The Curious Case of “Ellie Light”

Monday, January 25, 2010 Update:

HotAir.com and Patterico.com have some follow-up updates including email headers, IP addresses and potential origins from and of the Obama Astroturfer.

Sunday, January 24, 2010 Update:

More reaction is occurring across the blogosphere — much less some of the many “confessions” in my own comments section (!) — regarding this story.

Via the JeffersonsRebels site, poster Erica opines on what this story could explain regarding presidential eligibility:

One “conspiracy theory” the Obama administration is definitely trying to squelch concerns his eligibility to serve as President.  Obama holds dual citizenship with the U.K. through his father, and therefore does not qualify as an Article II, Sec. 1 “natural born Citizen”.  Also see these four graphics:  “Natural Born Citizen”“Citizen vs Natural Born Citizen”“Obama is a Usurper”“Obama: A Constitutional Crisis”, and “Who Is Obama, The Chameleon?”

With the eager help of the left-wing media, and some apparent complicity with the RNC because of John McCain’s eligibility status, Obama and his team have painted anyone who questions the definition of that term as a conspiratorial birther.  Furthermore, Obama enjoys the services provided by bloggers (probably paid) to infiltrate conservative blogs that push for full disclosure from the President.  The following article received comments from an Obama acolyte.  Paid or otherwise, we call commenters like him obots.

In the next article you will meet smrstrauss, who attempts to spread disinformation about Obama’s eligibility in the comment section of the blog.  Also, if you do a keyword search for that username, you will find a large number of similar comments made by him across the conservative blogosphere.  He has spent an inordinate amount of time blogging on this issue.  One blogger claimed to have outed smrstrauss on RebootTheRepublic.com.  He had this to say about him:

“With a little bit of work, I was able to find out this O-bot was likely Obama Superdelegate from DC, Shadow Senator Paul Strauss.”http://www.reboottherepublic.com/blog/currentevents/i-just-kod-an-obot-o-bot-on-the-birth-certificate-issue

If this blogger is correct, his discovery raises an important question:  Has this person been paid with tax dollars to spread disinformation and propaganda?

While some may think this concept (“squelching” questions regarding Mr. Obama’s eligibility) is, itself, extreme, do recall that DC-based investigative journalist Wayne Madsen has already reported that certain questions regarding this President’s background are “off-limits.”

Other links referenced in the above posting include an article from AmericanThinker.com referencing a NationalReviewOnline article talking about the Justice Department’s own propaganda machine.

AmericanPower blog has also jumped in on this story providing various links to places such as LeftCoastRebel (to which I’ve referenced in my initial posting below the dashed line) and AnotherBlackConservative, replete with the following meme’d graphic:

Here’s a snippet from AmericanPower’s posting:

Jawa Report’s got the summary:

Patterico, The Cleavland Plain Dealer and some other intrepid souls have uncovered what appears to be a genuine astroturfing campaign by Obamacrats who are writing boilerplate pro-Obama letters to newspaper editorial sections across the nation.

They use different handles like “Ellie Light,” “Mark Spivey,” and a host of made up names, made up info about their residences and cut-and-pasted replications of Obama Administration propaganda. Newspapers across the country, of course, found these letters very compelling and printed them without knowledge that they were being used as willing dupes in this political astroturf operation.

Thanks to Google, we’re finding out that this was a political spamming operation possible links to Obama groups like Organizing for America and is not “grassroots” operation in any sense.

But see Dan Riehl as well, “Linking Ellie Light To The White House.” And, at Classical Values, “Going Light?” (via Memeorandum). And Reaganite Republican, “Ellie Light and Other Obot Trolls.”

Added: Patterico has lots more on this, “Still More Astroturfing: Gloria Elle and Jan Chen Write the Same Anti-Republican, Pro-Obama Letter; UPDATED: Two More Pairings Found; UPDATED AGAIN: Four Pairings Total, and One Is a Triplet!” [emphasis original]

Want even more juice to the story? Check out what Jake Tapper at ABCNews.com has to say concerning David Plouffe, an advisor with strong ties to both the Democratic National Committee as well as Organizing for America:

Still reeling from the upset victory of Sen.-elect Scott Brown, R-Mass., earlier this week, President Obama is augmenting the political operation at the White House by bringing several key 2008 campaign aides back into the fold.

David Plouffe, the man who managed President Barack Obama's campaign, will be taking on an expanded role as an outside adviser to the White House.Senior White House officials tells ABC news that Obama for America campaign manager David Plouffe will soon set up shop at the Democratic National Committee to oversee House, Senate, and gubernatorial races this fall, in what is shaping up to be a difficult political environment for Democrats.

“Plouffe is one of the smartest guys in the business, he has the full trust of the President and his team, and we appreciate any and all help he can give us,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said. “This is a very challenging political environment and you want all the best players on the field.” …

In addition to the return of top aides such as Plouffe, other mid-level operatives from the 2008 Obama campaign who helped bring candidate Obama victories in Iowa and in Feb. 5 “Super Tuesday” primary states, will be enlisted to work on campaigns to keep expected Democratic losses to a minimum, aides said.

—-

Recently, there has been a suspicious “letter to the editor” swirling around a number of different places across the country, all claiming to be from one “Ellie Light.” It speaks very highly of the President; you can see an example of such a letter at the Gainesville, GA-based Gainesville Times.

Normally, such a letter-writing thing might be a coincidence, until you consider some facts (via HotAir.com). For example, the exact same letter is being posted at The Politico, Philadelphia Daily News, San Francisco Examiner, Washington Times, and a USA Today blog. They’ve also shown up in local papers such as the aforementioned Gainesville Times, Los Banos Enterprise, North Adams Transcript, and Danbury News-Times.

However, this “Ellie Light” individual (or individuals) signs off “her” letters in a number of locales: Philadelpha, PA; Daly City, CA; Mansfield, OH; Waynesboro, VA; Algoma, WI; Bangor, ME. Apparently, the Cleveland Plain Dealer broke the story, replete with quite an email thread, to boot.

Even more interesting, the blog Patterico.com is maintaining a listing (very, very nice posting of the full context of this story) of all of the places that this letter is showing up; to date, the letter has appeared in 47 newspapers in 23 different States, with reports of a newspaper in Bangkok, Thailand having included it.

The LeftCoastRebel.com blog reported the following on their site:

This Ellie Light story gets stranger and stranger for me. Recall that right off the bat I thought that Ellie Light was perhaps the pseudonym of a troll from the Obama admin. (or hundreds) and perhaps from the David Plouffe-run Organizing for America. On the same topic as well, an editor from the paper that published this story contacted me as well (LCR is growing!).

My suspicion was confirmed when I received a comment from someone claiming to be Ellie Light – trouble is the troll mistook my site for a leftist p-jpontificatorKOS type site. That actually increased my suspicion that this story is just the tip of the (potential) iceberg with this type of nefarious activity, typically when you hit on something nefarious (like the Obama czar stories), the paid trolls show up at your site almost instantly.The fact that I got a pre-packaged response from ‘Ellie Light’ 10 minutes after I wrote my expose is highly suspicious, all the more because the ‘Ellie Light’ troll didn’t verify the political slant of my site.

The Patterico.com site has a posting that wonders whether or not such letters are a part of an initiative brought on by Cass Sunstein, head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. As the posting quotes from Slate.com (the whole posting is well worth reading):

In 2008, while at Harvard Law School, Sunstein co-wrote a truly pernicious paper proposing that the U.S. Government employ teams of covert agents and pseudo-”independent” advocates to “cognitively infiltrate” online groups and websites — as well as other activist groups — which advocate views that Sunstein deems “false conspiracy theories” about the Government. This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists. The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). [emphases original]

Post continues below
Advertise on this site

The Poligazette site ran some interesting quotes in their posting:

Greenwald [from Salon.com] writes about the Obama administration’s payments last year to MIT professor Jonathan Gruber to promote the healthcare reform bill:

With this lucrative arrangement in place, Gruber spent the entire year offering public justifications for Obama’s health care plan, typically without disclosing these payments, and far worse, was repeatedly held out by the White House — falsely — as an “independent” or “objective” authority.  Obama allies in the media constantly cited Gruber’s analysis to support their defenses of the President’s plan, and the White House, in turn, then cited those media reports as proof that their plan would succeed. [emphasis original]

…as well as this bit of potential insight:

18 months ago Sunstein wrote an article suggesting that the government use regular people, promoted as “independent advocates,” in order to “debunk conspiracy theories”:

This would be designed to increase citizens’ faith in government officials and undermine the credibility of conspiracists.  The paper’s abstract can be read, and the full paper downloaded, here.

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.”  He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). [emphasis original]

Gee, this sounds awfully familiar, now, doesn’t it? You know, as in: take an alleged document that claims to be a part of the President’s background, post an image of the document on a third-party web site (instead of a government-run web site; it would be too risky otherwise, and who would actually question the credentials of those in academe, especially when they already have Republican credentials? Brilliant!!!), and then have postings on that same site crafted in such a way as to make the image look like it has actually been validated by one State’s Department of Health.

And then masterfully follow that up with a laser-focused campaign of a term for anyone who even thinks about questioning any of this by using a simple term as a pejorative — “birther” — in such a way that as many new adherents stay away from the entire question for fear of — oh, is this so brilliant or what? — being called a racist, because, after all, Barack Obama does look black, now, doesn’t he?

While I’ve obviously steered this story into what could be happening with some of the opposition commenters on my site, do recall that none of them have ever denied being a part of a “conspiracy” of such magnitude. Is it possible? Certainly. Some of them have only ever questioned the idea that they’re being paid for commenting here.

I like how Patterico.com ends their posting:

My suggestion: if there is a troll you suspect of being part of a secret Obama blog infiltration program, ask him.

If he denies it, consider it suspicious. After all, that’s just what they would say — isn’t it? [emphasis original]

So! For those who deny that questioning this President’s bona fides is legitimate, let’s have it out in the open. When responding to this posting in the comments section, why don’t you go ahead and disclaim your association with any such conspiracy:

Are you a “part of a secret Obama blog infiltration program?”

Let’s also see how many folks think I’m now really, really going off the “conspiracy theorist” deep end (of course, to some, I’m probably already there for having been presenting questions to Mr. Obama’s eligibility).

See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:

-Phil

Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- email: phil [at] therightsideoflife [dot] com

Photo courtesy PoliGazette

Share this posting:

141 thoughts on “The Curious Case of “Ellie Light””

  1. bystander,

    In my absence, I have been working on a more productive project and must return to it again soon. This may be my last note to you.

    Please relax about your children’s citizenship status. They would be “grandfathered in” and would not lose their United States passports. They may have to declare a single citizenship at majority if new laws are adopted here or if the State Department chooses to enforce the one citizenship policy. Dual citizenship has never been officially sanctioned. And regretfully, I don’t think that your children should be eligible to be President of the United States.

    I also hope that you recover from your cancer, and that its detection and treatment was not delayed in some way by the National Health Service. I have heard both good things and bad things about the National Health Service. One of our hosts in England could have died by waiting the six months (as per the National Health Service) for a slot to have surgery for a heart problem. Thankfully, private insurance allowed the procedure to be performed promptly and, unlike Canada, private insurance is allowed in the UK. You probably have access to private insurance if your husband works for a large US bank, a nice little perk if the government had failed to come through for you.

    You seem to have a very positive view of Mr. Obama. It has been said that courage increases exponentially with distance from the location of a mortal danger. You are at least 5 time zones (nearly a quarter of the earth) away from the United States, a position favorable to nearly infinite courage. You are allowed to favorably view Mr. Obama and his administration no matter what they do. I live in the States and am allowed to be more skeptical. After all, it is my taxes that are being wasted in Washington and my savings that could be severely devalued by irresponsible fiscal policy. It could be my family that is killed by a terrorist due to incompetence in the Homeland Security and Justice Departments. It could be my Constitutional rights that are lost.

    You asked me what scares me about Mr. Obama. I think that I addressed that question in my previous posts. A brief recap: Mr. Obama was “deified” in the campaign, an un-American act. We still don’t know very much about Mr. Obama, but we are learning something about him from his actions. Mr. Obama wants to remake America. Into what, is as yet uncertain. The media became a propaganda machine for Mr. Obama during the campaign and remains generally so today, although some journalists are finally beginning to ask questions openly. I know propaganda when I see it. Do not forget that I have been to the Soviet Union and witnessed what life was like for some of its more fortunate citizens. I have seen the KGB haul off a citizen in broad daylight. I have seen the infamous Lubyanka and know what happened there. I saw a Soviet Union flag waved at the Chicago celebration and have watched the communistpartyUSA favorably comment on Mr. Obama’s progress. You claim to be very liberal, and, I hope that you will not be offended by this question, do you consider yourself a communist? Some Westerners actually took Soviet passports because they believed in communism; I met one.

    Unfortunately, our views of Mr. Obama seem to be diametrically opposed. Let me just say that in my opinion, Mr. Obama is grossly inexperienced, has questionable connections both foreign and domestic, has hidden and lied about his past, has not sought bipartisanship, has not demonstrated that he is post racial, finds it difficult to make decisions, has offended officials foreign and domestic by ignoring protocol, believes that the Constitution is flawed, wants to remake America (in what image?), apparently failed to internalize his high priced education, is endangering the dollar and the economy by allowing the Congress to spend taxpayer and foreign loaned money recklessly, has broken laws to protect his base, has offended groups that can help him, is lost when it comes to dealing with foreign governments, and has broken many of the campaign promises that helped get him elected. He also apparently can’t see beyond his nose, apparently doesn’t listen to advice from his advisers (or they don’t offer it) and has bought into his own mystique. If the description above does not constitute a dangerous “president”, I don’t know what does.

    As far as being rebuffed on bipartisan efforts, Mr. Obama and his administration never really tried to build a bipartisan consensus. It may be nearly impossible to do so in Washington today, although Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich successfully cooperated and members of Congress discarded all partisanship temporarily after 911. Mr. Bush invited Teddy Kennedy and other democrats to informal meetings at the White House very early in his administration, even though the Republicans had majorities in both houses, attempting to forge bipartisan ties. Bush’s attempt was unsuccessful. Mr. Obama’s early reply to Republican attempts to make suggestions on the agenda for the country was the highly partisan, “We won. Deal with it.”

    Mr. Obama attempted to recruit the Republican Senator Gregg Judd as Commerce Secretary, then removed the responsibility traditionally associated with that post. Senator Judd remained in the Senate and fought the grossly excessive (and partisan) spending tooth and nail, becoming a major thorn in the administration’s side. I think that Mr. Obama only wanted Senator Judd out of the Senate and into a position where he wouldn’t be any trouble, a smart political move if it had worked.

    It is true that Mr. Obama inherited many problems, some of which he inherited from Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush surely inherited problems from Mr. Clinton. Mr. Bush was newly President when the first foreign attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor occurred. Mr. Bush was not responsible for the attack that left a gaping hole in lower Manhattan and damaged the Pentagon. Mr. Bush made some mistakes, but he did make decisions when he needed to. I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but I also opposed abandoning a country that we had severely crippled without rebuilding it. I believe that Bush spent too much money and thus I am compelled to be outraged by the sums the current administration and Congress are approving.

    I am sorry if Mr. Obama eventually disappoints you. I hope that Mr. Obama will moderate his agenda, and begin behaving as an American President should. If he chooses to pursue his original agenda, and the State of the Union address seems to indicate that is his current objective, I hope that we can put enough center right people in Congress during the November elections to force moderation. I also hope that Mr. Obama does not become so angry in his frustration that he does something that will severely compromise the United States and its future.

    I have enjoyed our little discourse and am glad that we shared our ideas. I hope that you share a similar view of this discourse. I promise to no longer disturb your amusement discrediting the people who question Mr. Obama’s eligibility, and I now return to my work supporting the lawsuits currently in progress.

    Cordially,
    KJ

  2. The problem is whenever Obama has tried to deal in a bipartisan way he has been rebuffed. He has kept many republican on in his administration, and offered jobs to senior republicans. Bush never tried to be bipartisan, so you cannot aim the same accusations at Democrats for the previous 8 years.

    Anyway, as I have said before – I am here to discuss eligibility only – I do not see any point in getting into a wider discussion about politics with people who hate Obama or are frightened of him.

    First, to use a phrase that the President uses frequently. “Lets be clear”, one I don’t hate or fear Mr. Obama. You can disagree about the health care polls all you’d like, but that does not change the facts of what they are currently reporting. I could go and pull all the links up and cite them, but that would be pointless. Care to place a bet that they can pass it as it currently stands? I can also aim any accusation that pleases me at the Democrats because they are every bit as partisan and culpable in this problem. In fact, they used to revel in fact of being the “party of no”. I watched them proclaim it on an almost daily basis pre 2006. They were also the party of “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” party for years. I still have the bumper sticker. So save that crap for someone who hasn’t been paying attention.

    The only answer people like you have is “But Bush did or didn’t do this or that” Do you not realize how completely childish that really sounds. You know what? I don’t really care what Bush did or didn’t do at this point. I don’t care what Clinton did or didn’t do. I don’t care what Bush Sr. did or didn’t do….. You get the idea. What I care about is what happens going forward. Right now today, the president is Mr. Obama. And whether it is 2012 or 2016, we will have a new President. And I will expect the same from whomever that turns out to be. I expect the same of Congress. At some point, somebody has to stop and rise above all of this pettiness. I don’t want to hear either side blame the other. I expect them to get up this morning, and put their “big boy” pants on and actually do something. Standing around pointing fingers and whining about what or how the other guy did is not acceptable any more. And if this current crop of politicians don’t figure that out soon, they will all be looking for a new vocation. Because every credible indicator from polls, to recent elections says so.

  3. I agree with much of what you say, except the polls on health care. The problem is whenever Obama has tried to deal in a bipartisan way he has been rebuffed. He has kept many republican on in his administration, and offered jobs to senior republicans. Bush never tried to be bipartisan, so you cannot aim the same accusations at Democrats for the previous 8 years.

    Anyway, as I have said before – I am here to discuss eligibility only – I do not see any point in getting into a wider discussion about politics with people who hate Obama or are frightened of him.

  4. Bystander,

    The problem is that we in America are suffering from a much more destructive war than either the Iraq or the Afghanistan war. A war that is far more dangerous is being waged between the Democrats and Republicans. Granted not every politician on either side is involved directly, but they are involved nonetheless. We have real problems, problems that demand solutions. Not purely ideological solutions as many seem determined to enforce on everyone else. While many want to blame all of the current problems on “obstructionist” Republicans, this is only a symptom of a greater problem. If the current situation were currently reversed, the problem would be the “obstructionist” Democrats. The losers are we the people.

    We are currently in the midst of a cultural war in many ways. One which has been brewing for quite some time. Both sides have grown so divergent that compromise is almost impossible. Working together is important, but at some point, you have to decide that you either are, or are not going to compromise your core beliefs. A line has been drawn in the sand and what we are experiencing is the result. You see it almost everywhere. You see it here as with news and political blogs all over the net. You see it in a completely biased media. You see it in politicians who seem to have no grasp at all on what their constituents are thinking. And worse, the complete contempt they show for the very people they were elected to represent. Many have forgotten that they represent the people, all of the people. Even the ones who don’t agree with them. So while many of these politicians are fighting their own little turf war, they don’t seem to have noticed that the people are about to turn against all of them. Politicians are supposed to be leaders. True leaders find a way to rise above the fray. Not be a part of it.

    Our Health Care system has problems that need to be addressed. But none that require the wholesale changes that are being proposed. In spite of what the loudest voices may be saying to the contrary, the majority of the people are against what is being proposed. Every credible poll shows this, and the numbers get worse by the week. I see the problems they tout, in fact I have experienced them first hand. I have spoken with Doctors who tell me that every Doctor they work with is against this plan. In one case, that was 100+ doctors in one location. So something is very wrong with what is going on here.

    During the State of the Union, the President suggested that he is going to try to include the GOP in the problem solving process. I am skeptical. Very skeptical. I believe it is merely a political ploy. And even if he makes a half heart-ed attempt, will the GOP reciprocate? Or will the gamesmanship continue? I have little confidence that either of them can pull it off. As I said before, we have real problems. Problems that demand solutions, not words followed by inaction. And while some consider this politics as usual, I think the majority is starting to think otherwise.

  5. Kj

    Thanks for your concern – I am actually very cheerful about it, and receiving extremely good care from our wonderful National Health Service – no need to travel to the US for treatment.

    My opinion of Obama is that he is highly intelligent, serious, thoughtful, extremely knowledgeable, and pragmatic. I will give him an enormous amount of slack to deal with a crisis that was not of his making – I don’t think any previous President has ever had so much on their plate. In dealing with a financial crisis, 2 wars and trying to overhaul the health service there are bound to be missteps. I have no idea why you would be frightened of him – I find it quite ridiculous actually. What changes are you frightened of?

  6. Bystander,

    I am sorry to hear about your prognosis. Apparently your cancer was not discovered early. I hope that your chemotherapy is not debilitating, none of your major organs are compromised, you are not in pain, and have loving support from your family and friends. Hang in there and don’t give up hope.

    As a last option, experimental clinical trial treatments may be available for you at M D Anderson in Houston if you should desire them. Local charities provide housing for patients, I believe at no cost, during the treatments. M D Anderson is still one of the foremost cancer treatment centers in the world.

    Did you ever see the movie (70’s perhaps) about the woman who had cancer, knew that she would not survive, and who made audio tapes for her child to listen to as she grew up? I think that was a beautiful idea. Your children are probably old enough to remember you if you don’t beat the cancer, but you could still leave a loving message for them when they marry and for when your grandchildren are born.

    Previously, I had told you some about my background. Now something about my world view. I am agnostic, believe in natural selection as the mechanism for evolution, and a scientist. I realize that government intervention is necessary in the free market system sometimes, but also believe that the government should stay out of business matters and our personal lives as much as possible. I believe that all the people in the world need to respect the earth and not destroy it or overtax it strictly for human ego (think Easter Island). I do have doubts about the current models of man made global warming, and think that the jury is still out on the question. (That does not mean that I don’t think that we cannot reduce our carbon emissions by personal commitment and that we should abandon searching for non-carbon generating energy sources.) Before each ice age, the Strontium levels in the ocean have risen and they are rising now. Is another ice age imminent? I am conservative in money matters and am very upset about how the US government misuses tax payer money, much of which is never spent on its intended target, but leaks through the sieve of corruption.

    I find your view of the Wall Street Journal interesting. The spin in the Journal is pro business and to the conservative. Please give me an example of something blatantly “right wing” presented in the Journal. I have read the Journal for many years and would say that the Journal has picked up more liberal commentary since Murdoch bought the paper. One regular columnist, Peggy Noonan, was extremely pro Obama and stayed hopefully positive about him for several months after he took office. She has become less pro Obama after watching his performance and watching him try to implement an agenda that independents don’t buy into. I think that she, like many citizens, would support him if he would move towards the American center.

    For most people who are concerned about the current government’s actions, the main problem with Mr. Obama is the disconnect between what he says (and has promised) and his (and the Democratically controlled Congress’) actions. Many promises have failed to materialize or the opposite has occurred: transparency, no lobbyists in administration, no more corruption, no new taxes for the middle class, no signing statements, legislation posted for 72 hours on internet before vote, bipartisanship, etc. Mr. Obama is apparently not the person portrayed during his campaign. A person close to the Obamas has written that Mr. Obama did not in fact write “Dreams from My Father,” but had to ask the former bomber Bill Ayres to do it for him. (Bill Ayres has never received any credit nor royalties for his work on “Obama’s” book.) I still believe that U S citizen voters should have all relevant information on the Presidential candidates before Election Day, and that much of Mr. Obama relevant information was intentionally hidden by him, his party, and his campaign possibly with the intent to deceive the public.

    In Mr. Obama, I see a charismatic individual that can convince everyone that he holds the same opinions as they do. Charismatic individuals can move people to do things that they normally don’t do, whether for the good or bad. People like that move mountains or inspire people to act inhumanly. I listened to his words during the campaign and realized that he sounded good (inspiring a public mania) but didn’t really offer any reasonable and concrete solutions. He scared me and others. In my opinion, if he had had more experience in government, he could have fundamental transformed the United States government into a form that I would no longer recognize and would not have liked. Thank goodness he was inexperienced and really has no patience for the current workings of our government. Thank goodness that the public has woken up and is standing up to Mr. Obama and the Congress.

    Perhaps if you don’t mind, you can tell me a little more about how you view Mr. Obama.

    I like the traditional government of the United States and choose to live here. I could live under the European governments too. It is wonderful that countries have different approaches to government and that individuals can choose the government under which they wish to live.

    Oh, on the Presidential speech to schoolchildren, the actual speech was widely approved. My reference was to the after speech activities suggested by the Department of Education.

    Take care of yourself,

    KJ

  7. kj says:
    January 31, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    Bystander,

    I didn’t see your post about the chemo until I made my post. It must have posted after I made my post. Posting here was difficult for a while, and I’m not sure why the site was not accepting comments properly either. Some on my comments came up as “waiting for moderation.”

    I am sorry to hear that you have cancer. Cancer must be difficult to face because it would be like your own body turning against you. Chemo can be difficult but quite successful when the right version is found for you. Is your prognosis good?

    …. unfortunately not, stage 4, part of the reason I post here is a need for distraction – it works well for me.

    Whether you continue to chat with me is up to you. I do not consider myself a “right winger,” and think that “labels” are harmful. I think that everyone is entitled to his own opinion and am seeking the truth backed up by facts. I am quite mystified that you called the widely respected “Wall Street Journal” right wing and would appreciate an explanation of your opinion in that matter.

    ….. WSJ opinion pages are considered by most people to be right wing. Since Murdoch bought the paper, I think the news has slanted further right as well.

    From your posts you are what I consider a right winger, as you seem terrified of Obama’s agenda. I simply don’t think we will achieve anything by debating it – I am socially very liberal, an avowed atheist and economically in the centre (by European standards, probably that would make me again very liberal by US standards). You won’t convince me to change – I’m 51 and know my own mind, having spent many many years studying the subject and thinking about it.

  8. Bystander,

    I didn’t see your post about the chemo until I made my post. It must have posted after I made my post. Posting here was difficult for a while, and I’m not sure why the site was not accepting comments properly either. Some on my comments came up as “waiting for moderation.”

    I am sorry to hear that you have cancer. Cancer must be difficult to face because it would be like your own body turning against you. Chemo can be difficult but quite successful when the right version is found for you. Is your prognosis good?

    Whether you continue to chat with me is up to you. I do not consider myself a “right winger,” and think that “labels” are harmful. I think that everyone is entitled to his own opinion and am seeking the truth backed up by facts. I am quite mystified that you called the widely respected “Wall Street Journal” right wing and would appreciate an explanation of your opinion in that matter.

    KJ

  9. kj

    I forgot to mention I have been following the birthers extremely closely for almost two years now – from when they first emerged from the PUMA movement in the 2008 primaries. I am very familiar with the arguments, and have followed unsubstantiated rumours take on a life of their own, and reverberate around the blogosphere. Websites that do not allow opposition posters – ie virtually all birther sites – print so much rubbish it’s comical. I am very familiar with what they say – I can give them no credence whatsoever.

    I already read plenty of right wing material (NR, Redstate, FR, WSJ ..)- so thanks but no thanks for the links.

  10. kj

    I responded to your post, but I’m afraid I have no interest in debating this further with you. I do not wish to be rude, but you are very right wing – I am not, we will never agree, it’s pointless. I am only interested in debating the facts of the eligibility issue.

    As regards how long I have been out of the US – I spend time in the US every year, and read a variety of US media from both left and right most days. I would guess I am more informed about US politics than a fair number of US citizens. I have a lot of American friends in the UK, my husband works for a very large US bank – is this sufficient for you to value my opinion? I hope so, but if not I will just have to live with that.

  11. Bystander,

    Thank you for letting you know that you are aware of my post. My main purpose in presenting this information for your review is to give you something to review that presents a different point of view. Thank you for the link that you provided and that I will be sure to review. May I suggest that we both consider all of the information as a whole instead of trying to pick arguments apart. That said here is my reply.

    Adulation of a president
    I have no problem with a president urging students to work hard in school.

    Please focus on the emphasized phase:
    There was also widespread protest among parents when an initial activities package (associated with Mr. Obama’s September 8, 2009 speech to school children) issued by the Department Education asked public school children to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president,” not themselves nor the country but the president.

    Asking children to help the president by improving themselves may have been an error in wording as claimed by the Department of Education, but the statement came from somewhere (Freudian slip?) and probably indicates at least one government employee’s views. That the person’s supervisors did not see anything wrong with the statement is alarming. The opportunity to correct this approach before the activity was released for distribution was at least missed by the U. S. Department of Education and the statement was only removed at the request of citizens.

    Combine this reference with the campaign quotes that follow it, and the other school based activities cited. One school activity cited was a group of young children singing the Obama song. (Other videos of other children singing different Obama songs in classrooms exist but no link was provided here.) The other school activity was the unprecedented placement of a large image of a president (Mr. Obama) next to the American flag to whom children were to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The latter practice was discontinued when parents requested that it be stopped.

    You may not be aware that the Obama campaign recruited artists to produce creative “inspirational” images of Mr. Obama in 2008, and a request for similar work was sent to artists when his poll numbers started to fall.

    Such adulation of a president or presidential candidate is not American. Mr. Obama did absolutely nothing to discourage but instead reinforced this cult of personality.

    Leo
    Leo is rather “different” for a lawyer and he does have an ego, shall we say. Many of the people involved with the eligibility question are aware of his eccentricities as well as his endeavors, some successful, that have nothing to do with his formal education. Perhaps his creative writing attempts (example in your link), like much of modern creative writing, are not meant to be interpreted literally.
    Leo may be one of those individuals whose brain is “wired differently.” History is full of unique creative individuals who have walked the line between genius and insanity, generating exceptional works. Britain’s own “world view transforming” physicist, Newton, had his own ego problems. The impressionist painter Van Gogh cut his own ear off and was institutionalized. The musician Schubert was bipolar. The list is long and our culture is indebted to them for their contributions.
    Please do not believe that I am suggesting that Leo is a genius. I, however, do wish to suggest that we focus here on Leo’s contribution to the Obama eligibility question instead of his other pursuits. Other law types involved in the question of Mr. Obama’s eligibility have spoken highly both of his ability to present the law to lay people and of his law research. Let us remember that his views are shared by other lawyers including a federal judge who has restated Leo’s approach to Quo Warranto in a written official decision.

    Other
    May I ask how long have you been out of the States? The population here has been awakened from its slumbering apathy. Who would have believed a few years ago that the tabloid National Enquirer would produced reputable journalism and the major media, TV and print, would act as a propaganda machine that assumed that the citizenry was too stupid to figure out what was really going on. The election of Scott Brown proved that the citizens figured out for themselves that the government is out of control. These citizens have also figured out that Mr. Obama’s agenda is not good for the country as reflected in the polling numbers on his policies.

  12. KJ says:
    January 30, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    Bystander,

    It has taken a little time to assemble this information with links. Perhaps you are not checking this thread anymore. Please acknowledge that you have seen this post. If no acknowledgment appears, I will repost it under the most active thread on this website.

    There is great deal of information offered below, and it may take some time to digest. I am interested to hear your views after you have a chance to review all of the information.

    ………kj I spent about an hour replying to this post – it hasn’t appeared, I don’t know why – but that has been happening to a lot of posts lately – maybe it timed out, but I don’t know how to prevent that. I don’t have time to do it again today – I will try as soon as I can, but I have my three weekly chemo tomorrow, so may not be up to heavy posting for a few days. I will do my best though – keep checking.

  13. Kj regarding you objection to Obama’s address to schools, to encourage kids to work hard and to stay in school (yes what a bad man he is!). If you read to the end of this link tou will see that Bush did exactly the same thing, to little or no protest.

    If you recall, despite the feverish protests before the speech, it was actually well received by serious conservatives

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200909020012

  14. KJ

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

    This is probably your best place to start for evidence contradicting birther nonsense. The first page gives links to several other very goog websites. Tes is a lawyer that posts at Politijab – she will happily debate your legal theories with you, as will the other lawyers there. Be warned though – they are very sharp and very well informed.

  15. KJ January 30, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    There is great deal of information offered below, and it may take some time to digest. I am interested to hear your views after you have a chance to review all of the information

    ….. thank you – I will do my best, but I am quite busy, plus I am due my three weekly chemo soon, so will probably be light posting for a few days from Tuesday onwards.

    You mentioned your information regarding eligibility that might save all the birthers a lot of trouble. Have you presented a summary of the same in any of your posts? Maybe I missed it.

    I haven’t presented a summary, but if you are interested I can point you to some serious websites that methodically debunk every plank of birtherism.

    Feel free to provide the link. In the interest of mutual disclosure of information, the following links and comments are provided for your review.

    …. ok I will be happy to do so in another post.

    Mr. Obama and his supporters have tried to get people to pledge themselves to him and personally act on his behalf instead of on behalf of the United States and its Constitution. This is not an American approach.

    …..this simply isn’t true – another birther rumour with no basis in fact, like the Pakistan travel ban, Maya’s COLB, the whitey tape – all rubbish

    Here are some videos of the celebrity pledge
    http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1872644,00.html

    ….. yes those are videos of celebrities making a pledge, but there is simply no evidence that Obama has tried to get people to pledge themselves to him personally. None whatsoever. The right wing blogs maintained for some time that he would change the pledge of allegiance to be a pledge to him personally – it simply isn’t true.

    and examples adulation of Mr. Obama by young children initially supported/initiated by some teachers and/or schools. I am not aware of any similar activities being initiated after any other President was elected.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t30cyQwaXZg
    http://newsblaze.com/story/20090127224509nnnn.nb/topstory.html
    There was also widespread protest among parents when an initial activities package (associated with Mr. Obama’s September 8, 2009 speech to school children) issued by the Department Education asked public school children to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president,” not themselves nor the country but the president. This suggestion was deleted at the request of parents. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/08/school-districts-struggling-treat-obama-speech/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.092868:b27580166:z0

    …. I’ll return to this later

    The following list of quotes complied by Jim Ross, December 15, 2008 is quite enlightening. Notice that Mr. Obama never did anything to discourage such talk and some of the quotes are his.

    “… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany … and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama” – Barack Obama; Lebanon, New Hampshire. January 7, 2008.

    …. can you provide some evidence Obama actually said this? A google search reveals only right wing blogs, and no original source. As for the rest of your quotes – so what? Is it seriously your contention that Obama should not only check, but correct what anyone writes or says about him? Because if you want to hold all politicians to that standard, the GOP will have a full time job disassociating themselves with everything written on FR, and by the likes of Glenn Beck.

    Polling place intimidation has been ignored by this administration and charges of the same dropped when conviction was certain.

    … how can you possibly say conviction was certain? Nonsense. And if you want evidence of GOP efforts to disrupt democrats voting, you will find it in abundance. Have you forgotten the GOP operatives imprisoned for jamming phone lines in New Hampshire? Or the disgraceful situation in Ohio in 2004 when heavy AA districts were given insufficient voting machines and voters had to stand in line for over 8 hours, many never got to vote at all, while in neighbouring republican districts machines were lying unused as people walked straight in to vote. That was on the national news for days – you can’t have missed that. Or the disgraceful voter caging that disenfranchised predominantly minority voters, run buy GOP Sec’s of State all over the country? Or the campaign run just two weeks ago over at Red State to tie up democratic campaign phone lines so they couldn’t run their GOTV programme. The GOP has a very long history of this stuff – the democrats may have too, but this administration is by no means any worse than any before.

    I am not sure what this administration and its supporters would consider beyond the limit of possibility. Comments (some with possible malicious intent) with British IP addresses and posters claiming to be British seemed to suddenly appear on sites that question Mr. Obama’s eligibility. This led me to consider the possibility that commenters located in the US were using an internet analog of Ellie Light, projecting their internet access locations into Britain to hide their true locations.

    ….. why would comments from Britain be a problem? I don’t understand your paranoia. And as for HillBuzz – I went to check it out just to make sure I wasn’t a poster there (joke) – they make some pretty nasty unsubstantiated claims themselves. As for trying to sue for libel – they really are clueless.

    A murderer wears gloves if he plans to kill someone-no fingerprints. Hackers “cover their tracks” too. By use of proxy servers in Britain (or elsewhere), posters could cover their tracks (and discourage investigation by law enforcement if someone is harmed) by making it appear that they are located outside the United States. Likewise, commenters attempting to discourage “birthers” in other ways could appear to be located out the US.

    ….. whatever. I was not aware of any rule that prevents non US citizens from contributing to any blog. I can guarantee you that nothing will come of the HillBuzz flap. Certainly if they try to sue for libel in the UK they will get nowhere.

    Currently I believe that the Framers of the United States Constitution intended the term “natural born citizen” to be someone with only United States citizenship at birth and who maintained [that] status throughout his/her life.
    ……..

    No constitutional law scholars, jurists or lawyers agree with you.

    The definition of Natural born citizen has been left undefined since the Constitution. The two main competing definitions are the modified English Common Law definition and the Natural Law defined. The meaning of natural born citizen as a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency needs to be formally defined now.

    …… it is defined to the satisfaction of the entire constitutional law community. Only SCOTUS could redefine it – and they have refused to take any birther lawsuits. Draw your own conclusions.

    All previous Presidents born after the Constitution was ratified meet the more restrictive definition of natural born citizen except for Chester Arthur. Arthur’s father had not bothered or was not financially able to formally naturalize before Chester’s 1829 birth in Vermont, but William Arthur was an alien in name only. Arthur’s father participated in and served in local government from sometime before 1828, continuously maintained a permanent residence in the United States from his 1822 settlement in Burlington, Vermont to his 1875 death in New York State, married a natural born United States citizen, and formally naturalized when all his children born in the States were still minors.

    Mr. Obama’s defense lawyers have always requested dismissal of the many cases challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility based on failure to cite a claim upon relief can be granted, lack of jurisdiction, and standing, i.e. that the plaintiff unless must show personal injury connected with the complaint. If all other citizens are subject to the same injury, standing is not met, and a court will not hear the case.

    The “standing” requirement helps to keep frivolous lawsuits out of Court, limiting the case load on the Courts. On the other hand, the “standing” requirement as it is currently being interpreted would also keep a lawsuit challenging unconstitutional limits on free speech (for example) out of court if all citizens were subject to the same limits. Once the eligibility challenge and been submitted to a Court, and the defense used “standing” in their motions to dismiss the case and thus block access to possibly significant documents associated with Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to serve as President, Mr. Obama and his counsel further weakened the ability of an individual citizen to support the US Constitution.

    … McCain and Palin had standing to sue. They didn’t. Tough luck.

    As President, having sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution, should be supporting the enforcement of the same and he can start by presenting the requested documents associated with his citizenship status. In my opinion, Mr. Obama’s actions in this regard, although possibly within the letter of the law, are not honorable and weaken the US Constitution. It is obvious to any intelligent individual that Mr. Obama may not have a simple citizenship history and he openly admitted dual citizenship at birth. Hiding his documents behind privacy laws and standing implies that there is something, possibly significant, in those documents that might disqualify him from the Presidency, and that he does not want the public to know.

    … He was known to be a dual citizen at birth from 2004. Why have none of the very many distinguished conservative legal scholars ever supported your theory? I am sure you know this theory was dreamt up by Donofrio in 2008. Before you invest any more of your time supporting him, I suggest you research his background. He really is a genuine nut case. And as for why Obama hasn’t shown you more documents? Well I can think of many reasons – top of the list would be why should you indulge the fantasies of people that hate you, second it would set off another round of accusations of forgery. Don’t forget the main players in the birther drama think he has forged every single document and photoshopped every photo that has ever appeared from his youth. They are crazy and cannot be convinced.

    In a Government By and For The People, the public should have the right to know any significant details about their future President’s past that may affect his performance in office. During the last election, details about the inexperienced individual now with the ability to initiate nuclear war were hidden by the candidate, his party and a complicit press. Nearly all serious questions addressing the 2008 Democratic nominee’s worthiness to serve as President were shouted down by walls of RACISM cries intended to squelch the questions by intimidation. These actions by people and institutions that should have served the public interest were a gross violation of the public trust. Fortunately, deception is difficult to maintain forever. Mr. Obama’s actions, frequently in direct conflict with his beautiful words, have been noted by the public, and revealed to the public the true nature of the individual installed in the Oval Office. The public is also now aware of the accessory deception practiced by the media, and members of both political parties. Hopefully public can prevent any significant damage to the Republic that might result from the deception practiced on the public in 2008 until the necessary changes can be put in place.

    …… rubbish. He has written two books – there is probably more known about his early life than any previous president. I doubt you have read the books, and you simply refuse to believe him anyway. Your remedy is you don’t have to vote for him. 69 million people did – you lost and you need to get over it. The public does not have a right to know anything they like about a candidate. And in case you need reminding, McCain did not volunteer his birth certificate even when asked – he simply agreed to show it to one reporter who was not allowed to photocopy it. Where is the outrage about that?

    I believe that Constitutional Law Professor Johnathan Turley would personally agree with the more restrictive definition for natural born citizen as it applies to the Presidency. He also realizes that the Supreme Court would probably have to accept the less restrictive definition if presented with a viable case challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility. The Supreme Court does not want to “interfere” with a “political” question.
    Some information on Jonathan Turley and his views of the matter
    Jonathan Turley bio: http://www.law.gwu.edu/faculty/profile.aspx?id=1738
    http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/04/eligibility-questions-can-clinton-serve-obama-and-can-obama-serve-the-country/#comment-30141
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7uomucNU8E
    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/19/retired-major-general-joins-litigation-over-obamas-birth-st

    …. this was discussed here at length recently. Turley said quite explicitly that birther cases had no merit. Nice try.

    Mr. Obama has taken the unprecedented step of appointing his personal attorney as White House Counsel. His personal attorney would be bound by client privilege as well as his duty to the government and would probably already know what needs to be to hidden in regards to Mr. Obama’s past. This action also implies that Mr. Obama may have something that he needs to hide. Mr. Bauer has also personally defended Mr. Obama in at least one eligibility case.

    …. unprecedented? Really ? Can you remind me who Bush’s White House counsel was? No? Harriet Myers, Bush’s personal attorney who almost made it to the Supreme Court. In fact it is very common to do this – numerous Presidents have. His action implies nothing whatsoever.

    Mr. Obama, and the government since he took office, have gone to great lengths to prevent the Constitutional eligibility question from being examined in court. Their delays, however, may play to the advantage of the eligibility question because the delays create time for the historical view of natural born citizenship to be explored for the benefit of the plaintiffs lawyers.

    … they have done no such thing. They have simply responded when they have been defendants. The delays caused in Orly’s cases have been her own fault due to her inability to follow the rules.

    An academic group did some serious historical research into how the Framers would have defined natural born citizen. Only first installment has been posted at http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ . For some unknown reason, other installments have not been posted to date. Perhaps the research is being written up in a traditional form that would allow significant others to review it, in effect certifying the research and its analysis. This historical research would be admissible in Court and could be a powerful affirmation of the more restrictive definition of natural born citizen.

    … good luck with that.

    All legal avenues have not been exhausted.
    Attorney Mario Apuzzo is still pursuing a lawsuit against Congress, Dick Cheney, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Obama charging that they failed to vet Mr. Obama and that he is not eligible.
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
    Attorney Leo Donofrio took the first legal challenge to the Supreme Court asserting that Mr. Obama did not meet the more restrictive definition of NBC. (The Supreme Court declined to promote his application for stay (08A407) to a writ of certiorari and to hear the challenge). After further research into how to question Mr. Obama’s eligibility, Mr. Donofrio now believes that previous legal attempts have not been in accordance with current law and that only a Quo Warranto challenge in DC district court on behalf on a qualified interested party will result in the case being heard. His point of view was confirmed by Judge Carter in a California US District Court ruling. AG Holder could force the DC court initiate Quo Warranto, but he has ignored all requests to act.

    … Not quite – judge Carter did not suggest that any case would be successful, only that such a case could only be filed in DC. Big difference. Donofrio is a legal genius in his own mind only – I encourage you to research his background.

    Attorney jbjd (jbjd.com) has found legal routes that challenge Ms. Pelosi in her role as Chair of the Democratic Convention, a position that does not provide her with any immunity from legal action. Ms. Pelosi personally certified that Mr. Obama was eligible for the position of President. The DNC lawyers have replied to a inquiry requesting a list of documents used by the DNC to vet Mr. Obama without specifying any documents.

    … then good luck compelling them to.

    Mr. Obama’s actions as President may very well demonstrate that the more restrictive definition of natural born citizen is appropriate for the President of the United States.

    … in your mind, not under law. The voters get to decide this sort of stuff – you don’t get to rewrite laws because you don’t like a candidate.


    The birth certificate question is still in play. Apparently Mr. Obama does not have a regular long form birth certificate issued by a hospital. Information provided by the Hawaii DOH in response to a records index data request do not mention a birth certificate. The response to a request for Mr. Obama’s birth certificate index data mentioned two records: 1) a marriage license for Stanley Anne and Barack Obama and 2) a record of birth (Hawaii had multiple methods available for recording a birth in 1961). The marriage license would be extraneous if a long form birth certificate existed that listed Mr. Obama’s parents. It now seems quite possible that the only document certifying Mr. Obama’s birth in Hawaii is the online COLB. Mr. Obama’s defense, in its motion to dismiss Hollingsworth vs. Soetero, requested the court to take judicial notice of the online “certification of live birth” although the online COLB is not legally admissible as evidence. Were the lawyers being lazy or is the no other document to certify Mr. Obama’s birth

    …. a birth certificate is not a vital record, you are being confused by semantics. Vital records are actual events – birth, death, marriage, divorce, adoption. A bc is simply a document giving details of a vital record, not the record itself. This is what confused Miss T and when she finally worked it out, she disappeared, presumably in embarrassment. The COLB is sufficient to prove nb citizenship, and the Republican AG and Director of DoH have verified that Obama was born in Hawaii. The Hawaii DoH has the original birth certificate – nobody has their original, only copies. Case closed.

  16. Bystander,

    It has taken a little time to assemble this information with links. Perhaps you are not checking this thread anymore. Please acknowledge that you have seen this post. If no acknowledgment appears, I will repost it under the most active thread on this website.

    There is great deal of information offered below, and it may take some time to digest. I am interested to hear your views after you have a chance to review all of the information.

    You mentioned your information regarding eligibility that might save all the birthers a lot of trouble. Have you presented a summary of the same in any of your posts? Maybe I missed it.

    I haven’t presented a summary, but if you are interested I can point you to some serious websites that methodically debunk every plank of birtherism.

    Feel free to provide the link. In the interest of mutual disclosure of information, the following links and comments are provided for your review.

    Mr. Obama and his supporters have tried to get people to pledge themselves to him and personally act on his behalf instead of on behalf of the United States and its Constitution. This is not an American approach.

    …..this simply isn’t true – another birther rumour with no basis in fact, like the Pakistan travel ban, Maya’s COLB, the whitey tape – all rubbish

    Here are some videos of the celebrity pledge
    http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1872644,00.html

    and examples adulation of Mr. Obama by young children initially supported/initiated by some teachers and/or schools. I am not aware of any similar activities being initiated after any other President was elected.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t30cyQwaXZg
    http://newsblaze.com/story/20090127224509nnnn.nb/topstory.html
    There was also widespread protest among parents when an initial activities package (associated with Mr. Obama’s September 8, 2009 speech to school children) issued by the Department Education asked public school children to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president,” not themselves nor the country but the president. This suggestion was deleted at the request of parents. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/08/school-districts-struggling-treat-obama-speech/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.092868:b27580166:z0

    The following list of quotes complied by Jim Ross, December 15, 2008 is quite enlightening. Notice that Mr. Obama never did anything to discourage such talk and some of the quotes are his.

    “… a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany … and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama” – Barack Obama; Lebanon, New Hampshire. January 7, 2008.
    ———————————————
    “”No one saw him coming, and Christians believe God comes at us from strange angles and places we don’t expect, like Jesus being born in a manger.”
    –Lawrence Carter
    ——————————————-
    “Many even see in Obama a messiah-like figure, a great soul, and some affectionately call him Mahatma Obama.”
    — Dinesh Sharma
    —————————————–
    “We just like to say his name. We are considering taking it as a mantra.”
    — Chicago] Sun-Times
    —————————————-
    “A Lightworker — An Attuned Being with Powerful Luminosity and High-Vibration Integrity who will actually help usher in a New Way of Being”
    — Mark Morford
    —————————————–
    “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history”
    — Jesse Jackson, Jr.
    —————————————–
    “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
    — Barack Obama
    —————————————–
    “Does it not feel as if some special hand is guiding Obama on his journey, I mean, as he has said, the utter improbability of it all?”
    — Daily Kos
    —————————————–
    “He communicates God-like energy…”
    — Steve Davis (Charleston, SC)
    —————————————-
    “Not just an ordinary human being but indeed an Advanced Soul”
    — Commentator @ Chicago Sun Times
    —————————————-
    “I’ll do whatever he says to do. I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”
    — Halle Berry
    —————————————
    “A quantum leap in American consciousness”
    — Deepak Chopra
    ————————————–
    “He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians. . . . the agent of transformation in an age of revolution, as a figure uniquely qualified to open the door to the 21st century.”
    — Gary Hart
    ————————————-
    “Barack Obama is our collective representation of our purest hopes, our highest visions and our deepest knowings . . . He’s our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence.”
    — Eve Konstantine
    ————————————
    “This is bigger than Kennedy. . . . This is the New Testament.” | “I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don’t have that too often. No, seriously. It’s a dramatic event.”
    — Chris Matthews
    ———————————–
    “[Obama is ] creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom . . . [He is] the man for this time.”
    — Toni Morrison
    ———————————
    “Obama’s finest speeches do not excite. They do not inform. They don’t even really inspire. They elevate. . . . He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh . . . Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves.”
    — Ezra Klein
    ——————————–
    “Obama has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind.”
    — Gerald Campbell
    ——————————-
    “We’re here to evolve to a higher plane . . . he is an evolved leader . . . [he] has an ear for eloquence and a Tongue dipped in the Unvarnished Truth.”
    — Oprah Winfrey
    ——————————
    “I would characterize the Senate race as being a race where Obama was, let’s say, blessed and highly favored. That’s not routine. There’s something else going on. I think that Obama, his election to the Senate, was divinely ordered. . . . I know that that was God’s plan.”
    — Bill Rush

    Polling place intimidation has been ignored by this administration and charges of the same dropped when conviction was certain.

    …… can you support this claim? Polling place intimidation has long been the stock in trade of the GOP – there are countless examples. Does that bother you?

    Eric Holder’s Justice Department decision to drop the voter intimidation charges against the black panthers Election day actions in Philadelphia.
    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/06/justice-thwarts-black-panther-subpoenas/
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/22/justice-refuses-to-release-documents/print/
    Wall Street Journal * JUNE 9, 2009 Holder Winks at Voter Intimidation
    On ballot integrity, the Justice Department is taking us backward.
    Wall Street Journal * 08/20/09 Holder’s Black Panther Stonewall
    Why did the Justice Department dismiss such a clear case of voter intimidation?

    Other examples of 2008 Election voter intimidation:
    This statement appeared on the State of Missouri Governor’s Office web page September 27, 2008
    Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign’s Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement
    JEFFERSON CITY – Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.
    “St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.
    “What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.
    “This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.
    “Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts – not a free society.”

    There are more examples of nomination/campaign irregularities at jbjd.com, e. g. http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/1269/, and the DNC rules that were broken by the DNC to nominate Mr. Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWdK36OCIIg.

    I would be interested in any recent examples of GOP poll intimidation and whether the actions were prosecuted. The Democrats in the pre-Civil Rights South regularly practiced poll intimidation to discourage the black vote.

    I am not sure what this administration and its supporters would consider beyond the limit of possibility. Comments (some with possible malicious intent) with British IP addresses and posters claiming to be British seemed to suddenly appear on sites that question Mr. Obama’s eligibility. This led me to consider the possibility that commenters located in the US were using an internet analog of Ellie Light, projecting their internet access locations into Britain to hide their true locations.

    ….. why would comments from Britain be a problem? I don’t understand your paranoia. And as for HillBuzz – I went to check it out just to make sure I wasn’t a poster there (joke) – they make some pretty nasty unsubstantiated claims themselves. As for trying to sue for libel – they really are clueless.

    A murderer wears gloves if he plans to kill someone-no fingerprints. Hackers “cover their tracks” too. By use of proxy servers in Britain (or elsewhere), posters could cover their tracks (and discourage investigation by law enforcement if someone is harmed) by making it appear that they are located outside the United States. Likewise, commenters attempting to discourage “birthers” in other ways could appear to be located out the US.

    Currently I believe that the Framers of the United States Constitution intended the term “natural born citizen” to be someone with only United States citizenship at birth and who maintained [that] status throughout his/her life.
    ……..

    No constitutional law scholars, jurists or lawyers agree with you.

    The definition of Natural born citizen has been left undefined since the Constitution. The two main competing definitions are the modified English Common Law definition and the Natural Law defined. The meaning of natural born citizen as a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency needs to be formally defined now.

    All previous Presidents born after the Constitution was ratified meet the more restrictive definition of natural born citizen except for Chester Arthur. Arthur’s father had not bothered or was not financially able to formally naturalize before Chester’s 1829 birth in Vermont, but William Arthur was an alien in name only. Arthur’s father participated in and served in local government from sometime before 1828, continuously maintained a permanent residence in the United States from his 1822 settlement in Burlington, Vermont to his 1875 death in New York State, married a natural born United States citizen, and formally naturalized when all his children born in the States were still minors.

    Mr. Obama’s defense lawyers have always requested dismissal of the many cases challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility based on failure to cite a claim upon relief can be granted, lack of jurisdiction, and standing, i.e. that the plaintiff unless must show personal injury connected with the complaint. If all other citizens are subject to the same injury, standing is not met, and a court will not hear the case.

    The “standing” requirement helps to keep frivolous lawsuits out of Court, limiting the case load on the Courts. On the other hand, the “standing” requirement as it is currently being interpreted would also keep a lawsuit challenging unconstitutional limits on free speech (for example) out of court if all citizens were subject to the same limits. Once the eligibility challenge and been submitted to a Court, and the defense used “standing” in their motions to dismiss the case and thus block access to possibly significant documents associated with Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to serve as President, Mr. Obama and his counsel further weakened the ability of an individual citizen to support the US Constitution.

    As President, having sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution, should be supporting the enforcement of the same and he can start by presenting the requested documents associated with his citizenship status. In my opinion, Mr. Obama’s actions in this regard, although possibly within the letter of the law, are not honorable and weaken the US Constitution. It is obvious to any intelligent individual that Mr. Obama may not have a simple citizenship history and he openly admitted dual citizenship at birth. Hiding his documents behind privacy laws and standing implies that there is something, possibly significant, in those documents that might disqualify him from the Presidency, and that he does not want the public to know.

    In a Government By and For The People, the public should have the right to know any significant details about their future President’s past that may affect his performance in office. During the last election, details about the inexperienced individual now with the ability to initiate nuclear war were hidden by the candidate, his party and a complicit press. Nearly all serious questions addressing the 2008 Democratic nominee’s worthiness to serve as President were shouted down by walls of RACISM cries intended to squelch the questions by intimidation. These actions by people and institutions that should have served the public interest were a gross violation of the public trust. Fortunately, deception is difficult to maintain forever. Mr. Obama’s actions, frequently in direct conflict with his beautiful words, have been noted by the public, and revealed to the public the true nature of the individual installed in the Oval Office. The public is also now aware of the accessory deception practiced by the media, and members of both political parties. Hopefully public can prevent any significant damage to the Republic that might result from the deception practiced on the public in 2008 until the necessary changes can be put in place.

    I believe that Constitutional Law Professor Johnathan Turley would personally agree with the more restrictive definition for natural born citizen as it applies to the Presidency. He also realizes that the Supreme Court would probably have to accept the less restrictive definition if presented with a viable case challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility. The Supreme Court does not want to “interfere” with a “political” question.
    Some information on Jonathan Turley and his views of the matter
    Jonathan Turley bio: http://www.law.gwu.edu/faculty/profile.aspx?id=1738
    http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/04/eligibility-questions-can-clinton-serve-obama-and-can-obama-serve-the-country/#comment-30141
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7uomucNU8E
    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/19/retired-major-general-joins-litigation-over-obamas-birth-st

    Mr. Obama has taken the unprecedented step of appointing his personal attorney as White House Counsel. His personal attorney would be bound by client privilege as well as his duty to the government and would probably already know what needs to be to hidden in regards to Mr. Obama’s past. This action also implies that Mr. Obama may have something that he needs to hide. Mr. Bauer has also personally defended Mr. Obama in at least one eligibility case.

    Mr. Obama, and the government since he took office, have gone to great lengths to prevent the Constitutional eligibility question from being examined in court. Their delays, however, may play to the advantage of the eligibility question because the delays create time for the historical view of natural born citizenship to be explored for the benefit of the plaintiffs lawyers.

    An academic group did some serious historical research into how the Framers would have defined natural born citizen. Only first installment has been posted at http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ . For some unknown reason, other installments have not been posted to date. Perhaps the research is being written up in a traditional form that would allow significant others to review it, in effect certifying the research and its analysis. This historical research would be admissible in Court and could be a powerful affirmation of the more restrictive definition of natural born citizen.

    All legal avenues have not been exhausted.
    Attorney Mario Apuzzo is still pursuing a lawsuit against Congress, Dick Cheney, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Obama charging that they failed to vet Mr. Obama and that he is not eligible.
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
    Attorney Leo Donofrio took the first legal challenge to the Supreme Court asserting that Mr. Obama did not meet the more restrictive definition of NBC. (The Supreme Court declined to promote his application for stay (08A407) to a writ of certiorari and to hear the challenge). After further research into how to question Mr. Obama’s eligibility, Mr. Donofrio now believes that previous legal attempts have not been in accordance with current law and that only a Quo Warranto challenge in DC district court on behalf on a qualified interested party will result in the case being heard. His point of view was confirmed by Judge Carter in a California US District Court ruling. AG Holder could force the DC court initiate Quo Warranto, but he has ignored all requests to act.

    Attorney jbjd (jbjd.com) has found legal routes that challenge Ms. Pelosi in her role as Chair of the Democratic Convention, a position that does not provide her with any immunity from legal action. Ms. Pelosi personally certified that Mr. Obama was eligible for the position of President. The DNC lawyers have replied to a inquiry requesting a list of documents used by the DNC to vet Mr. Obama without specifying any documents.

    Mr. Obama’s actions as President may very well demonstrate that the more restrictive definition of natural born citizen is appropriate for the President of the United States.

    The birth certificate question is still in play. Apparently Mr. Obama does not have a regular long form birth certificate issued by a hospital. Information provided by the Hawaii DOH in response to a records index data request do not mention a birth certificate. The response to a request for Mr. Obama’s birth certificate index data mentioned two records: 1) a marriage license for Stanley Anne and Barack Obama and 2) a record of birth (Hawaii had multiple methods available for recording a birth in 1961). The marriage license would be extraneous if a long form birth certificate existed that listed Mr. Obama’s parents. It now seems quite possible that the only document certifying Mr. Obama’s birth in Hawaii is the online COLB. Mr. Obama’s defense, in its motion to dismiss Hollingsworth vs. Soetero, requested the court to take judicial notice of the online “certification of live birth” although the online COLB is not legally admissible as evidence. Were the lawyers being lazy or is the no other document to certify Mr. Obama’s birth?

  17. bystander con’t

    Currently I believe that the Framers of the United States Constitution intended the term “natural born citizen” to be someone with only United States citizenship at birth and who maintained status throughout his/her life.
    ……..

    No constitutional law scholars, jurists or lawyers agree with you.

    The definition of Natural born citizen has been left undefined since the Constitution. The two main competing definitions are the modified English Common Law definition and the Natural Law defined. The meaning of natural born citizen as a Constitutional requirement for the Presidency needs to be formally defined now. This issue needs to be settled.

    Mr. Obama’s defense lawyers have always requested dismissal of the many cases challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility based on failure to cite a claim upon relief can be granted, lack of jurisdiction, and standing, i.e. that the plaintiff unless must show personal injury connected with the complaint. If all other citizens are subject to the same injury, standing is not met, and a court will not hear the case.

    The “standing” requirement helps to keep frivolous lawsuits out of Court, limiting the case load on the Courts. On the other hand, the “standing” requirement as it is currently being interpreted would also keep a lawsuit challenging unconstitutional limits on free speech (for example) out of court if all citizens were subject to the same limits. Once the eligibility challenge was submitted to a Court, the defense’s legal actions using standing to block access to possibly significant documents associated with Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to serve as President serve to weaken the ability of an individual citizen to support the US Constitution.

    As President, having sworn an oath to defend the US Constitution, should be supporting the enforcement of the same and he can start by presenting the requested documents associated with his citizenship status. In my opinion, Mr. Obama’s actions in this regard, although possibly within the letter of the law, are not honorable and weaken the US Constitution. It is obvious to any intelligent individual that Mr. Obama may not have a simple citizenship history. Hiding his documents behind privacy laws and standing implies that there is something, possibly significant, that might disqualify him from the Presidency and that he does not want the public to know.

    In a Government By and For The People, the public should have the right to know any significant details about their future President’s past that may affect his performance in office. During the last election, details about the inexperienced individual now with the ability to initiate nuclear war were hidden by the candidate, his party and a complicit press. Nearly all questioning about the 2008 Democratic nominee’s worthiness to serve as President were shouted down by walls of RACISM cries intended to squelch the questions by intimidation. These actions by people and institutions that should have served the public interest were a gross violation of the public trust. Fortunately, deception is difficult to maintain forever. Mr. Obama’s actions, frequently in direct conflict with his beautiful words, have been noted by the public, and revealed to the public the true nature of the individual installed in the Oval Office. The public is also now aware of the accessory deception practiced by the media, and members of both political parties. Hopefully public can prevent any significant damage to the Republic that might result from the deception practiced on the public in 2008.

    I believe that Constitutional Law Professor Johnathan Turley would agree with the more restrictive definition for natural born citizen as it applies to the Presidency. He also realizes that the Supreme Court would probably have to accept the less restrictive definition if presented with a viable case challenging Mr. Obama’s eligibility. The Supreme Court does not want to “interfere” with a “political” question.
    Some information on Jonathan Turley and his views of the matter
    Jonathan Turley bio: http://www.law.gwu.edu/faculty/profile.aspx?id=1738
    http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/04/eligibility-questions-can-clinton-serve-obama-and-can-obama-serve-the-country/#comment-30141
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7uomucNU8E
    http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/19/retired-major-general-joins-litigation-over-obamas-birth-st

    Mr. Obama has taken the unprecedented step of appointing his personal attorney as White House Counsel. His personal attorney would be bound by client privilege as well as his duty to the government and would probably already know what needs to be to hidden in regards to Mr. Obama’s past. This action also implies that Mr. Obama may have something that he needs to hide.

    Mr. Obama, and the government since he took office, have gone to great lengths to prevent the Constitutional eligibility question from being examined in court. Their delays, however, may play to the advantage of the eligibility question because the delays create time for the historical view of natural born citizenship to be explored for the benefit of the plaintiffs lawyers.

    An academic group did some serious historical research into how the Framers would have defined natural born citizen. Only first installment has been posted at http://undeadrevolution.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ . I don’t know why the other installments have not been put up. Perhaps the research is being written up in a traditional form to render the research credible to lawyers and academics. This historical research would be admissible in Court and could be a powerful affirmation of the more restrictive definition of natural born citizen.

    All legal avenues have not been exhausted.
    Attorney Mario Apuzzo is still pursuing a lawsuit against Congress, Dick Cheney, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Obama charging that they failed to vet Mr. Obama and that he is not eligible.
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
    Attorney Leo Donofrio took the first legal challenge to the Supreme Court asserting that Mr. Obama did not meet the more restrictive definition of NBC. (The Supreme Court declined to promote his application for stay (08A407) to a writ of certiorari and to hear the challenge). After further research into how to question Mr. Obama’s eligibility, Mr. Donofrio now believes that previous legal attempts have not been in accordance with current law and that only a Quo Warranto challenge in DC district court on behalf on a qualified interested party will result in the case being heard. His point of view was confirmed by Judge Carter in a California US District Court ruling. AG Holder could force the DC court initiate Quo Warranto, but he has ignored all requests to act.

    Attorney jbjd (jbjd.com) has found legal routes that challenge Ms. Pelosi in her role as Chair of the Democratic Convention, a position that does not provide her with any immunity from legal action. Ms. Pelosi personally certified that Mr. Obama was eligible for the position of President. The DNC lawyers have replied to a inquiry requesting a list of documents used by the DNC to vet Mr. Obama without specifying any documents.

    Mr. Obama’s actions as President may very well demonstrate that the more restrictive definition of natural born citizen is appropriate for the President of the United States.

    The birth certificate question is still in play. Apparently Mr. Obama does not have a regular long form birth certificate issued by a hospital. This is supported by information provided by the Hawaii DOH in response to a records index data request in accordance with Hawaiian law. A request for Mr. Obama’s birth certificate index data was answered with two records: 1) a marriage license for Stanley Anne and Barack Obama and 2) a record of birth not referred to as a birth certificate (Hawaii had multiple methods available for recording a birth in 1961). Also, the defense in its motion to dismiss requested the court to take judicial notice of the online “certification of live birth” in Hollingsworth vs. Soetero, although the online COLB is not legally admissible as evidence. The defense reference to the online COLB indicates either laziness or the very real possibility that no vault copy of Mr. Obama’s long form birth certificate exists. The latter supports the index records information that Hawaii provided.

  18. Re: “Obama has never shown a Hawaii birth certificate – never, ever, never, ever.”

    He has posted the Certification of Live Birth, which is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the only one that Hawaii currently issues. It no longer sends copies of the original birth certificate (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html). Those are the facts.

    The two top officials in Hawaii that deal with birth certificates have repeatedly said that the facts in the file confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii. In the latest statement, the DoH director said:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”

    Notice the words that say that the original vital records are VERIFYING that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is a statement of fact. She is saying that the original document without question says that Obama was born in Hawaii, not that it was a delayed birth certificate or an amended birth certificate, but that it was a certificate that said that he was born in Hawaii.

    Re: “I have yet to run across anyone who can confirm that the image of the alleged certification of live birth has never been directly verified by the HI Department of Health.”

    Since they have repeatedly confirmed the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii, what would be the point? Besides, they cannot confirm the image. Only if they were taken a physical copy of the printed COLB could they say whether or not it was forged. However, they are certainly not saying that it was forged, and there is not a shred of evidence that it was forged.

    Re: “No receipt= No legitimate document.”

    Baloney. The COLB is the official birth certificate. It is accepted as proof of birth in the USA by the US State Department and the branches of the US military, and the two officials (members of a Republican governor’s administration) have said twice that the facts in the files confirms the COLB.

    Re: “No official has claimed a receipt has been issued for the June 2007 COLB on the website, nor claimed that the internet COLB is legitimate.”

    So what? They have said that the facts in the files confirm that Obama was born in Hawaii. That is the key fact, that he was born in Hawaii. There is not a shred of evidence that he was born anywhere else than Hawaii, and there is official documentary evidence that he was born in Hawaii in 1961.

  19. It is rather unfortunate that, in over a year of blogging, I have yet to run across anyone who can confirm that the image of the alleged certification of live birth has never been directly verified by the HI Department of Health. And nobody’s ever come forward to claim responsibility for procuring the document, nor has there ever been a receipt publicly shown for such transaction.

    And yes, I’ve heard pretty much every rebuttal to this issue. However, for me, if someone were to have me at the very least affirm that the alleged COLB is legitimate, some such claim as what I’ve laid out would at least lend some credence to the original document (I speak for myself on this one).

    Of course, I still have issues with the “at birth” UK citizenship that Mr. Obama had, and that’s another issue entirely to discuss.

    -Phil

    That was so well written I felt the strong need to repost it 🙂

    No receipt= No legitimate document. No official has claimed a receipt has been issued for the June 2007 COLB on the website, nor claimed that the internet COLB is legitimate. People are starting to get that there is a problem, soon the voices will be to many to deny. I hope when the truth comes out, and it will, that Barry gets to visit his family roots in Kansas, with his wife, for a very long time. There is a very historical facility there just waiting for them.

    Pete

  20. RE ann:

    When someone comes on your site and politely points out that Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii and that the facts on it were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, members of a Republican governor’s administration, you call him “an infiltrator.” […] Are you afraid of the facts? […]

    Heck, no – but produce facts and evidence, Ann – and I politely inform you that this one of the silliest attempts ever at muzzling this affair – at you troll, have quite a history in clumsiness and silliness –

    Obama has never shown a Hawaii birth certificate – never, ever, never, ever.
    What you politely try to frisbee in discussion here is the COLB that’s been circulated on the Internet – however, that:
    1) is a COLB, not a BC –
    2) and it has never been ever been confirmed by the Hawaii officials – actually any birther would more than happy to hear from Hawaii officials that they INDEED ISSUED THE PAPER IN CAUSE (since they, when asked about this always refuse to confirm or deny that the Hawaii HD has issued the paper in cause) –

    Upgrade you act, baby – you’re a loser –

    Regards –

  21. When someone comes on your site and politely points out that Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii and that the facts on it were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, members of a Republican governor’s administration, you call him “an infiltrator.”

    Is it infiltrating to point out the facts? Are you afraid of the facts?

    1. ann,

      When someone comes on your site and politely points out that Obama has shown the official birth certificate of Hawaii and that the facts on it were twice confirmed by the officials in Hawaii, members of a Republican governor’s administration, you call him “an infiltrator.”

      Is it infiltrating to point out the facts? Are you afraid of the facts?

      It is rather unfortunate that, in over a year of blogging, I have yet to run across anyone who can confirm that the image of the alleged certification of live birth has never been directly verified by the HI Department of Health. And nobody’s ever come forward to claim responsibility for procuring the document, nor has there ever been a receipt publicly shown for such transaction.

      And yes, I’ve heard pretty much every rebuttal to this issue. However, for me, if someone were to have me at the very least affirm that the alleged COLB is legitimate, some such claim as what I’ve laid out would at least lend some credence to the original document (I speak for myself on this one).

      Of course, I still have issues with the “at birth” UK citizenship that Mr. Obama had, and that’s another issue entirely to discuss.

      -Phil

  22. KJ says:
    January 27, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    …. but I doubt that all people in the UK have a passport unless the government requires it. Surely there are individuals that are happy to stay close to home or lack the means to travel.

    … About 50m out of a population of 60m UK citizens have passports.

    The northern West Coast seashore is so beautiful that I wonder how the natives can take it for granted. Britain is beautiful too. I remember a train trip to Aberdeen up the coast with brilliant scenery.

    ….agreed, I spend a lot of time in the Seattle / Gig Harbor area – it is spectacular – never been to Aberdeen though!

    Mr. Obama and his supporters have tried to get people to pledge themselves to him and personally act on his behalf instead of on behalf of the United States and its Constitution. This is not an American approach.

    …..this simply isn’t true – another birther rumour with no basis in fact, like the Pakistan travel ban, Maya’s COLB, the whitey tape – all rubbish.

    Polling place intimidation has been ignored by this administration and charges of the same dropped when conviction was certain.

    …… can you support this claim? Polling place intimidation has long been the stock in trade of the GOP – there are countless examples. Does that bother you?

    I am not sure what this administration and its supporters would consider beyond the limit of possibility. Comments (some with possible malicious intent) with British IP addresses and posters claiming to be British seemed to suddenly appear on sites that question Mr. Obama’s eligibility. This led me to consider the possibility that commenters located in the US were using an internet analog of Ellie Light, projecting their internet access locations into Britain to hide their true locations.

    ….. why would comments from Britain be a problem? I don’t understand your paranoia. And as for HillBuzz – I went to check it out just to make sure I wasn’t a poster there (joke) – they make some pretty nasty unsubstantiated claims themselves. As for trying to sue for libel – they really are clueless.

    Please forgive me if my last post felt like a personal attack; it was meant more like a probe. You seemed more American to me than British. Apparently, you could have naturalized as a United States citizen if you had chosen that path, but you chose to remain British. Do you think your children will return to the States someday to live?

    ……..

    Apology happily accepted. As for my kids – who knows? My son might go to college in the US, daughter probably not. The top US colleges now have offices in the UK to recruit from the top UK schools – they start looking at them at 15, and he is being “monitored”. Only problem is they don’t play much rugby in the US! Plus it would cost us about 10 x as much as a good university in the UK. But you have inadvertently hit on why we came back and remain British – we prefer our educational system (sorry!).

    I hope that you did not believe that I thought you were one of the Hillbuzz commenters with possible malicious intent, and that you share my concern for the safety of the Hillbuzz bloggers whose personal information was published.

    ……….

    In all honesty, the HillBuzz people seem pretty nasty. I don’t agree with publishing personal information, but I think they have some responsibility for the hate spew they indulge in. As somebody once said – politics aint beanbag.

    Mr. Blair seems to be in lockstep with the US in matters of the Wars so it makes perfect sense for you to keep up with US politics. You may know people serving in the war efforts both from Britain and the United States.

    ………

    Mr Blair is no longer our PM – he will be testifying in two days in public at an inquiry in to the lead up to the Iraq war. He is likely to be skewered for misleading parliament ( a very serious offence) – if you are interested it will be widely covered by the UK media. I personally was against the war from the start.

    You mentioned your information regarding eligibility that might save all the birthers a lot of trouble. Have you presented a summary of the same in any of your posts? Maybe I missed it. If you would be so kind to point it out, I will check it out. If you are interested, here are my views:
    ……..

    I haven’t presented a summary, but if you are interested I can point you to some serious websites that methodically debunk every plank of birtherism.

    Currently I believe that the Framers of the United States Constitution intended the term “natural born citizen” to be someone with only United States citizenship at birth and who maintained status throughout his/her life.
    ……..

    No constitutional law scholars, jurists or lawyers agree with you.

  23. Bystander,

    It is true that many US citizens have not traveled abroad and are woefully unaware of conditions in the rest of the world. They do not appreciate what they have here. They can see no reason to study a foreign language. Many Americans that do travel internationally expect everyone to speak english, and are thus confined to tourist areas.

    It is also true that some of the Brits that I have met regard overseas travel as part of life, but those Brits were fairly well off. International travel is much closer to most people in Europe than in the States, but I doubt that all people in the UK have a passport unless the government requires it. Surely there are individuals that are happy to stay close to home or lack the means to travel.

    Personally, I am educated, have a touch of three foreign languages that are rusty for lack of use. I have traveled a little internationally and quite a bit in the States. The Grand Canyon is spectacular as are most of the National Parks. The northern West Coast seashore is so beautiful that I wonder how the natives can take it for granted. Britain is beautiful too. I remember a train trip to Aberdeen up the coast with brilliant scenery.

    One of my overseas trips was to the Soviet Union under Brezhnev. I am familiar with the old Soviet Propaganda and am very concerned about the “lack of balance” offered the public here in what is supposed to pass for news. Absolutely unbelievable (and shocking for me) was the major TV network broadcast of someone waving a Soviet flag at the big Election night party in Chicago. communistpartyUSA.com has also been very supportive of Mr. Obama. The Congress has been nibbling away at the Constitution for decades and is trying to take a Big Bite out of it now. I completely understand why the Soviet born Orly is almost in a panic. I am concerned about the direction that the United States government is taking too.

    As you probably know, the US Constitution is the foundation of our form of government. The United States has never had a king or as yet a dictator. The principals in our government and the military swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, a piece of paper meant to limit federal powers, and not to a person. Mr. Obama and his supporters have tried to get people to pledge themselves to him and personally act on his behalf instead of on behalf of the United States and its Constitution. This is not an American approach.

    Perhaps you will forgive my mild paranoia about those who seek to protect the current arrogant and incompetent administration serving as the executive branch of the US government. Consider that Mr. Obama himself has said that he would bring a gun to a fight when he expected others to bring only knives. Polling place intimidation has been ignored by this administration and charges of the same dropped when conviction was certain. I am not sure what this administration and its supporters would consider beyond the limit of possibility. Comments (some with possible malicious intent) with British IP addresses and posters claiming to be British seemed to suddenly appear on sites that question Mr. Obama’s eligibility. This led me to consider the possibility that commenters located in the US were using an internet analog of Ellie Light, projecting their internet access locations into Britain to hide their true locations.

    Please forgive me if my last post felt like a personal attack; it was meant more like a probe. You seemed more American to me than British. Apparently, you could have naturalized as a United States citizen if you had chosen that path, but you chose to remain British. Do you think your children will return to the States someday to live?

    I hope that you did not believe that I thought you were one of the Hillbuzz commenters with possible malicious intent, and that you share my concern for the safety of the Hillbuzz bloggers whose personal information was published.

    Mr. Blair seems to be in lockstep with the US in matters of the Wars so it makes perfect sense for you to keep up with US politics. You may know people serving in the war efforts both from Britain and the United States.

    You mentioned your information regarding eligibility that might save all the birthers a lot of trouble. Have you presented a summary of the same in any of your posts? Maybe I missed it. If you would be so kind to point it out, I will check it out. If you are interested, here are my views:

    The idea of “natural born citizen” as born on the soil to foreign parent(s) is a modification of the British Common Law idea of “natural born subject,” a holdover from feudal times. Many of the early US citizens would have held to the old ways and, in the developing the United States, it would have been easier to determine where someone was born than the citizenship of their probably immigrant parents. What is relevant and should be honored today, is how the Framers of the United States Constitution would have defined “natural born citizen.”

    Currently I believe that the Framers of the United States Constitution intended the term “natural born citizen” to be someone with only United States citizenship at birth and who maintained status throughout his/her life. Such a person is more likely to be concerned with the welfare of the United States and its citizens, and to be free of foreign influence. This is what I believe the Framers would have specified for the Commander in Chief and ultimate diplomat of the United States. It is only common sense.

    Since October 2008, when I became aware of the possibility that Mr. Obama may not be a natural born citizen, I have worked to have his eligibility examined by Electors, the Congress, and the Courts. Natural born citizenship status is only relevant for the President of the United States: no other position in this country is closed to any person with any other US citizenship status. Mr. Obama may not meet the criteria for natural born citizenship as the Framers intended and his eligibility should be examined now, while the question remains relevant. Otherwise, he will be allowed set a precedent that we as a country may later regret. This work I do for my own children and grandchildren, and for every other US citizens’ children and grandchildren.

    KJ

  24. Now that was an incredibly intelligent and mature response.

    Thanks – I worked really, really hard on it. I was going to go with “whatever”, glad I put the effort in.

  25. bystander,

    Yeah right, because we never hear birthers make sweeping statements about obots do we? No sirree.

    Now that was an incredibly intelligent and mature response. 😀
    And really, a most impressive display of boorish sophomoric elitist behavior.

    How’s this for a textbook case of elitist amateurism. The Democrats as of the last election hold both the Presidency and both houses of Congress. They enjoyed the largest majority since the late 20’s or early 30’s, so basically 80+ years. And they could not pass one of their prized signature pieces of legislation. With their arrogance, lack of transparency, complete tone deafness to their own constituents, infighting and a total inability to work together with themselves or the Republicans they have possibly pissed away the greatest political advantage in generations. Now that is the real power of intellectual elitism.

  26. Wow!

    I didn’t realize so many would take my worlds personally when I responded to Phil’s article and question about anyone who might be here as a paid blogger to support Obama.

    What I said was about the astroturf issue, not the eligibility issue.

    And, knowing everyone has a limit, I pondered what could get “our” Obama supporters to stop supporting this president.

    Of course, that point wasn’t addressed. Maybe the answer is “nothing”, and they will always support Obama, even if they and their loved ones are directly or indirectly affected by his poor decisions.

    I’m amazed.

  27. For the most part they are not going to abandon ship a year later when things are tough, no matter what the opposition says…

    Pretty much. It is pretty much indisputable that President Obama’s approval rating and declined quite a bit from his first day in office (from about 70% down to about 50% now). But elspeth seems to assume that there’s a correlation between loss of approval and actually doubting whether the President is eligible in the first place. You can very easily disapprove of the job being done by the president and government in general without entertaining doubts about whether that president was eligible to serve in the first place.

    I would bet that virtually no birthers voted for Obama for president, and that there’s probably somewhere close to a 1:1 correlation between people who believe that the child of a US citizen born on US soil is not a natural born citizen, and those who have at some point expressed doubts about President Obama’s birth certificate.

  28. bystander says:
    January 27, 2010 at 9:18 am
    elspeth you are a genius. I think I fist told anyone interested here that I was a Brit about 9 months ago.
    __________________________________________________________________
    yes you have. Elspeth is looking for reasons to explain the support the Presient still has. So Elspeth attempts to try and make it seem that the posters who believe that the President is eligbile have to be foreigners that are looking to “stir the pot.” Elspeth even attempts to imply that the people who believe that the President is eligible are supporters of the President. He fails on both counts.

    First of all I was born and raised in the US, but have visited other countries. Also I did vote for the President and belive that he is eligible. But I do not blindly follow him or believe that everything he does is right. If I did that I would be one of those FOX watchers that still think that the Bush/Cheney years were good for this country.

    Elspeth seems to forget that 69 million people voted for and supported the President. For the most part they are not going to abandon ship a year later when things are tough, no matter what the opposition says…

  29. And based on that grand experience you are now qualified to make sweeping statements about everyone because of it.

    ……………….

    Yeah right, because we never hear birthers make sweeping statements about obots do we? No sirree.

Comments are closed.