lingle, that she fire these guys.smrstrauss

    The Hawaii Attorney General is defying Hawaii law in the matter of Obama’s vital records by refusing to make public the legal advice he gave to DoH Director Fukino about her July statement. Best place to start the process of unraveling the cover-up is to support efforts to bring the Hawaii AG and DoH into compliance with the laws of Hawaii at http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/

    I simply cite the statements of the DoH that they do not send out the originals anymore.smrstrauss

    Joe Schmoe isn’t going to be sent a copy of his original birth certificate but, as the accumulating evidence clearly shows, DoH will go to extra-ordinary lengths – even defy the law – to accommodate a one-time Hawaii domiciliary with the words “Senator” or “President” in front of his name.

    ‘DoH rules permit the issuance of a non-certified abbreviated copy of whatever DoH holds on file.’ What does this have to do with anything?smrstrauss

    If Hawaii DoH like and admire someone it can legally supply that someone with a non-certified copy of the filing of their birth (without seals and stamps), even if that filing was never accepted as valid. Until Hawaii DoH announced that it was prohibited by law from disclosing or verifying details of vital records the versions of Obama’s alleged COLB placed online had no visible seal. There is no example of a scan or photo of a known genuine, certified Hawaii COLB which has no visible seal.

    …officials in Hawaii (who are under a Republican governor) would have screamed bloody murder and claimed that there was a forgery. They didn’t.smrstrauss

    Nobody in Nixon’s administration screamed when he was organizing the Watergate cover-up and preceding crimes. When smrstrauss‘s argument from ignorance or wishful thinking was applied during 1972-74, it was to make the clearly mistaken claim that there had been no whitewash at the White House.

    …there is no indication that a COLB would ever show a summary of reasons for an amendment… If you find a Hawaii COLB from someone else that was amended and has the reasons for the amendment on it, you might have some evidence.smrstrauss

    An example of an amended COLB: http://tinyurl.com/COLB-Amended

    In which event smrstrauss’s defense of Obama’s eligibility has no basis in fact.’ You are kidding. The two statements confirm the FACTS on the COLB…smrstrauss

    Two statements which were made illegally or, if not illegal, were made by liars who are currently in defiance of Hawaii law: such is the “basis in fact” of smrstrauss‘s defense of Obama’s eligibility.

    …to think that a foreign law affects our law. It doesn’t.smrstrauss

    …you haven’t addressed his British citizenship at birth.Phil

    English common law was the basis of American colonial law, variously “received” (i.e. incorporated) into state law at Independence, and by other states of the Union in turn (e.g. Hawaii Revised Statutes 1.1). Part of the common law as applied by states of the Union is the principle of lex loci celebrationis, whereby external marriages are recognized as valid by states if the marriage is valid in the place where it was contracted, whether in another state of the Union or a foreign jurisdiction. On this basis Obama Sr.’s marriage in Kenya in 1957 was deemed a valid marriage by Hawaii (HRS 572-3) as it was legally contracted according to the laws of British Kenya. Consequently Obama Jr. was illegitimate in British law and therefore ineligible to be a British citizen by descent at birth: Section 32(2) British Nationality Act, 1948.

    The common law (i.e state law) definition of a natural born citizen, upon which Article 2(1)(5) of the US Constitution depends, excludes the children of citizens born outside the jurisdiction (i.e sovereign territory) of a state of the Union; had this not been the case Congress would not perceived the need to include within the federal Naturalization Act 1790 a provision for making the foreign born children of American fathers “natural born citizens” (given pre-Independence “naturalizations” only had local effect within individual colonies). This Act was repealed in 1795 and until 1855 the foreign born children of post-1802-born American parents did not inherit US citizenship. The law was changed following an 1853 paper by ex-Congressman Horace Binney, who wrote: “The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle.” Over the following century US nationality statutes changed the conditions of the transmission of American citizenship such that, in Obama’s case, if he were born abroad in 1961 as the legitimate child of a Hawaii marriage then Obama was not a US citizen, there being no condition in common law as a foreign born “natural born subject” (which is a contradiction in terms).

    How is it possible for Obama Jr. to be a legitimate child in Hawaii law and not a US citizen in 1961 if born outside a state of the Union, and an illegitimate child in British law and not a British citizen in 1961 if born outside British territory? Though Obama Sr.’s marriage was bigamous in British Kenyan law and this precluded British citizenship under BNA 1948, a marriage could only be declared bigamous in Hawaii law (with consequent effect on US citizenship) after a court had decreed the marriage void; given no such decree was ever issued, the state of Hawaii recognized Obama Jr.’s birth as legitimate in law, and therefore if Obama Jr. was born outside a state of the Union his mother did not have sufficient residency in the US (10 years, 5 after age 14) to transmit American citizenship as required by US INA 1952. If Obama was born outside a state of the Union, only if his parents had never contracted a marriage in law in Hawaii could Obama’s mother have transmitted American citizenship: in such cases US INA 1952 required that the mother had at least one year of previous residence in the US.

    Given no Hawaii marriage certificate for Obama’s parents has been located, this might be a convenient loophole were it not for two facts: i) Hawaii law has never required a marriage certificate to prove a marriage in law, and ii) a divorce decree dissolving the marriage between Obama’s parents is on record, which satisfies the presumption that a marriage in law occurred.

  457. 01/6/2010smrstrauss says:

    Thankfully, this can be short.

    Who Are You Kidding says: “Obama’s “original vital records” (which Fukino has merely “seen“) verify his birth in Hawaii.”

    That is sufficient. A legal document exists, the certification of live birth, that shows he was born in Hawaii. The original vital records verify his birth. (I am not sure what WAYK is saying “merely” about in having seen the original. Seeing the original is essential to knowing what is on the original.) She has seen the original, and it verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “. If Obama’s vital records “verify” his birth in Hawaii, what verifies his vital records?”

    What has to verify the original records? The Wall Street Journal said at one time that if Hawaii published the original, birthers would claim that it is forged. In this case, we have the document that is in the files, maintained by the State of Hawaii, and the original vital records say that Obama was born in Hawaii, and someone wants the original to be verified. I have a bank book that says that I have $356 in the bank. The bank records say that I have $356 in the bank. Maybe both my bank book and the bank records are wrong, but it is unlikely.

    Does WAYK seriously believe that there was a break-in to the Hawaii files, and that the original documents were altered? If so, then what would ever show that the were altered? It is, as I said, sufficient that the COLB and the original document shows that he was born in Hawaii. Absent proof that he was born anywhere else, this is more than sufficient. And, there remains the interesting confirmation of the witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961.

    To be sure, this is heresay, but it is convincing in that she wrote about being told of Obama’s birth by a doctor (whether he was practicing at the time is irrelevant, he may have heard of it from some other doctor) who related a birth to a woman named Stanley. The witness wrote about this to her father, also named Stanley. Unless she made it all up, it confirms the COLB, the statements by the officials and the birth notices (which were sent out by the government and were not advertisements) that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Re: Newspapers not accepting birth notices without birth certificates. The reason that virtually all newspapers adopt this policy is that if they do not have it, someone will waltz in with a birth notice of twins to “Mary Smith of 22 Elm Street,” and Mary Smith is unmarried. If such a thing appeared in a newspaper, they could expect a libel suit, and newspapers worried about libel a great deal more then than they do now. (And birth outside of marriage was regarded as a great deal more damaging than it is now.)

    So, either the relatives went to both newspapers with identical birth notices and proof of Obama’s birth and payment in cash (credit cards were rarely used in those days), it is HIGHLY probable that these notices were posted by the government. That is, of course, what the newspapers themselves say, and it is what Lori, a PUMA who was trying to show that Obama was not eligible, also reported.

    Finally, we have the absence of a shred of proof that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

  458. 01/15/2010Who Are You Kidding says:

    smrstrauss has taken on the job of trying to persuade us that the complex shadow on the wall purporting to be a rooster (cast by an illusionist’s hands) is actually made by a rooster and that looking around for more information about how the shadow is really being cast is a waste of everybody’s time.

    smrstrauss‘s illogical theories about Obama’s vital records cannot be taken seriously because a serious theory has explanatory power and is susceptible to falsification. smrstrauss‘s theories are designed to deny access to the information that would falsify his theory and they cannot explain key facts in the case: for example, the missing amendment and notice of a delayed filing in images of Obama’s alleged COLB; the inconsistencies detectable in images of Obama’s alleged COLB and his alleged Selective Service Registration; the Selective Service Registration being connected to a Social Security Number issued in Connecticut in the 1930s; and the fact that Hawaii officials have acted illegally or lied, and remain in defiance of Hawaii law, to protect Obama’s vital records.

    It is because it is so easy for misleading impressions to be received when the information available to the public is reduced (e.g. the illusionist’s rooster) that Hawaii enacted legislation (UIPA) to prevent authorities from casting misleading impressions. If we are to believe smrstrauss such misleading impressions cannot happen and the legislation, or obedience to it, is unnecessary: which might be true, however remotely, if smrstrauss‘s theories could explain the inconvenient facts given above – but they can’t.

    A legal document exists, the certification of live birth, that shows he was born in Hawaii. The original vital records verify his birth…What has to verify the original records?smrstrauss

    Vital records may be verified, for example, by the signatures of the witnesses duly included (doctor, mother etc.) or by affidavits or other evidence supplied to verify the birth. Given Hawaii DoH confirm that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing this means he was not born in a hospital and his certificate lacks a hospital doctor’s signature. Consequently, affidavits or other evidence would have been required, but DoH have confirmed in response to UIPA requests that no supplementary evidence was submitted to verify Obama’s birth in Hawaii; therefore Obama was never legally registered as born in Hawaii.

    Absent proof that he was born anywhere else, this is more than sufficient.smrstrauss

    There is no proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    The purported online images of Obama’s alleged COLB are insufficient to prove the circumstances of Obama’s birth in court because a) such online images are not admissible as evidence; b) judging by these online images Obama’s alleged COLB has not been authenticated for use in court by DoH in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence 902(4); c) Obama’s alleged COLB is not best evidence and not complete, as would be required in court by FRE Rules 106 and 1002; d) the summary of reasons for Obama’s amended date of birth has been illegally removed from Obama’s alleged COLB or it not does not reproduce a certified copy of his vital records; and e) as I wrote in November, a delayed or amended vital record is not to be presumed true: according to law (Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-17) its probity must be investigated by the court, body, or official to whom it is submitted as evidence and Obama’s vital records cannot simply be “declared” prima facie by Fukino.

    Furthermore, the statement from DoH in July 2009 regarding Obama’s vital records was made by an official (Fukino) who was acting illegally in making that statement, or who had previously lied (usually through Okubo) with repeated claims that to make such a statement was illegal, and who is still defying Hawaii law (UIPA) by refusing to make administrative documents public which would permit an examination of her department’s conduct in relation to Obama’s vital records.

    …the witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii in 1961…this is heresay [sic], but it is convincing in that she wrote about being told of Obama’s birth…smrstrauss

    And Race Bannon, former U.S. Marine, also has a story of being told by Obama in August 1980 that he (Obama) was born in Mombasa, Kenya: yes, this is hearsay, but “it is convincing in that [he] wrote about being told” and we just gotta believe him because “absent proof that Obama was born anywhere else but” Mombasa, as the Kenyan birth certificate recently posted online establishes….(chuckle).

    …either the relatives went to both newspapers with identical birth notices and proof of Obama’s birth…smrstrauss

    smrstrauss is being disingenuous. In 1961 many newspapers did not require proof of a child’s birth before they accepted an announcement for publication. smrstrauss has cited no authority for his surmises concerning the Hawaii newspapers’ procedures in 1961.

    …officials in Hawaii (who are under a Republican governor) would have screamed bloody murder and claimed that there was a forgery. They didn’t.smrstrauss

    I commend the following excellent article to readers’ attention: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/10/red-flags-overlooked/

    Every government agency in Hawaii contacted thus far has either explicitly denied that they have a responsibility to report known forgery and/or have refused to report suspected forgery to law enforcement. This includes the Department of Health, Office of Information Practices (OIP), Lieutenant Governor’s Office, and every member of Hawaii’s House and Senate. Janice Okubo, the Communications Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, appears to have stated on Dec. 11, 2009 that law forbids her to disclose ANYTHING about a birth certificate, even if such a certificate is a very public forgery, used as an essential part of a presidential campaign. The Hawaii Ombudsman’s Office has said they don’t investigate crimes and only report evidence they uncover themselves. In other words, their philosophy is ‘See no evil…’

  459. 01/19/2010ann says:

    Let us suppose that we found another presidents’ birth certificate, say Gerald Ford’s. And say that we discovered that the officials in Nebraska where he was born did not demand proof that Ford was born in Nebraska. Would that prove that Ford was born outside the USA? NO. In order to prove that someone was born outside of the USA, you have to show two things (1) that there is something wrong with the official birth certificate that says he is born in the USA, and (2) that there is evidence that he was born outside of the USA.

    In the Obama case we have only the fanciful and highly unlikely allegation that he was born in Kenya. There is no proof of this, and there would almost certainly be proof if it occurred. The reason, of course, is that if a child is born in Kenya, she or he needs a US travel document to get to the USA (such as a US visa on a foreign passport or the change to his mother’s passport to include her while in Kenya). Such documents have to be applied for, and the files of the applications are saved, and if they existed, they would have been found. So the born-in-Kenya theory is virtually impossible. It is also highly unlikely since the trip to Kenya was expensive in those days, and it required a Yellow Fever shot, which is bad during pregnancy.

    So, there is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere other than the USA, and it is highly unlikely.

    On the other side of the question, there is an official birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which have repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii.

    Who Are You Kidding (WAYK) is willing to challenge the motives of these officials, but I continue to believe that they have no motive for lying. Also, I point out, that if they did lie, and it were found out (which birthers believe is inevitable) then the downside for them would be severe. To lie about something like this should be considered a crime of some kind. They could be prosecuted; at the very least they could lose their jobs. So it is (1) unlikely; (2) extremely unlikely that they lied when they said that the original document verifies the facts on the certification of live birth that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.

    There is also the evidence of the witness. WAYK claims that this is merely heresay. But for it to be false, the woman would have to lie about her father’s name being Stanley. She says that she heard about the birth to a woman named Stanley, which she found interesting enough to write home to her father, named Stanley, about. This has the ring of truth about it. Sure, there may be a former marine who claims that Obama told him that he was born in Kenya. This also is heresay. But it is not credible.

    No one confirms it, and no one can give a motive why Obama would tell this marine that he was born in Kenya, when (1) Obama has not told anyone else that; (2) it would not be to Obama’s benefit to say that; and (3) Obama himself would not know that he was born in Kenya unless he was told it by a relative, but his relative would then have to explain how Obama was born in Kenya and got to Hawaii without a US travel document and then his relatives had to convince the authorities in Hawaii that he was born in Hawaii. For (3) to be true, Obama would be telling the marine that his relatives broke the law in Hawaii and got away with it.

    The former marine’s heresay thus smells like a simple lie.

    At the very least, the notices in the newspapers confirm the approximate date of Obama’s birth, since they appeared in the newspapers about ten days after that date. Delayed birth certificates require delays of a month or more.

    Moreover, it is highly likely that the notices in the newspapers were generated by the government, as all the reports say. This is confirmed by all the notices having exactly the same format. For a notice to be placed by relatives without proof that Obama was actually born is unlikely. As I said, the danger of libel kept virtually all newspapers from accepting birth notices without a birth certificate. If they ran a notice “twins born to Mary Smith,” and Mary Smith was not married, they could easily lose hundreds of thousands of dollars if not more in a libel suit. Yet WAYK would have us believe that TWO Hawaii newspapers accepted birth notices from Obama’s relatives without any document whatsoever, when other children’s births were being placed in the newspapers automatically by the government.

    WAYK continues to make much of his allegation, based only on his logic and his interpretation of the Hawaii statutes, that there was either or both a delayed birth certificate or an amendment to the birth certificate. I have shown that there could not have been a significant delay in the birth certificate, since the notices were posted in the newspapers about ten days after the birth. As for an amendment to the certificate, I have shown that most amendments tend to be spelling mistakes or the omission of a middle name. Such an amendment would not undermine the repeated statements by the officials in Hawaii that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    As for the allegation that the COLB was forged, there is no evidence for this other than the claims of two fellows who will not give their real names.

    Obama was elected by 69 million votes to 59 million. He received 365 Electoral votes. The claims about the forgery and the allegations that Obama was born in Kenya or was not a Natural Born citizen were made to these electors. Not one changed her or his vote. The same allegations were made to the members of Congress prior to the confirmation. Not one voted against Obama.

  460. 01/20/2010Who Are You Kidding says:

    In order to prove that someone was born outside of the USA…ann

    If Obama was not legally registered as born in the USA and cannot supply proof of his birth in the USA, then he is not not a natural born US citizen and therefore ineligible to the Presidency. The US Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen: not “may be” or “could be” or “might be” or “ought to be” or “virtually be” but “shall be” which means “must be”. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law.

    In the Obama case we have only the fanciful and highly unlikely allegation that he was born in Kenya.ann

    There are at least three other scenarios which explain why Obama’s family did not supply the evidence to legally register his birth as having occurred in Hawaii: all imply his birth out of state. Concentrating on Kenya is the logical fallacy of the false dilemma and, in the context of this discussion, not decisive.

    …an official birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which have repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii.ann

    Has ann even read my other comments in this discussion? Officials at Hawaii DoH refuse every opportunity to acknowledge Obama’s alleged COLB as having been issued by them, and reiterate at every opportunity their line that it is illegal for them to confirm any fact within a vital record – which means that when Fukino at DoH issued a statement in July about Obama’s vital records she was either acting illegally or was previously lying. Consequently, what other illegalities or lies have Fukino and Hawaii DoH perpetrated in defense of Obama’s vital records?

    To lie about something like this should be considered a crime of some kind. They could be prosecuted; at the very least they could lose their jobs. So it is…unlikely…ann

    On the basis of this “logic” no one lies if the penalties of being exposed are severe. Since, for example, neither Clinton nor Nixon were deterred from lying, it would seem that ann‘s illogic doesn’t go very far.

    …said that the original document verifies the facts on the certification of live birth that Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.ann

    Apparently ann did not read this part of my earlier comment: “a delayed or amended vital record is not to be presumed true: according to law (Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-17) its probity must be investigated by the court, body, or official to whom it is submitted as evidence and Obama’s vital records cannot simply be “declared” prima facie by Fukino.” Given Fukino has been either acting illegally or lying to protect Obama’s vital records, her disregard for HRS 338-17 is entirely predictable.

    There is also the evidence of the witness…This has the ring of truth about it. Sure, there may be a former marine who claims that Obama told him that he was born in Kenya….But it is not credible….No one confirms it.ann

    No one confirms Barbara Nelson’s alleged hearsay either and she too may have her reasons…. Unfortunately ann seems to be unaware that unless hearsay satisifes one of the exceptions outlined in the Federal Rules of Evidence then it is entirely without value as evidence, and Nelson’s hearsay meets no such criterion. Moreover, nowhere in Nelson’s tale does she say that the unknown person who told the now-deceased person who told Nelson in 1961 about Obama’s birth mentioned to her that Obama was born in Hawaii: without that information Nelson’s tale and ann‘s citation of it is irrelevant.

    For (3) to be true, Obama would be telling the marine that his relatives broke the law in Hawaii and got away with it.ann

    Obama has admitted to protracted use of several mind-altering narcotics at the time of his alleged meeting with Race Bannon. Given Obama has never been prosecuted for these drug-related activities, he did indeed break the law, got away with it, and then banked millions of dollars from the book which told us how he did it.

    [Who Are You Kidding] continues to make much of his allegation, based only on his logic and his interpretation of the Hawaii statutes, that there was either or both a delayed birth certificate or an amendment to the birth certificate…ann

    The fact that Obama’s vital records involve an amendment, and a delayed filing for which no corroborating evidence was supplied, is neither an allegation nor solely based on logic or statutory interpretation: it has been confirmed by DoH through UIPA directly to multiple requesters. If ann is reluctant to accept these confirmations she is invited to prove the multiple requesters wrong by making her own UIPA requests to Hawaii DoH and bringing any dis-confirmations to the discussion. So far no Obama loyalist who disputes the confirmations has reported UIPA responses from DoH to the contrary.

    …it is highly likely that the notices in the newspapers were generated by the government, as all the reports say. This is confirmed by all the notices having exactly the same format.ann

    No authority has been cited by ann for the claim that the newspaper announcements were in every instance “generated by the government“, merely a reference to “all reports.” As far as I am aware there have been only two such “reports”, and neither source worked in either newspaper until years after 1961. Furthermore, one of the sources ann presumably relies on said that classified advertising was shared between both newspapers and therefore always had the same format in both. Until ann cites an authority with contemporary knowledge of procedures in 1961, all her statements about the newspaper announcements are mere conjecture.

    As for an amendment to the certificate, I have shown that most amendments tend to be spelling mistakes or the omission of a middle name.ann

    The minor amendment of spelling mistakes etc. are not subject to the charging of fees, but Hawaii DoH has confirmed through UIPA that Obama was charged a fee to amend his vital records. Consequently the amendment was a major administrative change and by law must be summarized on any birth certificate issued by Hawaii DoH. This means that Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is not probative evidence under HRS 338-17 until so determined by an authority other than Hawaii DoH and, judging from online scans and images of Obama’s alleged COLB and considering the anomalies within them, those versions must be illegal and forgeries.

    Until ann can extract from DoH through UIPA a dis-confirmation that Obama paid a fee to amend his vital records then the amendment was indeed a major administrative change with the consequences as described.

    Obama was elected…ann

    The US Constitution is the Supreme Law and cannot be amended by a Presidential election.

  461. 01/22/2010ann says:

    Re: “If Obama was not legally registered as born in the USA and cannot supply proof of his birth in the USA, then he is not not a natural born US citizen and therefore ineligible to the Presidency.”

    He was legally registered as born in the USA, as his official birth certificate shows. That is legal. It is a legal document of a US State, and it is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military. The officials in Hawaii have twice stated that the facts in the file confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    In addition, there is no proof or even credible reports that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

    As for it being legally required to have a registration of birth in the USA, I wonder. Hundreds of thousands of birth certificate records were lost in the floods in New Orleans. Would all those people not be eligible? Were the presidents before states issued birth certificates not eligible?

    In short, to prove that a president was not born in the USA, you need both proof that the birth certificate is wrong (not merely suspicion) and proof that the person was born in some other country than the USA. Neither actually exist. The birth certificate is credible, the officials certifying the accuracy of the birth certificate are credible, the witness who recalls being told of the birth in 1961 is credible. And there is no documentary or other proof that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

  462. 01/22/2010ann says:

    Re: “Officials at Hawaii DoH refuse every opportunity to acknowledge Obama’s alleged COLB as having been issued by them…”

    Why should they? They have said that the document in the files shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Birth in Hawaii is the key fact, the only fact that counts.

  463. 01/22/2010ann says:

    Re: “The fact that Obama’s vital records involve an amendment, and a delayed filing for which no corroborating evidence was supplied, is neither an allegation nor solely based on logic or statutory interpretation: it has been confirmed by DoH through UIPA directly to multiple requesters..”

    Baloney! When they say in words that can be quoted: “It was a delayed…” or “It was amended,” then you can say that it was confirmed. Until then, it is merely your speculation that because they said X when they should have said Y this means something.

  464. 01/24/2010Who Are You Kidding says:

    It is clear that ann is not interested in a rational appraisal of the facts but prefers wishful thinking which, at its worst, is bad faith or rationalization: a shaky argument is proposed as “valid” but in reality the proponent has already decided it is “valid”. This is so reminiscent of smrstrauss below that, with together their parallel use of language (“Re:…“, “I have shown…“) I’m not sure if I am really dealing with ann or in actuality smrstrauss, especially as the only ann previously in this discussion has been Ann Dunham. From the way both ann and smrstrauss resort to the chanting of slogans in the face of inconvenient facts they are in some sense of one mind.

    When they [DoH] say in words that can be quoted: “It was a delayed…” or “It was amended,” then you can say that it was confirmed…ann

    ann is cunningly asking for something which defies prior history (i.e. the impossible) when she (he?) asks for Hawaii DoH to state explicitly “It was a delayed…” or “It was amended…”

    However, the Hawaii Office of Information Practices, which supervises and enforces Hawaii’s Freedom of Information Act (UIPA), has officially acknowledged, in relation to UIPA requests to DoH for records it holds on Obama, that a denial of access to any such record is a legal admission that the record exists.

    Given DoH has denied access to records concerning fees paid to amend Obama’s vital records, records which concern Obama’s amended birthdate, and records which concern Obama’s delayed birth filing and supporting documents, has effectively confirmed that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing (for which no supplementary evidence was offered to complete the registration) and an amended birthdate (for which Obama paid fees). The authority for these statements is the authority of the Hawaii Office of Information Practices and Hawaii DoH (by denying access).

    …as his official birth certificate shows…ann

    A COLB is not an official birth certificate: it is a Certification that a dataset exists in the Hawaii DoH COLB database which draws its information from a subset of data extracted from an earlier paper filing of some type. The Hawaii DoH COLB database (in line with national standards) should contain a field which can flag a dataset as “void”. Hawaii DoH, in defiance of Hawaii law, refuses to make public any documentation concerning the design and operation of the Hawaii COLB database, including any documentation which specifically addresses the use of the “void” field in the Hawaii COLB database. Given this cover-up is a violation of Hawaii law, its only rational motive is to control information about a field within the Hawaii DoH COLB database that would flag Obama’s dataset as “void”.

    [Obama's COLB] is a legal document of a US State…ann

    i No fees are charged to amend a vital record when the family are not responsible for the error or omission or when the amendment is minor (typos, spellings etc.) – on the authority of DoH Vital Records Regulations Chapter 8B Section 3.11.
    ii Obama was charged fees to amend his filing – on the authority of Hawaii OIP confirmed by Hawaii DoH.
    iii Charging fees to amend a filing connotes a major administrative change – on the authority of DoH Vital Records Regulations.
    iv A summary of reasons for an amendment must be endorsed on a birth certificate e.g. http://tinyurl.com/COLB-Amended – on the authority of HRS §338-16.
    v No amendment summary is depicted in any online image of Obama’s alleged COLB – on the authority of readers’ own eyes.
    Conclusion Obama’s alleged COLB as depicted online is either unofficial or illegal – on the authority of readers’ own rational faculties.

    [Obama's COLB] is accepted as proof of birth…ann

    A COLB is not proof – a COLB claims the presumption of being evidence. The trier of fact in court decides what is proof. Given the fact that Obama has amended his filing with Hawaii DoH, his COLB (if it exists) has no claim to the presumption of evidence and on the authority of HRS §338-17 the probity of Obama’s alleged COLB must be investigated and resolved by the judicial or administrative officials to whom it is submitted (not DoH!), which Obama has contrived to avoid on every occasion.

    Hundreds of thousands of birth certificate records were lost in the floods in New Orleans. Would all those people not be eligible? Were the presidents before states issued birth certificates not eligible?ann

    i In New Orleans, on the basis of corroborating affidavits and other records, the Bureau of Vital Statistics will issue emerging Presidential candidates birth certificates as the need arises.
    ii In the period before official birth certificates were issued perhaps parish baptismal registers or family bibles or personal witnesses etc. would have sufficed if the issue had ever arisen but, except in the case of Chester Arthur, all previous Presidents were born in America to US citizen parents (plural) resident here. If ann really wants to make an issue of the problem of how previous Presidents might have proved they were natural born in the period before state vital records existed then she (he?) is making a very good case on behalf of those (“dualers”) who say that natural born citizenship can only be definitively established through a Presidential candidate’s birth in the US to two citizen parents. Her (his?) choice.

    …to prove that a president was not born in the USA, you need both proof that the birth certificate is wrong (not merely suspicion) and proof that the person was born in some other country…ann

    The logical fallacy of the false dilemma. If ann were familiar with immigration and citzenship cases she (he?) would be aware that showing an individual has no claim to legal status in the US is sufficient. The US is not obliged to establish the true background of such individuals to win the case. Furthermore, it is disingenuous of ann to say that suspicion about Obama’s vital records is not enough when the strategy of Obama’s attorneys and loyalists is to deny access to the evidence that would resolve the suspicion. Suspicion is not enough when the evidence is freely and fairly available which would conclusively allay suspicion: until then suspicion makes its case on the basis of facts which apparently have only one interpretation.

    The birth certificate is credible…ann

    Credible? Amended but no summary of reasons printed on Obama’s alleged COLB; delayed but no supplementary evidence to complete the registration; no seals in online images of Obama’s alleged COLB or seals demonstrably incompatible with genuine seals; due to amendment the COLB is not evidence under HRS 338-17; the alleged COLB is inadmissible in court because it contains hearsay within hearsay not covered by any hearsay exception under the Federa Rules of Evidence; the alleged COLB not properly authenticated under FRE Rule 902(4) for admission into evidence; the alleged COLB states it has only been “FILED”, not “ACCEPTED”… Indeed, a COLB in Certification of a birth that occurred in 1961 is not a birth certificate…. The only way credibility can be assumed in the teeth of these remorseless facts is to block out reality altogether and pretend none of it is really happening.

    …the officials certifying the accuracy of the birth certificate are credible…ann

    No Hawaii DoH official has “certified” the accuracy of Obama’s alleged COLB. No Hawaii DoH official has stated that Obama’s alleged COLB as depicted in online scans and photographs posted online was issued by their department. As described below, Director Fukino’s July 2009 statement (which did not reference Obama’s alleged COLB) was either illegal or she (through Okubo) was previously lying when she repeatedly claimed (and has since) that on the advice of the Hawaii Attorney General such a statement was illegal. Statements issued by DoH officials who are either acting illegally or lying have no credibility.

    Indeed, it was only in November 2009 that Hawaii DoH complied with the law that required DoH to make public its Vital Records Regulations which revealed (among other things) that a non-certified copy of a Hawaii birth certificate “may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.” (Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2)).

    Hawaii DoH officials credible? The truth is that ann herself (himself?) must address these inconvenient facts, which demonstrate that Hawaii DoH officials have no credibility, with reasonable arguments rather than chanting slogans if readers at this blog are to be expected to give her (his?) comments any credibility.

    …the witness who recalls being told of the birth in 1961 is credible…ann

    ann is obviously not thinking logically if the triple hearsay reminiscences 48 years later of a witness which does not include the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii is put forward as credible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    no documentary or other proof that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii…ann

    None needed. See above.

    Why should [Hawaii DoH acknowledge Obama’s alleged COLB]? They have said that the document in the files shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Birth in Hawaii is the key fact, the only fact that counts….ann

    Why? Seriously? Why? Why should Hawaii DoH have ever acknowledged Obama’s alleged COLB? Duh, maybe to say the COLB was genuine (amendment summary not illegally omitted) and issued by them (genuine seal as applied by DoH clerks)…?

    Unfortunately, by now any acknowledgement from DoH officials of Obama’s alleged COLB is going to be made by officials who have either been acting illegally or lying and such acknowledgement is going to have no credibility. Honesty and transparency would have been the best policy if Obama had genuinely thought he (and his vital records) could have been believed.

  465. 01/25/2010EricaThunderpaws says:

    I see smrstrauss is still practicing cognitive infiltration of conservative blogs. This person is ALL OVER the internet. Anyone who spends THIS MUCH TIME on blogs is surely paid to do this.

    See http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-administration-anonymously.html for details about smrstrauss. In fact, the RSOL referenced this article just this morning.

  466. 01/25/2010Who Are You Kidding says:

    Given DoH has denied access to records…which concern Obama’s delayed birth filing and supporting documents…Who Are You Kidding

    To be exact here: replying to UIPA inquiries, Hawaii DoH has denied access to Obama’s delayed (now called “late”) filing (so confirming its existence), and has separately confirmed it holds no supporting evidenceattesting to the facts of birth” for that delayed (late) filing, (which was legally required to complete it under Hawaii Revised Laws 1957 §57-18).

  467. 01/28/2010smrstrauss says:

    RE: ‘THIS MUCH TIME on blogs is surely paid to do this.”

    I am retired, so I have plenty of time. No one pays me. In fact, I was a contributor.

    Re: “However, the Hawaii Office of Information Practices, which supervises and enforces Hawaii’s Freedom of Information Act (UIPA), has officially acknowledged, in relation to UIPA requests to DoH for records it holds on Obama, that a denial of access to any such record is a legal admission that the record exists.”

    First, only you say this. There is no confirmation that it is true. Second, as WAYK has asserted repeatedly, the officials in Hawaii have broken the law on something, such as telling the truth. Why not on this? In other words, they could be saying “denied” when there is absolutely nothing, and this could be either (1) illegal, or (2) simply a mistake.

    Elsewhere there is a birther who claims that Obama’s real name must
    be “Steve Dunham” because of the same thing, a “denied” reply. Yet there is a simple answer for this, there is a file somewhere in the Hawaii birth records for a “Steve Dunham,” but it is not necessarily Obama. It simply is another guy. It is absolutely clear that the request was only for a record of “Steve Dunham” within the Obama file? No. If not, could the Hawaii officials interpret the question to mean any Steve Dunhams ever born in Hawaii? Yes.

    This being the case in the Dunham example and in your case, you need CONFIRMATION that a record exists and not simply the statement of denial of access. That may mean that there is a document in the file. It may mean a completely different file. It may mean that the person answering the question does not understand the law. It may mean that you do not understand the law.

    You have no confirmation. You simply have a statement of denial, which you say means there is a record, but might not be for plenty of reasons. There is no confirmation. No one will believe you. They will, however, believe the simple statement of the officials that the original document in the files says that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    The officials in Hawaii have said repeatedly that the original birth document says that Obama was born in Hawaii. You say that they are lying because of your interpretation of the UIPA law and perhaps because you consider that it is impossible that they made a mistake about the law. But it is far more likely that you misinterpreted the law, or they did, or that they made a mistake in answering “denied” than that they lied twice about Obama’s original birth certificate saying that he was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “has effectively confirmed that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing (for which no supplementary evidence was offered to complete the registration).”

    Once again, this is your interpretation for which there is no confirmation. You could be wrong on the law, or they could, or there could simply be a mistake in answering “denied.” In any case, it does not overcome the fact that the officials have said twice that the original document shows that Obama was born in Hawaii, and by the way that means at least three people because that is also what the original clerk said when she or he filled out the COLB, and there is the witness who recalls being told of the birth in Hawaii in 1961. And, there is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

    Re: “A COLB is not an official birth certificate…”

    The DoH of Hawaii says quite clearly that not only is the COLB an official birth certificate, it is the official birth certificate, the only birth certificate that Hawaii issues. “The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.” (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html) And, the Certification of Live Birth is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military.

    Re: “Hawaii DoH, in defiance of Hawaii law, refuses to make public any documentation concerning the design and operation of the Hawaii COLB database…”

    So sue them. You claim that it is in violation of the law. They undoubtedly claim that it is not in violation. You will not know for sure unless you win your suit.

    Re: “its only rational motive is to control information about a field within the Hawaii DoH COLB database that would flag Obama’s dataset as “void”.

    This is simply your interpretation of its motive. DoH may simply have a different view on the law. It is also only you that thinks that DoH is concerned about Obama. Its motive may simply be that it does not think it has to disclose this information about the database related to anyone’s file.

    Re: “ii Obama was charged fees to amend his filing – on the authority of Hawaii OIP confirmed by Hawaii DoH”

    Again on the basis of a “denied” reply.

    Re: “Charging fees to amend a filing connotes a major administrative change – on the authority of DoH Vital Records Regulations.”

    Again, you say this but absolutely no one else does and there is no confirmation. Moreover, you have not shown whether the fee structure in 1961 was the same as now. For example, they might have charged fees for everything in 1961 regardless of who made the error or the change. As to what is major or minor. Say that the family did not include the middle name at the time of birth and then wanted to add the middle name, is this major or minor? Whatever, it is a possible explanation.

    Re: ‘No amendment summary is depicted in any online image of Obama’s alleged COLB – on the authority of readers’ own eyes.”

    Or, far more likely, the law may simply be that the amendment summary applies to the document in the files and does NOT apply to the COLB.

    Re: “A COLB is not proof – a COLB claims the presumption of being evidence. ”

    You did not complete the sentence. I said that it was accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military. In a court anything can be challenged, but this is proof to responsible government agencies, just as a US passport is proof of being a US citizen when checked by the US or foreign governments on arrival at an airport.

    Re: “the probity of Obama’s alleged COLB must be investigated and resolved by the judicial or administrative officials to whom it is submitted (not DoH!), which Obama has contrived to avoid on every occasion.”

    There has never been a lawsuit against Obama just for the birth certificate. By far most of the lawsuits were to stop the election or stop the Electoral College or stop the Inauguration. The rest include a grab-bag of demands and claims. The courts have ruled that the plaintiffs have no standing to sue, no more than the plaintiffs who sued McCain (that case was thrown out for the same reason). Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the one that Hawaii sent him, the one that it sends to everyone, and he probably thinks that this is sufficient. I certainly do.

    Re: “in the case of Chester Arthur, all previous Presidents were born in America to US citizen parents (plural) resident here. ”

    You know of course that neither of Andrew Jackson’s parents were US citizens. He was born here, but there may not have been proof. The father of Spiro Agnew, vice president under Nixon, was not a US citizen. (http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2010/01/spiro-agnew.html). Barry Goldwater, candidate of the Republican Party in 1964, was born in Arizona before it became a state. George Romney, Mitt’s father, ran for president even though he had been born in Mexico.

    Did you know that Senator Elect Scott Brown did not prove that he was a citizen? To be sure, he did not have to prove that he was a natural born citizen, only a citizen. But he never proved it. He never posted anything or showed his birth certificate to anyone.

    In contrast, Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii (members of a Republican governor’s administration).

    More directly to the New Orleans point. My point is that if ALL records were lost, then the candidate would still be eligible unless there was proof that he was born outside of the USA. Why? Because it is not the rule to demand proof. Scott Brown is eligible to be Senator even though he has not proven that he is a citizen. Only if someone could prove that he was not a citizen would he fail the eligibility test.

    Re: “citzenship cases she (he?) would be aware that showing an individual has no claim to legal status in the US is sufficient.”

    However, in this case Obama has shown using the official birth certificate of Hawaii, that he has legal status in the USA, and you say that that is sufficient. Only if you can prove that he was NOT born in the USA can you take that away.

    Re: “it is disingenuous…when the strategy of Obama’s attorneys and loyalists is to deny access to the evidence that would resolve the suspicion. ”

    It is disingenuous of YOU to imply that there was ever a lawsuit just for the birth certificate or just for documents. Most of the lawsuits were to stop something from happening, such as the Election or the Inauguration. Most of these lawsuits, and I looked at virtually all of them, did not even ask that Obama show his birth certificate to a court. So it is very disingenuous to say that Obama is denying access. Moreover, it is HAWAII that is denying access. Obama can only show what Hawaii sent him, and that was the COLB.

    Re: “Amended but no summary of reasons printed on Obama’s alleged COLB.”

    As discussed, (1) Only you, based on your interpretation, say that it was amended; (2) the summary of reasons does not necessarily have to appear on the COLB, it may only have to appear on the original document.

    Re: “delayed”

    Only you say that it was delayed. No confirmation.

    Re: “no seals in online images of Obama’s alleged COLB.”

    The seal is on the back, and it is clearly visible in the copy that FactCheck has online (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html) See the third photo from the top, the one with the words “the raised seal” under it.

    Re: “the alleged COLB is inadmissible in court because it contains hearsay within hearsay not covered by any hearsay exception under the Federa Rules of Evidence.”

    So you say. No one else does.

    Re: “No Hawaii DoH official has “certified” the accuracy of Obama’s alleged COLB.”

    Yes they have. They have stated that the document in the files verifies the accuracy of the COLB.

    Re: “No Hawaii DoH official has stated that Obama’s alleged COLB as depicted in online scans and photographs posted online was issued by their department. ”

    If they say twice that the COLB is accurate in showing Obama’s birth in Hawaii this is unnecessary. Moreover, it is impossible to say from seeing only a scanned image whether it was forged or not. This being the case, the critical fact is whether Obama was born in Hawaii, and the officials have said twice that he was.

    Re: “or she (through Okubo) was previously lying when she repeatedly claimed (and has since) that on the advice of the Hawaii Attorney General such a statement was illegal. ”

    And, as you know, she has not been prosecuted. I am shocked, shocked, that a Republican governor’s administration should be so corrupt. Actually, all we know is that at one time she thought it was illegal and subsequently she thought it was not illegal. Or, maybe it was illegal at the first statement but that things changed in the second (such as perhaps Obama gave permission to make the statement, perhaps). In any case, the fact that it may have been illegal does not make the statements lies.

    Re: “a non-certified copy of a Hawaii birth certificate “may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.” (Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2)).”

    This is interesting, but guess what it refers to? To the official birth certificate of Hawaii, of course, meaning the COLB. So, maybe you can get a non-certified copy of the COLB. If you think that this refers to the original birth certificate, sue, but you could be wrong.

    Re: “if the triple hearsay reminiscences 48 years later of a witness which does not include the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii is put forward as credible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.”

    The recollections simply confirm the official birth certificate and the statements of the two officials. To be sure, 48 years have passed. To be sure, she said that she was told. But this confirms the statements of the two officials. And, there is not a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

    Re: “None needed. See above.”

    You are wrong. Since there is an official document proving birth in Hawaii and the confirmation of two officials that he was born in Hawaii, only proof that he was not born in Hawaii can in any way affect the overwhelming proof that he was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “Duh, maybe to say the COLB was genuine.”

    They have said that the facts on the COLB are accurate.

    Re: ‘(amendment summary not illegally omitted)”

    You have not shown that amendment summaries must be attached to COLBs. They may only have to be attached to the original, the one that was changed.

    Re: “and issued by them (genuine seal as applied by DoH clerks)…?”

    They have said that the facts on the COLB were accurate. The seal appears in the FactCheck photo. As for it being accurate, all that we can see is the image of the seal that is online. The DoH cannot say that it is real or not from the image.

    Further proof of Obama’s citizenship also stems from the fact that Obama received a US passport to travel to Indonesia as a child with his mother and to return from Indonesia when he attended High School. To be sure, passports are issued to naturalized citizens as well as natural born citizens, but if this had been the case, then surely someone would have found the naturalization documents in the State Department files. The birth certificate used to obtain the passport was probably a copy of the original, and it probably still is in the State Department files.

    Re: “officials who have either been acting illegally or lying.”

    There is absolutely no evidence that the officials in Hawaii were lying, and it is highly unlikely because there is little for them to gain by lying and a lot to lose if they were found out. As you have said, sometimes people do lie even despite this risk, but in this case we have no motive for them to lie. Perhaps the whole Republican Administration in Hawaii is behind these lies. Maybe the officials and the governor and the legislature and the newspapers and the US State Department are all lying.

    Obama has posted the offical birth certificate of Hawaii, and this document is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military, and the facts on the birth certificate (the COLB) have been twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. And there is no confirmation of an amendment or delay to the birth certificate, only interpretation and speculation.

  468. 01/28/2010ann1 says:

    Re: “However, the Hawaii Office of Information Practices, which supervises and enforces Hawaii’s Freedom of Information Act (UIPA), has officially acknowledged, in relation to UIPA requests to DoH for records it holds on Obama, that a denial of access to any such record is a legal admission that the record exists.”

    First, only you say this. There is no confirmation that it is true. Second, as WAYK has asserted repeatedly, the officials in Hawaii have broken the law on something, such as telling the truth. Why not on this? In other words, they could be saying “denied” when there is absolutely nothing, and this could be either (1) illegal, or (2) simply a mistake.

    Elsewhere there is a birther who claims that Obama’s real name must
    be “Steve Dunham” because of the same thing, a “denied” reply. Yet there is a simple answer for this, there is a file somewhere in the Hawaii birth records for a “Steve Dunham,” but it is not necessarily Obama. It simply is another guy. It is absolutely clear that the request was only for a record of “Steve Dunham” within the Obama file? No. If not, could the Hawaii officials interpret the question to mean any Steve Dunhams ever born in Hawaii? Yes.

    This being the case in the Dunham example and in your case, you need CONFIRMATION that a record exists and not simply the statement of denial of access. That may mean that there is a document in the file. It may mean a completely different file. It may mean that the person answering the question does not understand the law. It may mean that you do not understand the law.

    You have no confirmation. You simply have a statement of denial, which you say means there is a record, but might not be for plenty of reasons. There is no confirmation. No one will believe you. They will, however, believe the simple statement of the officials that the original document in the files says that Obama was born in Hawaii.

    The officials in Hawaii have said repeatedly that the original birth document says that Obama was born in Hawaii. You say that they are lying because of your interpretation of the UIPA law and perhaps because you consider that it is impossible that they made a mistake about the law. But it is far more likely that you misinterpreted the law, or they did, or that they made a mistake in answering “denied” than that they lied twice about Obama’s original birth certificate saying that he was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “has effectively confirmed that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing (for which no supplementary evidence was offered to complete the registration).”

    Once again, this is your interpretation for which there is no confirmation. You could be wrong on the law, or they could, or there could simply be a mistake in answering “denied.” In any case, it does not overcome the fact that the officials have said twice that the original document shows that Obama was born in Hawaii, and by the way that means at least three people because that is also what the original clerk said when she or he filled out the COLB, and there is the witness who recalls being told of the birth in Hawaii in 1961. And, there is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

    Re: “A COLB is not an official birth certificate…”

    The DoH of Hawaii says quite clearly that not only is the COLB an official birth certificate, it is the official birth certificate, the only birth certificate that Hawaii issues. “The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.” (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html) And, the Certification of Live Birth is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military.

    Re: “Hawaii DoH, in defiance of Hawaii law, refuses to make public any documentation concerning the design and operation of the Hawaii COLB database…”

    So sue them. You claim that it is in violation of the law. They undoubtedly claim that it is not in violation. You will not know for sure unless you win your suit.

    Re: “its only rational motive is to control information about a field within the Hawaii DoH COLB database that would flag Obama’s dataset as “void”.

    This is simply your interpretation of its motive. DoH may simply have a different view on the law. It is also only you that thinks that DoH is concerned about Obama. Its motive may simply be that it does not think it has to disclose this information about the database related to anyone’s file.

    Re: “ii Obama was charged fees to amend his filing – on the authority of Hawaii OIP confirmed by Hawaii DoH”

    Again on the basis of a “denied” reply.

    Re: “Charging fees to amend a filing connotes a major administrative change – on the authority of DoH Vital Records Regulations.”

    Again, you say this but absolutely no one else does and there is no confirmation. Moreover, you have not shown whether the fee structure in 1961 was the same as now. For example, they might have charged fees for everything in 1961 regardless of who made the error or the change. As to what is major or minor. Say that the family did not include the middle name at the time of birth and then wanted to add the middle name, is this major or minor? Whatever, it is a possible explanation.

    Re: ‘No amendment summary is depicted in any online image of Obama’s alleged COLB – on the authority of readers’ own eyes.”

    Or, far more likely, the law may simply be that the amendment summary applies to the document in the files and does NOT apply to the COLB.

    Re: “A COLB is not proof – a COLB claims the presumption of being evidence. ”

    You did not complete the sentence. I said that it was accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military. In a court anything can be challenged, but this is proof to responsible government agencies, just as a US passport is proof of being a US citizen when checked by the US or foreign governments on arrival at an airport.

    Re: “the probity of Obama’s alleged COLB must be investigated and resolved by the judicial or administrative officials to whom it is submitted (not DoH!), which Obama has contrived to avoid on every occasion.”

    There has never been a lawsuit against Obama just for the birth certificate. By far most of the lawsuits were to stop the election or stop the Electoral College or stop the Inauguration. The rest include a grab-bag of demands and claims. The courts have ruled that the plaintiffs have no standing to sue, no more than the plaintiffs who sued McCain (that case was thrown out for the same reason). Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the one that Hawaii sent him, the one that it sends to everyone, and he probably thinks that this is sufficient. I certainly do.

    Re: “in the case of Chester Arthur, all previous Presidents were born in America to US citizen parents (plural) resident here. ”

    You know of course that neither of Andrew Jackson’s parents were US citizens. He was born here, but there may not have been proof. The father of Spiro Agnew, vice president under Nixon, was not a US citizen. (http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2010/01/spiro-agnew.html). Barry Goldwater, candidate of the Republican Party in 1964, was born in Arizona before it became a state. George Romney, Mitt’s father, ran for president even though he had been born in Mexico.

    Did you know that Senator Elect Scott Brown did not prove that he was a citizen? To be sure, he did not have to prove that he was a natural born citizen, only a citizen. But he never proved it. He never posted anything or showed his birth certificate to anyone.

    In contrast, Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii, the facts on which were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii (members of a Republican governor’s administration).

    More directly to the New Orleans point. My point is that if ALL records were lost, then the candidate would still be eligible unless there was proof that he was born outside of the USA. Why? Because it is not the rule to demand proof. Scott Brown is eligible to be Senator even though he has not proven that he is a citizen. Only if someone could prove that he was not a citizen would he fail the eligibility test.

    Re: “citzenship cases she (he?) would be aware that showing an individual has no claim to legal status in the US is sufficient.”

    However, in this case Obama has shown using the official birth certificate of Hawaii, that he has legal status in the USA, and you say that that is sufficient. Only if you can prove that he was NOT born in the USA can you take that away.

    Re: “it is disingenuous…when the strategy of Obama’s attorneys and loyalists is to deny access to the evidence that would resolve the suspicion. ”

    It is disingenuous of YOU to imply that there was ever a lawsuit just for the birth certificate or just for documents. Most of the lawsuits were to stop something from happening, such as the Election or the Inauguration. Most of these lawsuits, and I looked at virtually all of them, did not even ask that Obama show his birth certificate to a court. So it is very disingenuous to say that Obama is denying access. Moreover, it is HAWAII that is denying access. Obama can only show what Hawaii sent him, and that was the COLB.

    Re: “Amended but no summary of reasons printed on Obama’s alleged COLB.”

    As discussed, (1) Only you, based on your interpretation, say that it was amended; (2) the summary of reasons does not necessarily have to appear on the COLB, it may only have to appear on the original document.

    Re: “delayed”

    Only you say that it was delayed. No confirmation.

    Re: “no seals in online images of Obama’s alleged COLB.”

    The seal is on the back, and it is clearly visible in the copy that FactCheck has online (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html) See the third photo from the top, the one with the words “the raised seal” under it.

    Re: “the alleged COLB is inadmissible in court because it contains hearsay within hearsay not covered by any hearsay exception under the Federa Rules of Evidence.”

    So you say. No one else does.

    Re: “No Hawaii DoH official has “certified” the accuracy of Obama’s alleged COLB.”

    Yes they have. They have stated that the document in the files verifies the accuracy of the COLB.

    Re: “No Hawaii DoH official has stated that Obama’s alleged COLB as depicted in online scans and photographs posted online was issued by their department. ”

    If they say twice that the COLB is accurate in showing Obama’s birth in Hawaii this is unnecessary. Moreover, it is impossible to say from seeing only a scanned image whether it was forged or not. This being the case, the critical fact is whether Obama was born in Hawaii, and the officials have said twice that he was.

    Re: “or she (through Okubo) was previously lying when she repeatedly claimed (and has since) that on the advice of the Hawaii Attorney General such a statement was illegal. ”

    And, as you know, she has not been prosecuted. I am shocked, shocked, that a Republican governor’s administration should be so corrupt. Actually, all we know is that at one time she thought it was illegal and subsequently she thought it was not illegal. Or, maybe it was illegal at the first statement but that things changed in the second (such as perhaps Obama gave permission to make the statement, perhaps). In any case, the fact that it may have been illegal does not make the statements lies.

    Re: “a non-certified copy of a Hawaii birth certificate “may be issued to any person or organization requesting it.” (Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2)).”

    This is interesting, but guess what it refers to? To the official birth certificate of Hawaii, of course, meaning the COLB. So, maybe you can get a non-certified copy of the COLB. If you think that this refers to the original birth certificate, sue, but you could be wrong.

    Re: “if the triple hearsay reminiscences 48 years later of a witness which does not include the claim that Obama was born in Hawaii is put forward as credible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.”

    The recollections simply confirm the official birth certificate and the statements of the two officials. To be sure, 48 years have passed. To be sure, she said that she was told. But this confirms the statements of the two officials. And, there is not a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii.

    Re: “None needed. See above.”

    You are wrong. Since there is an official document proving birth in Hawaii and the confirmation of two officials that he was born in Hawaii, only proof that he was not born in Hawaii can in any way affect the overwhelming proof that he was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “Duh, maybe to say the COLB was genuine.”

    They have said that the facts on the COLB are accurate.

    Re: ‘(amendment summary not illegally omitted)”

    You have not shown that amendment summaries must be attached to COLBs. They may only have to be attached to the original, the one that was changed.

    Re: “and issued by them (genuine seal as applied by DoH clerks)…?”

    They have said that the facts on the COLB were accurate. The seal appears in the FactCheck photo. As for it being accurate, all that we can see is the image of the seal that is online. The DoH cannot say that it is real or not from the image.

    Further proof of Obama’s citizenship also stems from the fact that Obama received a US passport to travel to Indonesia as a child with his mother and to return from Indonesia when he attended High School. To be sure, passports are issued to naturalized citizens as well as natural born citizens, but if this had been the case, then surely someone would have found the naturalization documents in the State Department files. The birth certificate used to obtain the passport was probably a copy of the original, and it probably still is in the State Department files.

    Re: “officials who have either been acting illegally or lying.”

    There is absolutely no evidence that the officials in Hawaii were lying, and it is highly unlikely because there is little for them to gain by lying and a lot to lose if they were found out. As you have said, sometimes people do lie even despite this risk, but in this case we have no motive for them to lie. Perhaps the whole Republican Administration in Hawaii is behind these lies. Maybe the officials and the governor and the legislature and the newspapers and the US State Department are all lying.

    Obama has posted the offical birth certificate of Hawaii, and this document is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military, and the facts on the birth certificate (the COLB) have been twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. And there is no confirmation of an amendment or delay to the birth certificate, only interpretation and speculation.

  469. 02/4/2010Who Are You Kidding says:

    Honesty stems from character, and character is not easily changed. I don’t think readers can have failed to notice that on January 28 at 9:36 pm and 9:39 pm smrstrauss and ann1, respectively, submitted the same word for word detailed comment below. By this error smrstrauss has revealed that he has been deceiving readers (as I suspected) by masquerading as another commenter, ann, and now pretends to be ann1. smrstrauss is strongly suspected elsewhere to be someone who is NOT retired, as he claims: smrstrauss has been provably dishonest at another site about his association with this person’s name online in 2004, so either smrstrauss is again deceptive about not being this person or he has stolen his identity. Either way, the contempt for readers shown by smrstrauss\ann\ann1‘s pretence is despicable, and reflects his similar contempt for readers’ intelligence by looping demonstrably invalid arguments ad nauseam, hoping to wear down reader resistance with a Big Lie droned over and over and over until it sticks. This is the old–new propaganda tactic advocated by Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein:

    Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action…government officials would participate anonymously or even with false identities… Once corrective information is introduced, large numbers of people can be shifted to different views.

    Sunstein and his minions, of course, are to be the secret arbiters of what constitutes acceptable views; and if your understanding of the world is not theirs, too darn bad: your tax-dollars are going to pay for your re-education, whether you know it or not, at the hands of deceivers of similar calibre to smrstrauss\ann\ann1. However, government indoctrination must fail if its re-educators oppose facts with nothing better than deceitful “explanations” (such as we’ve been offered by smrstrauss\ann\ann1) which sound manufactured: “a mistake” , “they might have“, “may simply be” , “you say this but“, “illegal does not make the statements lies“, “plenty of reasons“, “impossible to say“, “only you that thinks“, “possible explanation“, “mistake in answering“, “you have no“, “perhaps Obama gave permission“, “you could be wrong” etc. As someone recently commented elsewhere at TRSoL: “One of the differences between the truth and a cover story is that a cover story needs to be adjusted as new facts come to light whereas the truth is only further confirmed by additional facts.

    I am shocked, shocked, that a Republican governor’s administration should be so corrupt.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    smrstrauss‘s attempt at irony (which he used during the 2004 election campaign) is wasted on me. Obama’s (in)eligibility is a constitutional and legal issue, not a party political issue. I never refer to party politics when discussing Obama’s (in)eligibility, only the law. Conversely, smrstrauss inadvertently shows all the partizan loyalties (recall 2004?) needed to qualify for a Sunstein paycheck.

    [OIP, which supervises and enforces...UIPA, has officially acknowledged...that a denial of access to any such record is a legal admission that the record exists.] First, only you say this.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    Correction: the Hawaii Office of Information Practices says this:

    HAWAII OIP UIPA MANUAL

    Guideline To Respond To A Formal Request

    Step 1 – Determine Whether the Agency Has the Requested Record….
    Step 2 – Determine If an Exception Applies….
    Step 3 – Provide the Required Response: Depending upon the circumstances, the agency must: A. Make the record available; OR B. Provide a “Notice to Requester”…

    The Notice to Requester must include the following information as applicable:

    (1) Where agency will disclose all or part of the record, the notice must include: (a) Where or how the record or copies will be made available…
    (2) Where agency is denying access to all or part of a record, the notice must identify: (a) The specific record or part that will not be disclosed; and (b) The §92F-13 exception that allows withholding (and any other applicable laws) and a brief explanation (a few words) of why the agency cited that exception.
    (3) Where agency is unable to disclose the record or part of the record, the notice must state that: a) The agency does not maintain the record; (b) The agency requires a further description…; or (c) The request requires the agency to create a summary…
    ” [Pages 30-39]

    Which led to these OIP e-mails to MissT :

    From: oip@hawaii.gov Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:36:47 -1000

    …If the agency [i.e. DoH] does not have any such documents they should say so. Linden H. Joesting Staff Attorney…

    From: oip@hawaii.gov Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:33:58 -1000

    …Yes, you may ask for a copy of the invoice and receipt [for Obama's amendment fees]. If the agency has the documents in electronic form, or can easily convert the documents into an electronic form, then they may send it to you electronically. If no amendments were made, there would not be any such documents and the agency should inform you of that fact. Linden H. Joesting Staff Attorney…

    An OIP Staff Attorney’s official position is that “If [DoH] does not have any such documents they should say so” and “If the agency has the documents…they may send it to you…If no amendments were made, there would not be any such documents“. The OIP UIPA Manual allows only four relevant options for DoH to answer UIPA requests. No existing record of Obama seeking to amend his filing would have returned a standardized UIPA answer: “…no records responsive to the request…“. Denial of access to the record of Obama seeking to amend his filing confirms the record’s existence, thus allowing for appeal to OIP or legal action. MissT was denied access to records documenting Obama’s amendment fees, meaning MissT was informed of the fact of their existence, and they may be obtained on further appeal to OIP or the courts. The refusal of smrstrauss\ann\ann1 to admit this demonstrates an inability to follow a sane and logical train of thought or displays more of his characteristic deceitfulness.

    You simply have a statement of denial, which you say means there is a record, but might not be for plenty of reasons.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    Apart from the fact that smrstrauss\ann\ann1‘s language tests logic to breaking, DoH is not permitted to play around with UIPA; it must follow the law or face legal action. See immediately above.

    …there is no confirmation. You could be wrong on the law, or they could, or there could simply be a mistake in answering ‘denied’.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    The OIP Manual is unambiguous in its description of how agencies should respond to UIPA requests. What is really pathetic is smrstrauss\ann\ann1‘s total unconcern at the notion that DoH has been “mistaken” in its handling of UIPA requests but his persistence with the loop that DoH cannot be “mistaken” about Obama’s vital records.

    Steve Dunham.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    No tactical distractions, please: I am not interested in, and have no intention of discussing, anyone named Steve Dunham. My concern is the Presidential (in)eligibility and the citizenship status of the person known as BH Obama Jr.

    [Nelson] said that she was told [a Stanley gave birth to a son]. But this confirms the [DoH] statements…smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    smrstrauss\ann\ann1 seems to be have trouble accepting that whoever told the doctor who told Nelson that “Stanley gave birth to a son” made no reference to where this son was born. smrstrauss\ann\ann1 should drop Nelson: to imagine readers will be persuaded by such an obvious non sequitur only demonstrates contempt for readers’ intelligence.

    Re: ‘Hawaii DoH, in defiance of Hawaii law, refuses to make public any documentation concerning the design and operation of the Hawaii COLB database…’ So sue them. .smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    Readers can join the effort to sue Hawaii DoH at http://www.thepostemail.com/legal-fund/

    This is interesting…maybe you can get a non-certified copy of the COLB. If you think that this refers to the original birth certificate, sue, but you could be wrong.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    The fact that Hawaii DoH defied both Hawaii law and widespread public concern by withholding its Vital Records Regulations until November 2009, and the fact that all through this controversy DoH has been able under its own authority to issue a non-certified informational birth certificate to anyone who applies, smrstrauss\ann\ann1 merely finds “interesting”. Although DoH’s authority to issue an informational birth certificate is printed in its own Regulations (which stops smrstrauss\ann\ann1 from calling it “mistaken”), whether “interesting” or “mistaken” or “deceptive” this is still not problematical enough for smrstrauss\ann\ann1 to refrain from looping his belief in DoH’s supposed credibility.

    Hawaii DoH Regulations Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2) from 1976 (still in force) pre-dates COLBs, which began circulating in 2001. The 1976 Regulations permits DoH complete discretion over the information it can include within a non-certified birth certificate, except that parental approval for the parent’s address must be sought, no information can be included which the DoH Director (Fukino) considers may harm the character or reputation of the subject of the birth certificate, and the birth certificate of an illegitimate child cannot be issued. On the assumption that no information within Obama’s 1961 birth certificate harms his character or reputation, and sure in the knowledge that Hawaii law and its courts have never and could never deem Obama illegitimate, without any need for permission from Obama himself Hawaii DoH could have resolved the constitutional uncertainty and controversy surrounding Obama’s citizenship and Presidential (in)eligibility by issuing a non-certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate. DoH preferred to issue a statement which, before and after, DoH claimed it was illegal for it to issue, while hiding the Regulations which allow it to do more than issue such a statement. This is more than “interesting”, it is either acting illegally or lying: a problem which smrstrauss\ann\ann1‘s looping argumentum ad nauseam is unable to address.

    Re: “Charging fees to amend a filing connotes a major administrative change – on the authority of DoH Vital Records Regulations.” Again, you say this but absolutely no one else does… Moreover, you have not shown whether the fee structure in 1961 was the same as now. For example, they might have charged fees for everything in 1961 regardless of who made the error or the change.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    smrstrauss\ann\ann1 is attempting to distract readers, given Obama was in no position to pay charges in 1961 for an amendment to his filing and DoH has denied access to the records which document the charges Obama himself paid for amendment(s).

    First, the year 1961 is not when Obama paid to amend his filing with DoH: for smrstrauss\ann\ann1 to suggest otherwise is to attempt to deceive readers.

    Second, the only fees (other than for amendments) stipulated in DoH Regulations are the charges for certificates and for searching DoH files. The charge for amendments as follows:

    Hawaii DoH Regulations Chapter 8B Section 3.11 Fees for amendments: A. A charge of $3 shall be made for each request for amendment for an item or group of items on a given certificate. B. No fee shall be charged when it is determined that the registrant, parent, guardian, or informant was not responsible for the error or omission or for minor administrative changes corrected by the local registrar during routine filing and editing procedure or a child’s name is added within one year after the date of birth.

    An honest person would gladly retract all comments which are inconsistent with the facts, not ignore the inconsistencies in the sly manner of smrstrauss\ann\ann1.

    As to what is [a] major or minor [amendment]. Say that the family did not include the middle name at the time of birth and then wanted to add the middle name, is this major or minor? Whatever, it is a possible explanation.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    The facts show that smrstrauss\ann\ann1 can have no possible explanation.

    Hawaii DoH Regulations Chapter 8B Section 3.1 Amendments After Official Acceptance of Certificate: All certificates on which major or judicial administrative changes are made ninety days or more from the date of the event shall be marked ‘altered’ unless otherwise provided by law or regulations [HRS 338-16 text below]. All certificates on which minor administrative changes are made six months or later following the date of the event shall be similarly marked.

    Hawaii DoH Regulations Chapter 8B Section 3.5 Major administrative amendments include…(B)(5) Change in the given name(s) of registrant [Obama] ninety days or more after date of birth.

    Hawaii DoH Regulations Chapter 8B Section 3.5 Minor administrative amendments include… (C) Change in given names prior to ninety days of age.

    the law may simply be that the amendment summary applies to the document in the files and does NOT apply to the COLB…smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    Given that smrstrauss\ann\ann1 is adamant that “not only is the COLB an official birth certificate, it is the official birth certificate, the only birth certificate that Hawaii issues…” then his speculation that an amendment summary “does NOT apply to the COLB” is without any basis in fact (and no honest retraction from smrstrauss\ann\ann1 is expected). Hawaii law is clear:

    Hawaii Revised Statutes 338-16Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates…which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain…the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”. (b) A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates.

    You have not shown that amendment summaries must be attached to COLBs.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    On December 28, 2009 smrstrauss\ann\ann1 wrote: “If you find a Hawaii COLB from someone else that was amended and has the reasons for the amendment on it, you might have some evidence….” The requested evidence was produced in the form of a photograph of a known-to-be-genuine COLB: http://tinyurl.com/COLB-Amended Therefore I most certainly have shown an amendment summary printed on a Hawaii COLB itself as the law requires. smrstrauss\ann\ann1 does not remember or does not want to remember this fact. Given he is a proved deceiver, readers may judge why smrstrauss\ann\ann1‘s memory has betrayed him.

    [A COLB] is proof to responsible government agencies…smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    Given Hawaii DoH have confirmed through UIPA that Obama’s vital records involve a delayed filing and an amended date of birth, then the following Hawaii statute applies:

    HRS 338-17Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.

    No statement or opinion issued by Hawaii DoH officials has the authority to make Obama’s alleged COLB evidence (much less “proof”) of anything. Until it has not been investigated by the relevant authorities, no responsible state or federal authority should accord Obama’s alleged COLB a status it is denied in Hawaii.

    Obama has shown the official birth certificate [Certification i.e. COLB] that Hawaii sent him…and he probably thinks that this is sufficient. I certainly do.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    Hawaii DoH have never acknowledged that they sent Obama a COLB, even though it has the legal authority to issue a non-certified copy of his more probative 1961 filing. Online scans and photographs of any document, Obama’s alleged COLB included, are not the “proof” smrstrauss\ann\ann1 claims them to be. The online images of Obama’s alleged COLB are riddled with anomalies consistent with forgery, not least the missing amendment summary which by law should have been included; which, had it been included, would have stripped the alleged COLB of the status of evidence (HRS 338-17). Sufficient? It should not be a surprise that a political partizan such as smrstrauss\ann\ann1, with a track record of deception, here contradicts himself (as will be described below) in order to adjust the facts to deceit.

    You know of course that neither of Andrew Jackson’s parents were US citizens…smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    On March 5, 2009 smrstrauss\ann\ann1 wrote (assuming smrstrauss\ann\ann1 has not stolen smrstrauss‘s identity), quoting Lord Chief Justice Cockburn:

    By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown was an English subject…

    and quoting from Dicey (Conflict of Laws):

    The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence…

    On March 9, 2009 smrstrauss\ann\ann1 then wrote:

    I have pointed out that in…the States under the Articles of Confederation [first US Constitution of 1781], there were citizenship laws [therein]…exactly the same as [for] a Natural Born Subject under British common law…[and] the Articles of Confederation…said: ‘the free inhabitants of each of these States…shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States.’ Read literally, it means that ordinary inhabitants are entitled to the privileges of citizens.”

    Given the term “free inhabitant” as used in 1781 was a synonym for “citizen”, smrstrauss\ann\ann1 must agree that under the Anglo-sphere common law which he cites, natural born subjects of the King of Ireland (where Jackson’s parents were born) had all the rights and privileges of natural born subjects of that same British monarch in the Carolinas (where Jackson was born in 1767). Jackson’s father died three months before his son was born, but had he lived on till the Articles of Confederation was promulgated (as did his wife) he would have automatically become a US citizen. This applied to all US Presidents whose parents were born before Independence. It applied to Andrew Jackson, his mother, and his father (had he lived on). smrstrauss\ann\ann1 has made himself a liar by his own words at Apuzzo’s blog in March 2009, unless he claims he is only masquerading as that person.

    Re: ‘the alleged COLB is inadmissible in court because it contains hearsay within hearsay not covered by any hearsay exception under the Federal Rules of Evidence.’ So you say. No one else does.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    A real case decided by federal judges in March 2009:

    Person A was convicted of a serious crime in the US; the US wanted to deport him. The US introduced as evidence that A was foreign born an official application for permanent residence (from 30 years ago) prepared on behalf of Person A by Person B, who was married to A’s mother (but not at the time of birth). In the application B states in writing that A was born in a foreign country. The application as a document is one level of hearsay, the statement within the document as to birthplace is hearsay within hearsay. Is the statement within the application document that A was born in a foreign country admissible evidence? No, said the US Ninth Circuit Appeals Court in March 2009, such hearsay within hearsay is inadmissible:

    [A]…asserts that the district court erred when it admitted the Application…under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. See Fed. R. Evid. 803(8). We agree. …the Application can be said to document the activities of a governmental agency and to document the observations of a responsible government officer to some extent. That would allow admission of the document [under Rule 803(8)]…However, the only part of the document truly relevant here is [B]’s hearsay statement that [A] was born in and was a citizen of [another country]. [B], of course, had no governmental duties whatsoever. The government’s contention that the Application is admissible under the business records exception [803(6)] contains the same flaw. In either case, there is at least one more layer of hearsay, and to be admissible there must be an exception for that layer also … However, the government made no attempt…to argue that the statements of [B] are admissible as a result of some other hearsay exception [therefore] we are constrained to find error in the admission of the statements of [B]. Moreover, the error was prejudicial…the Application was the only evidence admitted at trial which tended to show [A was foreign born and] absent the improperly admitted hearsay, [A] would not have suffered a conviction… Thus, we must reverse” [emphasis applied] http://tinyurl.com/US-9thCA-MP

    The parallels with Obama’s alleged COLB:

    1) The hearsay within hearsay of the alleged COLB’s first and most important line is not covered by FRE-HRE Rules 803(6) or 803(8) because the original supplier of Obama’s registration information (family member) was not employed by Hawaii DoH and was not constrained by a public service or business duty to be reliable and trustworthy, as Rules 803(6) or 803(8) demand. It should be remembered that “…the burden is on the proponent [Obama] to produce evidence [by a preponderance] of trustworthiness” (US v. Hancho C. Kim, US Appeals D.C.,1979.)

    2) The only part of Obama’s CertificATION of Live Birth (if it exists) “truly relevant here” is the first line, reading “CERTIFICATE No. 151 1961 014641“. Note that the CertificATION‘s first line significantly does not read “CertificATION No. [etc.]“. Obama’s purported COLB is a CertificATION (and hearsay we shall assume hypothetically exempted by Rule 803(9)), referencing a birth CERTIFICATE not in evidence and its serial number: by definition hearsay within hearsay. Given Obama’s CertificATION of Live Birth (if it exists) draws its evidential value exclusively from the original birth CERTIFICATE of 1961 (which is not in evidence), the COLB by itself proves nothing and has no possibility of proving anything, since it was created 46 years after Obama’s birth. To attempt to “solve” this problem generally DoH has ensured that CertificATIONS of Live Birth reference the prior CERTIFICATE containing the witnesses’ signatures etc., and in this case Obama’s from 1961; unfortunately for Obama this creates a new problem of hearsay within hearsay. As we saw from the real-life example just given, this hearsay within hearsay is inadmissible under any relevant FRE-HRE hearsay exceptions: Rules 803(6), 803(8), or 803(9).

    The [COLB's] seal is on the back, and it is clearly visible in the…the third photo from the top [of FactCheck's web page].” smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    I wasn’t referring to FactCheck photograph #3: take a look at FactCheck photograph #1. Anyone with eyes can establish for themselves that there is no discernable seal in the first photograph from the top of FactCheck‘s web page: nobody but nobody can show a seal in FactCheck photograph #1. It is impossible that there can be a genuine seal in any other FactCheck photograph if there is no seal, genuine or faked, on the alleged COLB in the first photograph. As there is no seal in that first photo, so there cannot be a genuine seal in any other FactCheck photo. Given smrstrauss\ann\ann1 himself concedes that “it is impossible to say from seeing only a scanned image whether it was forged or not [i.e. genuine]…” and “DoH cannot say that it [the seal image in the FactCheck photo] is real or not from the image…“, only a dupe would take smrstrauss\ann\ann1‘s self-contradictory word that the third photo of FactCheck‘s web page contains a genuine seal.

    Re: ‘delayed’. Only you say that it was delayed.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    smrstrauss\ann\ann1 was invited some time ago to obtain from Hawaii DoH the UIPA notification that there are “…no records responsive to the request…” for Obama’s delayed filing rather than this request being “denied in its entirety“. Until readers are informed that DoH dis-confirm the delayed filing it has already confirmed exists, they can be sure that Obama loyalists (including smrstrauss\ann\ann1) have been unable to obtain that dis-confirmation.

    Re: “No Hawaii DoH official has “certified” the accuracy of Obama’s alleged COLB.” …They have stated that the document in the files verifies the accuracy of the COLB.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    At no time has an official at Hawaii DoH (i.e. Fukino or Onaka) stated that “the document in the files verifies the accuracy of the COLB.” This is another example of smrstrauss\ann\ann1‘s hopeless struggle with the truth. If Hawaii DoH wants to verify the accuracy of Obama’s alleged COLB it has independant authority under under Hawaii Vital Records Regulations Chapter 8B Section 2.5(B)(2) to issue a non-certified informational copy of Obama’s 1961 filing; gnomic and inconclusive statements in preference to this action are designed to obscure rather than enlighten the public.

    Re: ‘officials who have either been acting illegally or lying.’ There is absolutely no evidence that the officials in Hawaii were lying…smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    Given his track record of political partizanship and deception, smrstrauss\ann\ann1‘s reluctance to apply logic to the the problem of Hawaii DoH’s statements and credibility is understandable — but we must insist he find a logical solution. If on every occasion before and after Fukino’s July statement she (through her spokesperson Okubo) has insisted (on the purported advice of the Hawaii AG) that any statement concerning Obama’s vital records is illegal, then Fukino’s July statement is illegal. If Fukino’s July statement is not illegal, then Fukino (through Okubo) has lied about such statements being illegal. If Fukino and Okubo have been either acting illegally or lying, then all credibility has been forfeited. smrstrauss\ann\ann1‘s current “solution” to the problem is to suggest Fukino and Okubo have made a “mistake” and that we should restore their credibility. This answer doesn’t solve the logical problem. If the public servants in these responsible positions are capable of such appalling “mistakes”, then in what else are they “mistaken”?

    To save the credibility of Fukino and Okubo smrstrauss\ann\ann1 must close the logical problem with a solution that is something better than they were “acting illegally”, “lying”, or “mistaken”. As smrstrauss\ann\ann1 himself said, this should be “interesting”, especially when the Hawaii Deputy AG has refused to support the legal definition used in Fukino’s statement.

    Only if you can prove that he was NOT born in the USA can you take that [legal status in the USA] away.smrstrauss\ann\ann1

    This only makes sense if there is an existing legal status to take away: the claimant must establish US citizenship first. smrstrauss\ann\ann1 himself states that “it is impossible to say from seeing only a scanned image whether it was forged or not [i.e. genuine]…” and “DoH cannot say that it [the seal image in the FactCheck photo] is real or not from the image…“, so it is clear that Obama has not yet produced anything which is evidence of his birth in Hawaii. The burden of proof falls upon Obama to prove that he is a U.S. citizen. The requisite evidence (according to 22 CFR §51.43 ) is a legal birth certificate recorded at the time of birth or shortly thereafter; failing that, baptismal certificates, documents created shortly after birth but not more than 5 years after birth, together with affidavits of persons (parent, older sibling, physician, nurse, midwife etc.) having personal knowledge of the facts of the birth, may be acceptable secondary evidence. (Early school records showing the date and place of birth may also possibly be acceptable.) If not, Obama must seek declaratory judgment of his US citizenship under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 360 [8 USC 1503]:

    a) If any person who is within the United States claims a right or privilege as a national of the United States and is denied such right or privilege by any department or independent agency, or official thereof, upon the ground that he is not a national of the United States, such person may institute an action under [28 USC. § 2201] against the head of such department or independent agency for a judgment declaring him to be a national of the United States…

    As noted by the US Ninth Circuit Appeals Court in Sanchez-Martinez v. INS, 1983:

    The allocation of the initial burden of proof flows from the nature of the proceeding. In the de novo hearing in district court, the [alleged] citizen is in the position of a plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment [under 28 USC. § 2201]. He or she bears the initial burden of proof…

    Given no supporting evidence was provided to legally complete Obama’s delayed (now called “late”) filing he would be forced to provide secondary evidence: however, Obama not being baptized, not being born in a hospital or attended by medical personnel (they would have completed the filing), not having any living parent or an older sibling, and not having his kindergarten records (unfortunately “missing” from Noelani School files), leaves very little if any secondary evidence available for Obama to sustain his burden of proof. Which may account for Ex-Scotland Yard Detective Sankey (now a US citizen) discovering that 16 different addresses for a Barack Obama or a Barack H. Obama in Illinois are associated with two Social Security numbers (beginning 042 and 364), and six addresses for Barack Obama in California (near Occidental College) are associated with three Social Security numbers (beginning 537, 999, and 364). The 042 number belongs to someone from Connecticut born in 1890.

    In a March 2009 US Government Accountability Office Report into passport fraud (GAO-09-447), a GAO “investigator was easily able to obtain four genuine U.S. passports using counterfeit or fraudulently obtained documents…[the GAO] investigator obtained a U.S. passport using counterfeit documents and the SSN of a man who died in 1965. In another case, [the GAO] undercover investigator obtained a U.S. passport using counterfeit documents and the genuine SSN of a fictitious 5-year-old child—even though his counterfeit documents and application indicated he was 53 years old… [The Dep't of State] issued a genuine U.S. passport in each case…to the same GAO investigator, under four different names.” [emphasis applied]

  470. 02/19/2010Presidential Eligibility: Three Simple Requirements | The Post & Email says:

    [...] organization which calls itself a “fact-checker,” even though its employees have no actual credentials or legitimacy for doing so, posts a digital image purported to be his driver’s license [...]

  471. 02/19/2010Presidential Eligibility: Three Simple Requirements | The Post & Email: UK Edition says:

    [...] organization which calls itself a “fact-checker,” even though its employees have no actual credentials or legitimacy for doing so, posts a digital image purported to be his driver’s license [...]

  472. 03/7/2010BREAKING STORY TODAY!!!!! | NwoDaily.com says:

    [...] from the Right Side of Life; Meet the only 2 people to ever “examine” Obama’s SHORT-FORM [...]

  473. 07/31/2010| NwoDaily.com says:

    [...] from the Right Side of Life; Meet the only 2 people to ever “examine” Obama’s SHORT-FORM [...]

  474. 08/1/20102008 Snopes Article Reports Barack Obama born in Kenya and is not a legitimate U.S. Citizen. « The Ghostfighters says:

    [...] from the Right Side of Life; Meet the only 2 people to ever “examine” Obama’s SHORT-FORM [...]

  475. 12/26/2010HEY COMMIE NEIL…IT’S AN INSULT TO ALL AMERICANS THAT WE HAVE A SO-CALLED COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF WHO WILL ALLOW A DECORATED CAREER MILITARY OFFICER GO TO PRISON BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO PROOVE HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE POTUS!…NOW THAT’S AN INS says:

    [...] from the Right Side of Life; Meet the only 2 people to ever “examine” Obama’s SHORT-FORM [...]

  476. 01/22/2011Agent Smith says:

    Is it “Barack Hussein Obama II” or “Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.” ?

    The legacy press almost always uses “Jr.” but evidence indicates it’s “II” which implies that he was named after someone other than his biological father.

    My guess is that his biological father is Frank Marshall Davis, the black bisexual pornographer.

  477. 02/3/2011John says:

    I’m a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and I am absolutely certain Henig and Miller are 100% unqualified to render a meet and proper opinion as to the authenticity of ANY document. From the looks of those two goobers, delivering a pizza to the correct address would far exceed their capabilities…The organization those two disgraceful losers are employed by should be known as “FakeCheck@ubeenhad.conned”.