Berg vs Obama: Response to Supreme Court due December 1

Many bloggers have been aware of the challenge to Barack Obama’s citizenship from Philip Berg, Hillary Clinton supporter and attorney from Philadelphia. I have not followed the situation much because to me, it seems improbable that any merit can be established for the claims. And recently, some blogs are reporting that Obama has until December 1 to produce his “real” birth certificate. What is accurate is that the Supreme Court via Justice David Souter has given President-elect Obama, the DNC and other defendants until December 1 to respond to the court case dismissed by the Third Circuit in late-October.
Here is the Docket entry from the Supreme Court website:

No. 08-570
Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
——————————————————————————–
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 (610) 825-3134
Lafayette Hill, PA 09867
Party name: Philip J. Berg
Attorneys for Respondents:
Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.

I called the number listed on the Supreme Court website: Public Information Office: 202-479-3211, and asked the person who answered if the Obama camp had until December 1 to produce a birth certificate. She said she could not verify the specifics of the case but said Obama has until December 1 to produce a Brief in response to the Third Circuit case No. 08-4340.
UPDATE: Scott at the SCOTUS PIO recommended this document which provides the press with an understanding of stays and writs of certiorari. Most such applications are denied but this one is pending. From the document:

There are several possible scenarios for the disposition of an application:
• A Justice may simply deny without comment or explanation.
• If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may reapply to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until a majority of the Court has denied the application.
In practice, applications usually are referred to the full Court by the second Justice to avoid such a prolonged procedure.
• A Justice may call for a response from the opposition before reaching a final decision. Such responses are usually due by a date and time certain. The Justice may grant an interim stay pending receipt of a response.
• A Justice may grant. If an application is granted by an individual Justice, or if the full Court acts upon one, its disposition is indicated by a written order or sometimes, an opinion. An order granting an application will indicate how long the order will remain in effect—usually until the Court acts on the petition for writ of certiorari. In fairly standard language, the order will often go on to state that if the petition is denied, the stay will automatically terminate, but if the Court grants full review, the stay will remain in effect until the Court hands down a decision on the merits and the mandate or judgment is issued.

Point three appears to be the category of this case. The Obama camp may or may not respond. If the court grants the writ of certiorari, then one might expect to see more reporting about this case.
UPDATE – 12/2/08 – Lisa Liberi from Philip Berg’s office wrote to say that the Solicitor General is only representing the Federal Election Commission. Obama, and the DNC have separate counsel but the Court has had no response from them. According to Liberi, SCOTUS was waiting a week in case the responses had been mailed. A conference date with the full Court regarding the certiorari petition will be scheduled after the week passes. She also noted that Berg has a petition in the works to prevent Electors from casting Obama votes in the Electoral College.
UPDATE: 12/8/08 – Berg today filed an application with the SCOTUS for a stay of the Electoral College vote. A quick check of the docket shows it reflects this filing.
UPDATE: 12/10/08 – Late yesterday, Justice Souter denied Berg’s request to stop the Electoral College from voting for Obama.
Related Posts
Berg vs Obama: A brief update
Berg vs Obama: Dept of Justice Waives Right to Respond to Petition
Berg vs Obama: Update and current status
Donofrio vs Wells: NJ Obama citizenship case slated for SCOTUS conference
UPDATE: 1/2/09 – Add the following events and planned SCOTUS conferences to the above docket:

Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.

Apparently, Berg will get his two days in court (1/9 & 1/16).

2,935 thoughts on “Berg vs Obama: Response to Supreme Court due December 1”

  1. FINALLY, it appears that a judge might finally be showing some spine as far as Birtherism is concerned… a New York state judge has dimissed a birther lawsuit AND has asked the birther plaintiff to show cause why he should not need to pay the legal costs of the defendants. As the birther named about a dozen co defendants in the case, the tab he will be stuck with is bound to be substantial. From the judge’s order:
    “…STRUNK’s instant action is frivolous. … STRUNK [pictured right] alleges baseless claims about defendants which are fanciful, fantastic, delusional and irrational. It is a waste of judicial resources for the Court to spend time on the instant action. Moreover the Court will conduct a hearing to give plaintiff STRUNK a reasonable opportunity to be heard … as to whether or not the Court should award costs and/or impose sanctions upon plaintiff STRUNK for his frivolous conduct. At the hearing, an opportunity will be given to counsel for defendants to present detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in the instant action.”
    Actually making these folks pay the bills for their game should end things pretty quickly.

  2. Wow. Just bizarre. Your girl Orly is off the deep end, kids… as everyone realized, now that the judge in Georgia ruled against this nitwit and her empty case, she is now attacking the judge’s honor. See Page 8 of the appeal she has filed, noting that Judge Mahili is in cahoots with Iran!!!
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/zombie-files-in-georgia-court/#more-16257
    Yeah. You might not want to put to much money and that appeal, WB.
    Where DO you guys find these crackpots???

  3. Sorry guys, but I was not getting notification from Warren about posts here. I hope Warren will fix that.
    Regarding whether Obama will be on the Georgia ballot, that is still in dispute since the whole matter is going to a higher court.
    And then…

  4. Another one for you, Hugh. A lawsuit was filed claiming Obama, Paul, and Romney are not qualified because the don’t have citizen parents…
    Tisdale v. Obama, the federal district court stated that it is “well settled that those born in the United States are natural born citizens” and calls the claim that Obama (and Paul and Romeny) are ineligible “without merit.”
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/80563782/Tisdale-v-Obama-et-al
    Case dismissed WITH prejudice.

  5. I understand your opinion Hugh.
    I disagree with you, and I have Justice Fuller’s words in the very same case to back me up.

  6. Robert:
    I would agree with you completely concerning Justice Gray declaring Wong a natural born Citizen if Justice Gray had written the words “natural born Citizen” into the majority opinion.
    But you are saying that there are two types of citizens: naturalized and natural born.
    Certainly, Supreme Court Justices would understand the nomenclature of citizenship. Others in the Appellate and District Courts would understand the terms. Those in the State Court systems would understand also. Court opinions have been broadcast into the public area through newspapers from the founding of the Republic to the 1800’s, 1900’s, down to this present time, extending the outreach into our homes via the radio and TV.
    Certainly all the listeners that have ever read a Supreme Court opinion, read newspaper reports or have heard results on radio or TV do not have the necessary legal training to discern the legal nuances in Supreme Court opinions or most probably any other court opinion.
    So, it is incumbent upon the Republic’s judges to write clearly, in unambiguous language so that even the most ill-informed can understand their opinions, to prevent any misunderstanding, since the judges are declaring the law of the land, even to future generations.
    Since the most of us do not have this specialized knowledge the Republic’s judges have the full burden to correctly state the law and to publish it through the appropriate media.
    So I can only conclude that Justice Gray thought Wong Kim Ark was a citizen and not a “natural born Citizen” since he did have the oath-centered obligation to fulfill his duties as a Justice. It is the words of Justice Gray that declared his intention, and he wrote that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen.
    If Wong Kim Ark was a natural born Citizen, then it was incumbent upon Justice Gray to write the words “natural born Citizen” in the ruling section of the opinion. Under these circumstances, to only declare Wong a citizen is deceitful.

  7. Robert:
    You have every right to have the opinion that you hold. But the opinion that you hold in this matter does not agree with the Constitution.

  8. If Wong was a natural born Citizen, then Justice Gray would have been required to write the words “natural born Citizen” into to ruling section of Wong Kim Ark since the word “citizen” and the words “natural born Citizen” are contained in separate clauses in the Constitution, and each has and must be given legal effect without disregard of the other.
    The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)
    But Justice Gray did not write the words “natural born Citizen” into the ruling section of Wong. Was it just an oversight? Every word written in the Constitution is written in the document to give a particular and singular effect.
    If Wong is actually a natural born Citizen, then Justice Gray has misled the American people, the judicial system, and most probably has committed a fraud upon the Court.
    Words have meaning and different words have different meanings..
    Did you read the article?
    Leo Donofrio quotes Chief Justice John Marshall. You don’t agree with Donofrio obviously. But you do not even agree with Chief Justice John Marshall in his quote or the other quotes that Donofrio uses in the related opinions.
    How do I know this? If you agreed with Donofrio you would be agreeing with Chief John Marshall.
    But you certainly do not agree. Do not give me crap about only believing Supreme Court Justices
    .
    Since the rule of statutory construction expresses how the Constitution is to be interpreted, and you do not agree with it (as expressed above), then your interpretation is faulty at best. In fact, it is fraudulent. To ignore this rule is, to quote you, nonsensical.

  9. Gray would have been “required” to use the words “Natural Born???” LOL- “required” by whom?
    As i said, there are two kinds of citizens, Natual Born and Naturalized.
    As far as calling my opinion “nonsensical,” then you also have to call Justice Fuller’s opinion “nonsensical” as he AGREED with what I am saying…
    So who to believe, who to believe… a supreme court justice that actually heard the case, or an internet blogger…? Not that hard to pick the credible person is it, Hugh?
    As far as the Arthur eligibility, as you state it IS impossible to suggest that Gray had an outcome on Arthur’s eligibility. So why did the blogger YOU linked us to state that Gray should have recused himself?
    And AGAIN, if Gray’s decision did not call Wong a Natural Born Citizen, why would it matter if he recused himself or not?

  10. Yes, I did read the link. Again, Chester Arthur was in office from 1881-1885, and he died in 1886. Justice Gray wrote the Wong Kim Ark on March 28, 1898. It is impossible that Gray’s opinion makes Chester Arthur eligible. You have to resort to other evidence such as the Constitution, and other prior Supreme Court opinions to find support for Arthur.
    It is nonsensical for you to assert the Wong is a natural born Citizen when Gray only said that Wong was only a citizen. Somehow you think that all citizens born in county are natural born Citizens and that is not true. It is possible to be born in county with one or more parents who are not citizens. If this is the case, the child is a citizen only and not natural born.
    If Gray thought that Wong was natural born, he would have been required to write the words “natural born Citizen” into the ruling section of the Wong, but he did not do so. Otherwise, persons can reach any conclusion they want to reach about an opinion from the Supreme Court or any other lower court. But they would be wrong.
    You simply cannot insert words into a court opinion and make it be so. Your position simply is not possible.
    Leo Donofrio has posted the new article “The Dirty ‘little’ Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed.” It all has to do with statutory construction.
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

  11. Did you read the link that you posted us to Hugh?
    The blogger’s point was that Gray had a vested interest in issuing a decision that made Chester eligible, as Chester appointed Gray to the Court.
    Blogger is arguing out of both sides of his mouth: on one hand, he claims that the Wong decision does NOT make Obama (one citizen parent) eligible while on the other hand he argues that Gray used the decision to make Arthur (one citizen parent) eligible.
    It’s nonsensical.

  12. Justice Gray had no knowledge that Chester Arthur’s father had naturalized 14-years after Chester Arthur’s birth. Gray authored the Wong Kim Ark majority opinion on March 28, 1898. Chester Arthur was President from 1881-1885. Therefore, it is impossible that Wong Kim Ark was the precedent opinion that makes Chester Arthur eligible to the Office of President.
    You will have to look elsewhere to find Supreme Court authority that Chester Arthur is eligible. Blogger and attorney Leo Donofrio does not think that Chester Arthur is eligible.

  13. There are only two kinds of citizens, “Natural Born” and “Naturalized.” As it was decided in Wong that a child born on these shores needed no act of naturalization, he was Natural Born. As I have shown, even Justice Fuller knew that Wong would be eligible to be POTUS.
    By the by, did you read the last link you posted us to, the one about “Gray Propaganda?” Why did the blogger go to such pains to say that Gray should have recused himself from Wong, if the blogger believes that the Wong decision did not make Chester Arthur eligible?

  14. If there be such clarity in Wong Kim Ark that Wong is actually a natural born Citizen, why did Justice Gray omit the words “natural born Citizen” from the ruling section of the majority opinion? Where are the words “natural born Citizen” in the ruling section which declares the opinion as precedent? I do not find those particular words.
    It seems reasonable that if Justice Gray thought Wong was a natural born Citizen, then he would have inserted the words “natural born” into the opinion. But he simply did not insert those words into the ruling section of the opinion.

  15. Re read what was posted, Hugh- as far as “twisting words,” you had better take a hard look at your own statement: I NEVER said that Fuller’s minority opinion “agreed” with Gray’s majority opinion- that is nonsensical, as majority and minority are DIFFERING opinions. So don’t twist my words.
    What I DID say is that Fuller’s minority opinion makes clear that the Gray’s majority opinion makes Wong a Natural Born Citizen, as Fuller clearly states that by the logic of the majority opinion Wong would be eligible to be President of the United States.
    And that is true.

  16. “Read the posted comment, Hugh. He clearly and concisely states that the majority opinion is in effect making wong a “natural born citizen.”
    Do you dispute that?”
    Concerning your comment…
    I do not believe in any way that Fuller’s minority opinion agrees with Gray’s majority opinion. There is not any effecting of a natural born Citizen by Gray in Wong. He does not even declare Wong to be a natural born Citizen.
    You are certainly twisting words!
    Read “The Objectively Gray Propaganda of Masked Rascals dated January 11, 2012 at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/

  17. Good. So when this one goes south, are we going to see the usual claims from the birthers attacking the honor of the judge who hears the case, the same way they attacked the Court Martial officers at Mr. Lakin’s trial?
    Best bet: Yes.
    GO MITT!!!

  18. And an update: Our Hero Terry withdrew his appeal of his conviction.
    So he admits (again) that his service to his nation was less than honorable, and he loses his pension and other benefits.
    I bet his wife has some serious regrets…

  19. Read the posted comment, Hugh. He clearly and concisely states that the majority opinion is in effect making wong a “natural born citizen.”
    Do you dispute that?

  20. Robert:
    You say:
    Nope. It declares him a native born citizen, and the only people i have ever heard argue that that is not the same as natural born are birthers. EVEN THE DISSENT in Wong admitted clearly and concisely that they are the same, and that Wong decided “Natural Born Citizen”.
    Where are the words in which Justice Fuller clearly and concisely stated that native born citizens and natural born citizens are the same, and that Wong decided natural born Citizen? I have read Justice Fuller’s Minority Opinion and I have failed to find them. Where are they?

  21. And, at this point, Fast and Furious could be his downfall. If you’re POTUS, you had better not lie or be so unaware that you don’t know that your govenment has not talked and coordinated with another govenment.

    I happen to agree with you= and this is why I laugh when people praise that dolt Reagan. But yes, Obama should have known.

  22. Read his opinion, Hugh. Fuller recognized and disagree with the fact that the majority opinion was making people like Wong “whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race,” eligible for the presidency.

  23. Gentlemen –
    I am of the opinion that it doesn’t matter about where or when BHO was born. He simply isn’t eligible to be POTUS. He did not have two citizen parents – unless he has lied about his parentage.
    And, at this point, Fast and Furious could be his downfall. If you’re POTUS, you had better not lie or be so unaware that you don’t know that your govenment has not talked and coordinated with another govenment. Especially one that shares your county’s border. Or that no one told you. Another fatal flaw. As is “I didn’t have sex…” or ” it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
    The birth certificate could be a factor, but there are other factors which could be far more significant. Not to mention Solendra and other failures.
    And the lame stream medai is going after Herman Cain. A black conservative with real life creds. OMG!!!

  24. “I said that Fuller clearly and concisely stated and recognized that the majority decision in the case declared Wong a natural born citizen. Again, he disagreed with that decision. But he lost.”
    Tell me, what are the specific words that Justice Fuller uses to clarify, concisely state, and recognize that the majority opinion declared Wong a natural born citizen?
    Where is it clear and concisely stated?

  25. If Justice Fuller is writing the minority Dissenting Opinion, how is it that he is actually confirming and supporting the Majority Opinion?
    He is saying that it is UNREASONABLE to conclude that “natural-born citizen APPLIED TO EVERYBODY. He is saying that not all citizens are not natural born citizens, but are native born

    .
    He’s not confirming anything, Hugh- he is stating that he disagrees with the majority. And while he agrees with you that it is unreasonable, he confirms clearly and concisely that the majority is declaring Wong a “natural born ciizen.”

    Your conclusion to connect “children of foreigners…were eligible to the Presidency” fails because Justice Fuller is saying that children of foreigners are in the excluded group.

    Justice Fuller believes that such children SHOULD be excluded from citizenship. Justice Fuller lost.

    You are misreading the passage. It makes no sense to say that Justice Fuller supports the Majority Opinion when he is the author of the Minority Opinion.

    You are, in fact, misreading what I said. I did not say that Fuller agreed with the majority- I said that Fuller clearly and concisely stated and recognized that the majority decision in the case declared Wong a natural born citizen. Again, he disagreed with that decision. But he lost.
    it’s crystal clear, Hugh.

  26. Robert:
    1. Nope. It declares him a native born citizen, and the only people i have ever heard argue that that is not the same as natural born are birthers. EVEN THE DISSENT in Wong admitted clearly and concisely that they are the same, and that Wong decided “Natural Born Citizen”
    Justice Fuller’s dissent in Wong:
    Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
    If Justice Fuller is writing the minority Dissenting Opinion, how is it that he is actually confirming and supporting the Majority Opinion?
    He is saying that it is UNREASONABLE to conclude that “natural-born citizen APPLIED TO EVERYBODY. He is saying that not all citizens are not natural born citizens, but are native born.
    Furthermore, the comma after irrespective of circumstances, indicates the continued thought “that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural-born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States”…
    Examples are (1) children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not; (2) or other races, Mongolian, etc.
    Your conclusion to connect “children of foreigners…were eligible to the Presidency” fails because Justice Fuller is saying that children of foreigners are in the excluded group.
    You are misreading the passage. It makes no sense to say that Justice Fuller supports the Majority Opinion when he is the author of the Minority Opinion.

  27. Wong Kim Ark construes the 14th Amendment, and the ruling section of that case only declares Wong to a citizen.

    Nope. It declares him a native born citizen, and the only people i have ever heard argue that that is not the same as natural born are birthers. EVEN THE DISSENT in Wong admitted clearly and concisely that they are the same, and that Wong decided “Natural Born Citizen”
    Justice Fuller’s dissent in Wong:
    Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html

  28. Robert:
    Donofrio says that Minor v Happersett, which construes the natural born Citizen clause in the Constitution, is currently the precedent setting case of the United States Supreme Court.
    Wong Kim Ark construes the 14th Amendment, and the ruling section of that case only declares Wong to a citizen.

  29. Robert:
    Do I understand correctly that you are saying that Leo Donofrio is tacitly admitting that Obama is eligible to the President of the United States?
    Is this what you are meaning?

  30. I read it Hugh, and shared my opinion- if what your blogger says is true, he is tacitly admitting that Obama IS eligible to be POTUS. The blogger believes that the later courts – in Wong, etc.= misread Minor and therefore ruled incorrectly.
    OK. So he thinks the court ruled incorrectly, and that is fine- but he admits that the court DID rule on the issue, he simply believes that they got it wrong. Lots of people believe that about lots of cases. Roe v. Wade may have been an incorrect ruling, but that doesnt mean legal abortion isnt the law of the land.

  31. Robert:
    Perhaps, I should have not used the phrase “heating up”. There has been a cover-up at Justia.com concerning the Supreme Court cases that have referenced Minor v Happersett. To really understand the situation you’ll need to read it for yourself. Go back maybe four postings and work forward.

  32. I guess I’m confused, Hugh. How is pointing us to a weblog- the very same weblog you pointed us to in June- evidence of things “heating up?”

  33. Wow, is this thing dead as a doornail or what?? There is a “Birther Summit” being planned, but even that is just the same old blockheads… Orly Taitz, Charles Kerchner, etc. Zero growth, zero new.
    “Tick tock, indeed.”
    Maybe I will stop by again once BHO is certified to be on the ballot in all 50 states, but I don’t think even that will bring any birthers back here… Wild Bill, Crazy Greek, Gene, Hugh, et. al.- it’s been fun, and I hope you learned something about the Constitution and the internet.
    Ta

  34. By the by, Cowardly Terry has appealed the loss of benefits from his felony conviction.
    Turns out the loss is hurting Mr. Lakin, I suppose…
    Anybody wanna bet that his loss of benefits is repealed…? Anybody??

  35. “Court opposition?” If I recall, that should have been up to Congress. Or am I wrong?

    Either way. Without “serious opposition.”
    Did you ever decide your opinion of the Indonesian Constitution?

  36. Robert –
    Back away for a second and look at what you said…

    Bottom line is that BHO’s inaugration is to big a meatball for Donofrio or anyone else to argue against. No matter the “disputed” place of his birth, NO ONE has ever claimed he had two citizen parents. By being sworn in without serious court opposition, he has clearly established that Natural Born Citizen does not require two parents.

    “Court opposition?” If I recall, that should have been up to Congress. Or am I wrong?

  37. Seriously, Hugh: if Justice Gray is wrong, THEN BHO’s eligibility collapses.
    At least- that’s what Donofrio says…

  38. You may disagree with Donofrio on this matter, and you are free to do so, but to say that he is implicitly ‘admits that standing precendent IS that BHO is a Natural Born Citizen’…well, that is nonsense! You have to twist words to reach that conclusion.

    Why else would it matter that Justice Gray was “wrong,” the entire basis of Donofrio’s argument?

  39. Donofrio is NOT implicitly admitting that standing precedent is the Obama is a natural born Citizen. His article expressly says that US Supreme Court precedent states the Obama is NOT eligible to be President.

    But look at his logic- Donofrio says that USSC precedent states that BHO is not eligible, and that Gray got it wrong.
    OK- but the fact is that GRAY (and the rest of the court) set the precedent- wrong or not, their votes are the ones that count.

    Furthermore, concerning Minor v Happersett, the justices had a vote also, and their majority opinion construed the natural born Citizen clause in the Constitution and they did not construe citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

    Despite Donofrio’s self serving claim, the justices in Minor clearly and unequivocally avoided the question of citizenship by parents or locale of birth. The opinion clearly stated that for their case, they did not need to resolve that issue.
    Bottom line is that BHO’s inaugration is to big a meatball for Donofrio or anyone else to argue against. No matter the “disputed” place of his birth, NO ONE has ever claimed he had two citizen parents. By being sworn in without serious court opposition, he has clearly established that Natural Born Citizen does not require two parents.

  40. Robert:
    “Interesting. As his basic point is that Justice Gray was wrong and he, Leo Donofrio, is correct, how is it relevant?
    Donofrio’s idea- even if you accept it as fact (which is questionable) implicity admits that standing precendent IS that BHO is a Natural Born Citizen- he just says that the justices who so ruled were wrong.
    Trouble is, Gray had a vote and Donofrio doesnt.”
    Concerning your comment, it is true the Justice Gray had vote and Donofrio does not have a vote.
    Donofrio is NOT implicitly admitting that standing precedent is the Obama is a natural born Citizen. His article expressly says that US Supreme Court precedent states the Obama is NOT eligible to be President.
    Donofrio is saying that Minor v Happersett construes the Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution; whereas, Wong Kim Ark construes 14th Amendment citizenship only.
    Here is a quote from Donofrio’s article:
    “THE SUPREME COURT IN MINOR V. HAPPERSETT DIRECTLY CONSTRUED THE US CONSTITUTION’S ARTICLE 2 SECTION 1 NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE”.
    Here is another quote from Donofrio’s article:
    “The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark only construed the question of who was a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment, it did not construe Article 2 Section 1. Therefore, Minor and Wong Kim Ark do not compete with each other at all. Minor is the standing precedent for construction of the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1, and Wong Kim Ark is the standing precedent as to “citizenship” under the 14th Amendment.
    “WONG KIM ARK SPECIFICALLY DEFERRED TO PRIOR PRECEDENT REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”
    The 14th Amendment does not even deal with the words “natural born Citizen”. The opinion ruling section of Wong Kim Ark says that Wong was a citizen only, not a natural born Citizen. The opinion ruling section is not dicta.
    You may disagree with Donofrio on this matter, and you are free to do so, but to say that he is implicitly ‘admits that standing precendent IS that BHO is a Natural Born Citizen’…well, that is nonsense! You have to twist words to reach that conclusion.
    Furthermore, concerning Minor v Happersett, the justices had a vote also, and their majority opinion construed the natural born Citizen clause in the Constitution and they did not construe citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

  41. Interesting. As his basic point is that Justice Gray was wrong and he, Leo Donofrio, is correct, how is it relevant?
    Donofrio’s idea- even if you accept it as fact (which is questionable) implicity admits that standing precendent IS that BHO is a Natural Born Citizen- he just says that the justices who so ruled were wrong.
    Trouble is, Gray had a vote and Donofrio doesnt.

  42. Robert:
    I have found Leo Donofrio’s articles to be very informative. He has a certain position and he has shown the logic of that position to be consistent with the historical record of the US Supreme Court and other lower courts of over 200-years. He has researched the citizenship records of the Presidents and resolved any differences to my satisfaction. Concerning Chester Arthur, Donofrio has looked at his father’s naturalization after Chester’s birth date. He has studied articles that interrelate with Chester’s time in office and later.
    Donofrio’s position is supported by multiple historical sources, by the Founders’ written testimony and by the very words of the Constitution. All the Framers and the Founders understood and held to what Founder David Ramsay said in his writings. John Jay’s letter to George Washington gives great insight. Clearly, Donofrio writes with the historical record in mind.
    Besides the American Revolution, we fought the War of 1812 over the British seizing American sailors, claiming them as British subjects. Apart from Donofrio’s position, the historical record fully supports that same position.
    If I was to take a class on the meaning of natural born Citizen, Donofrio is the best of the teachers. His blog is a teaching blog. You will learn, and he will correct you. From time to time he reviews what he has said about others who disagree, and changed his mind about the person. In this regard, he is very fair.
    Of course, I do not agree with every word Donofrio speaks. I can give an example. But concerning the subject and the article in question, I do certainly agree with him, and I respect him!

  43. Simply because of entries some time ago, and I simply wanted to make sure that that issue didn’t come up. If you recall this:

    Forgot to answer this, and I need to: if you look at that exchange, I was not the one that brought up race.
    Again.
    (accuracy counts, WB!)

  44. What’s your take on the new revelation that the Kenyan BC was a forgery?

    I have no idea what you are talking about with this… link?

    And, what about the 24 page document that the FBI now has on the suspected forgery of the two BCs from Hawai’i, especially in light of the fact that the Dept of Health in HI refuses to substantiate the validity of the BC posted on the White House web site and still saying that the records are confidential and they can’t release them? Seems a bit silly since the PBO has had it posted online. Got a comment on that?

    So the FBI has the evidence. OK. Let’s wait and see what they do with the evidence- it is either compelling evidence, or it is not.
    Prediction: the FBI will laugh at the “evidence,” and in a few weeks when the haven’t acted, birthers will claim that the FBI is now part of the conspiracy.
    As far as the State of HI, unless I am mistaken, they have stated several times that BHO was born in HI. Why should they say anything else?

  45. Tell me, Robert, have you read the Indonesian Constitution? I have not, so not having first hand knowledge of its contents, my answer isn’t going to change.

    There is my answer right there.
    Obviously, you DO believe that what is in the Indonesian Constitution is relevant for who is a US citizen and who is not, why else would you care what is in its “contents?”
    My position is clear: the US Constitution, and only the US Constitution, matters for who is and is not a US citizen.

    BTW, I agree with you on the following

    Wait. Then you DISAGREE with Berg, who states the Indonesian Consitution as the very reason Obama cannot be a natural born US citizen.

    but our Constitution disqualifies dual citizens for the office of POTUS. That is a fact.

    ???? How many times are you going to back track on what you said ???
    In your June 12 post you agreed with me that Natural Born Citizen and dual citizenship were NOT “mutually exclusive:”

    Also correct and never did I say that they were

    WB, you seem to be extremely confused about your own position…

  46. Here’s another, Robert.
    What’s your take on the new revelation that the Kenyan BC was a forgery?
    And, what about the 24 page document that the FBI now has on the suspected forgery of the two BCs from Hawai’i, especially in light of the fact that the Dept of Health in HI refuses to substantiate the validity of the BC posted on the White House web site and still saying that the records are confidential and they can’t release them? Seems a bit silly since the PBO has had it posted online. Got a comment on that?

  47. Tell me, Robert, have you read the Indonesian Constitution? I have not, so not having first hand knowledge of its contents, my answer isn’t going to change. Clearly you have a firm opinion with which I don’t concur. My understanding is that in order for a child to be enrolled in an Indonesian school the child has to be an Indonesian citizen. If that is true, then I would agree with Berg.
    BTW, I agree with you on the following

    I say NO as the Indonesian Constitution can have no bearing on who our own Constitution declares as citizens.

    but that is irrelavent to the issue. However, dual citizenship is not. The Indonesian Constitution has no effect on our Constitution, but our Constitution disqualifies dual citizens for the office of POTUS. That is a fact.

  48. Since there is no documentation, my answer is:
    Damned if I know, but it sure might be.

    LOL, in other words you read the Berg article, you read that Berg states Obama is an Indonesian citizen under the INDONESIAN Constittution, and yet you refuse to take any opinion on the matter.
    Man up. Is Berg correct or not?
    I say NO as the Indonesian Constitution can have no bearing on who our own Constitution declares as citizens.
    Why is it so hard for you to give a simple Yes or No?

  49. Robert –
    You wrote

    Strange. I have never brought up race with you, and yet you feel the need for a preemptive defense. Given that you have never once on this board written a single racial word, why did you bring it up now?

    Simply because of entries some time ago, and I simply wanted to make sure that that issue didn’t come up. If you recall this:

    I am black, dolt.

    Just saying…
    And next

    So- to the point on Berg. Is he right or is he wrong? Do the laws of Indonesia (what you referred to as “the matter of Indonesian citizenship) impact BHO’s US citizenship status?
    Yes or No?

    Since there is no documentation, my answer is:
    Damned if I know, but it sure might be.
    Again, cops only go on evidence. Have you got something I don’t know about? If you do, please provide so that I can submit it to the world and stop the questions – with credit to you, of course.

  50. And your second point proves that. But that doesn’t make me bitter, so drop that argument. Nor does skin color, so you can leave that out, too.

    Strange. I have never brought up race with you, and yet you feel the need for a preemptive defense. Given that you have never once on this board written a single racial word, why did you bring it up now?
    So- to the point on Berg. Is he right or is he wrong? Do the laws of Indonesia (what you referred to as “the matter of Indonesian citizenship) impact BHO’s US citizenship status?
    Yes or No?

  51. Robert –

    And you have yet to cite a single US court case that shows US citizenship status of a child is lost by adoption.

    Quite correct, nor have I ever said that it necessarily did. However, adoption by foreign parent(s) could confer dual citizenship, which goes to the Indonesian adoption by Soretoro. Remember, to attend an Indonesian school you had to be an Indonesian citizen.

    And- just to reiterate- dual citizen and natural born citizen are not mutually exclusive.

    Also correct and never did I say that they were.

    I think you are less interested in the truth than you are in bitterness over a lost election – AND (granted) an incompetent president.

    You are incorrect on where my interest lies. Yes, I voted for McCain because I couldn’t see any real qualifications in BHO. And your second point proves that. But that doesn’t make me bitter, so drop that argument. Nor does skin color, so you can leave that out, too.

    Why else would you point us to Berg’s link, wherein Berg states that Obama’s Indonesian citizenship is based on the Indonesian Constitution?

    Because it was a source of a point of view that I wanted this crew to look at. Conclusions about the validity I left up to the reader.

    And then take me to task for disagreeing with Berg’s opinion, since Berg is “an attorney who has spent more money on it than you and I?”

    Well, just being completely frank about it, he has. And so have many others still seeking the answers. And I do believe the answers will be coming. The SSN, the BCs, the foreign travel, and maybe even where Stanley Ann Dunham was for six months.
    Maybe you’ve forgotten, but I was a cop for a period of time and there are many unresolved issues about BHO. I never have lost my love of police work, especially looking at suspicious issues – or individuals.

  52. Sorry to disappoint you, Robert, but I have never said that the Indonesian Constitution was the decider.

    Sure you have, and the point that you claim not to now is very telling. Why else would you point us to Berg’s link, wherein Berg states that Obama’s Indonesian citizenship is based on the Indonesian Constitution?
    And then take me to task for disagreeing with Berg’s opinion, since Berg is “an attorney who has spent more money on it than you and I?”
    Tick Tock.

  53. I have advanced the position that since it seems, by all accounts, that BHO was adopted and became a citizen of Indonesia (at the time, a requirement to attend an Indonesian school) which made him a dual citizen of Indonesia and the US, a disqualifier for the office of POTUS.

    And you have yet to cite a single US court case that shows US citizenship status of a child is lost by adoption.
    And- just to reiterate- dual citizen and natural born citizen are not mutually exclusive.

    So I am still waiting to learn the truth, because what is out there sure doesn’t smell good.

    I think you are less interested in the truth than you are in bitterness over a lost election – AND (granted) an incompetent president.

  54. Sorry to disappoint you, Robert, but I have never said that the Indonesian Constitution was the decider. I have advanced the position that since it seems, by all accounts, that BHO was adopted and became a citizen of Indonesia (at the time, a requirement to attend an Indonesian school) which made him a dual citizen of Indonesia and the US, a disqualifier for the office of POTUS. And being a citizen of Indonesia, he would have had an Indonesian passport on which to travel – to PAKISTAN, which he had stated that he did, when a US passport wouldn’t have allowed such a trip.
    And I do find it interesting that there a several individuals out there with good creds in graphics who have stated that the long form BC (and, OBTW, the short form) are forgeries. I’m wating to see what comes from the 24 page report that was given to the FBI.
    Yes, I read Donofrio, and I am still troubled by the facts that: 1, BHO, SR and Stanley Ann Dunham apparently never actually lived together as husband and wife; and 2, that there is a six month gap in the life of Stanley Ann Dunham totally unaccounted for. The six months before BHO II was born. She showed up in Seattle just 15 days after BHO II was born. And that was 1961. Air travel was pretty rough back then. I know, because I flew from San Francisco via Honolulu to Tokyo in 1961, courtesy of the US Navy, to get to my first ship.
    So I am still waiting to learn the truth, because what is out there sure doesn’t smell good.

  55. By the by, WB- how about you? Did YOU read Donofrio’s statements, posted by Hugh? Donofrio correctly points out that even WND investigations point to Obama being born in the US.
    So why do you give Donofrio so much credence on his belief that the Indonesian Constitution is the decider for Obama’s citizenship, and so little credence on his belief that Obama was born in the US?

  56. Good God, Hugh. Learn to post a link!
    Leo Donorfiro, the same guy that says US citizenship is based on Indonesian law.
    Great stuff again from worldnetdaily!

  57. The latest from Donofrio:
    Recent WND Inquiries Appear to Have Established Obama’s Birth in Hawaii
    I don’t know how this slipped below my radar, but back on May 9, 2011, World Net Daily published an investigative report entitled, “Bombshell: U.S. government questioned Obama citizenship“, which – in my opinion – conclusively established that Obama was born in Hawaii. In that report, Aaron Klein revealed official documents stored in US immigration files which chronicle the troubles faced by Obama’s mother’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro, when he petitioned the US Government for a visa extension.
    The WND report correctly notes that US officials expressed an interest in determining whether Soetoro’s step-son, President Obama, was actually a US citizen. The US officials who were handling Soetoro’s Visa extension application made copious notes in the file and the official comments therein illustrate that these officials doubted some of Soetoro’s statements. So, they decided to investigate the relationships listed in his application.
    Below is the text of the relevant portion of the WND report:
    One critical exchange is dated August 21, 1967, from Sam Benson, an officer at the Southwest Immigration and Naturalization Service office in San Pedro, Calif.
    Benson’s query stated, “There is nothing in the file to document the status of the spouse’s son. Please inquire into his citizenship and residence status and determine whether or not he is the applicant’s child within the meaning of Section 101(b)(1)(B) of the Act, who may suffer exceptional hardship within the meaning of Section 212(a).”
    The reference is to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, which defined a “child” as an unmarried person under 21 years of age who, among other qualifiers, could be a “stepchild,” whether or not born out of wedlock, provided the child had not reached the “age of eighteen years at the time the marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred.”
    A response to Benson’s inquiry came from one “W.L. Mix” of the central immigration office, who determined Obama was a U.S. citizen.
    Mix replied: “Pursuant to inquiry from central office regarding the status of the applicants’ spouse’s child by a former marriage.”
    “The person in question is a United States citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii, Aug. 4, 1961. He is living with the applicants’ spouse in Honolulu, Hawaii. He is considered the applicant’s step-child, within the meaning of Sec. 101(b)(1)(B), of the act, by virtue of the marriage of the applicant to the child’s mother on March 5, 1965.”
    The files do not state how the office determined Obama was born in Honolulu.
    __________________________________________
    So here we see the US Government looking into an application for Visa extension by Soetoro. Further review of those documents reveal that the officials did not trust everything in Soetoro’s application. Therefore, the Government officials wanted to establish whether Obama Jr. was truly a US citizen. They made a direct inquiry on this very issue. And they concluded that Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. Again, this was established by “W.L. Mix” of the central immigration office.
    Having taken such an exhaustive look into Soetoro’s application, and especially considering the government’s examination of Obama’s citizenship, I don’t see how the government officials involved would have overlooked the fact that Stanley Ann Dunham would have been out of the US and far away in Kenya on the date W.L. Mix established as DOB for Obama – if Obama had been born in Kenya.
    Furthermore, a report today by WND, “Documents show marriage of Obama’s parents a sham“, illustrates that a similar investigation as to Obama, Sr. was conducted when he was also applying for a Visa extension. Those official documents include a handwritten memo from the file, written by (presumed) INS official William Wood, which states that Obama Sr.’s son, “Barack Obama II”, was born in Honolulu on August 4, 1961.
    Moreover, in today’s WND article, Jerome Corsi concludes, as a result of reviewing all of the relevant INS documents, that if President Obama was born in Kenya, Dunham must have traveled there without Obama Sr., who was definitely in the US on August 4, 1961, according to these US Government records. This analysis by Corsi is correct. Obama Sr.’s presence in the US at the time of Obama’s birth is now sufficiently documented. This fact alone adds very heavy weight to President Obama having been born in the US.
    I don’t see how two sets of US government officials, independently investigating the relationships between Soetoro and Dunham on one hand, and Obama Sr. and Dunham on the other, could both fail to reveal that Dunham would have been in Kenya at the time of Obama Jr.’s birth. The government officials would’ve had access to Dunham’s passport files. The contents thereof were relevant to the investigations since she was married to both men, and the marriages were relevant to immigration status, as was the issue of children.
    Those who persist in accusing Obama of not being born in Hawaii do so in light of official government investigations, between 1961 and 1966, which established his birth, to the satisfaction of inquisitive government immigration officials, as having taken place on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
    As far as I’m concerned, the issue is settled with a massive presumption of authenticity. I do not see how the information published by WND regarding US immigration official W.L. Mix’s investigation into Obama’s US citizenship flew so far below the radar. That is the single most important fact I have come across that establishes Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
    CLOSURE IS POSSIBLE WITH REGARD TO BC ISSUE.
    For those who insist on keeping the birther circus alive and kickin’ (despite the info listed above), I believe there is a simple way to settle the issue once and for all. I have found two references to the fact that the US Government keeps passport “issuance” records for all passports issued. The most recent is from Congressional testimony on the House floor from March 10, 1998:
    “In addition, the committee on conference is aware that on weekends there is no Departmental procedure or mechanism to access the passport issuance records maintained by the Consular Affairs Bureau. The result is that when a foreign law enforcement authority inquires about the status of a person or passport on the weekend, the State Department does not or cannot respond. This is a clear deficiency in border security procedures.” (See pg. 41/53 in the PDF counter.)
    The second reference is to a US Government GAO report – written for the Secretary of State – that argued for the destruction of passport application materials. The destruction of such materials was the basis of more conspiracy theories as to Dunham’s various passport applications and renewals requested in a previous FOIA by Christopher Strunk.
    Unfortunately, the FOIA request by Strunk, which has been well documented online, failed to request passport “issuance” records for Stanley Ann Dunham. Strunk only requested passport “application” materials. And the government’s reply to his FOIA request was specifically limited to passport “application” materials. Since Strunk didn’t specifically ask for passport “issuance” records, the government was not obligated to search for those records… but they do exist and they can be found.
    The GAO report – which refers to passport issue cards – documents the destruction of passport application materials, but it notes that the Government retains all “old passport issue cards”:
    “During numerous discussions with GSA about document retention periods, Department officials have presented many reasons for the continued storage of original passport applications. They have placed great emphasis in pointing out that old passport applications can be used to derive the citizenship of others…But other ways are just as reliable and effective… Should the Department need to verify if a parent was ever issued a passport, old passport issue cards have been microfilmed and can be referenced by the Department.“ (See pg. 44/70 in the PDF counter.)
    Therefore, if Stanley Ann Dunham had been issued a passport prior to President Obama’s birth, there will be a passport issue card available with that information. If no such card exists, Dunham did not have a passport prior to August 4, 1961, and Obama could not have been born in Kenya. She would have needed a passport to be in Kenya.
    It is my opinion that a proper FOIA request for passport issue cards (or copies thereof) will establish that Stanley Ann Dunham did not have a passport prior to August 4, 1961. Such a request must be SPECIFICALLY designed to eliminate all wiggle room. I suggest the following wording:
    Please forward all passport issue cards and/or microfilm or microfiche copies, or any other copies thereof – or any other documents – which reference the issuance of any passport for Stanley Ann Dunham. To be perfectly clear in my FOIA request, please understand that I am NOT interested in passport application materials. Please limit your response and documents to passport issue cards or copies thereof – as well as any other documents – which the government possesses for Stanley Ann Dunham that refer to her being issued a US passport.
    Any FOIA request should NOT ask for more than the passport issuance materials. I cannot stress enough how important it is that the FOIA be strictly limited as suggested above. Such a FOIA should end this conspiracy theory with authority and finality.
    I should note that I have come across a certain rabid Obama eligibility supporter who alleges to have done a proper FOIA request as to passport issuance materials. I do not trust this source and I do not have access to the EXACT wording of the alleged FOIA request. Suffice to say that anyone who wants true closure on the place of birth issue should do a FOIA – strictly worded as I have suggested above – requesting passport issuance documents for Stanley Ann Dunham.
    I nominate the folks at WND to take this on and make all aspects public since they are the main news resource for this issue. They are invited to take the suggested FOIA request as written above (in red) and to run with it.
    The fourth estate has the power and responsibility to see this through. They should thoroughly document the exact wording of the FOIA request, and they should also document the stages of compliance by the government to such a request as is required by law. Definitive documentation regarding whether Stanley Ann Dunham held a passport prior to August 4, 1961 is readily available to the public.
    The Government is required to respond to the EXACT request made. No mention of passport application materials should be forwarded by the government in response to a properly worded FOIA request for passport issuance cards (or other issuance documents). We know the cards/documents exist and that they are necessary to the government as is proved by the GAO report and Congressional testimony.
    The GAO notes in their report from 1981 that while passport application materials may be destroyed, “passport issue cards” are kept. This is beyond dispute.
    If no passport issuance documents can be found for Obama’s mother prior to his date of birth, then he could not have been born in Kenya.
    I am not a person who needs to see anymore proof. I believe now and have always believed President Obama was born in Hawaii. But if you still have doubts, this line of inquiry is crucially necessary.
    The BC issue and the birther circus surrounding it have served Obama well. Like Chester Arthur before him, the nation was thoroughly distracted by the place of birth faux conspiracy whilst the true legal question concerning his dual national status – despite place of birth – was obscured.
    Everyone loves a big green juicy salacious conspiracy theory. That’s much more fun than a certified boring legal question, the answer to which was never in the hands of Obama, whereas the BC always was. He who controls the game, controls the outcome. (“Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?” – Johnny Rotten)
    I am writing this to clear your attention spans for what will be the most authoritative and well documented analysis I have to offer on the dual national issue concerning Obama’s perpetual POTUS eligibility dilemma. I do not want the circus to obstruct the law. If you understand the importance of this post, you will pass it on far and wide so the attention of the nation can focus on the true Constitutional crisis.
    Leo Donofrio, Esq.

  58. Warren:
    I had a post at June 9, 2011, 01:07 AM that did not go through, and it shows awaiting moderation.

  59. Sure did, WB.
    Meaningless, if you ask me. I can find you experts on the internet who claim the moon landing was a hoax.
    But, heck, don’t believe me on it- if the guy’s evidence is credible, he should be able to subject his beliefs to the review of thousands of his peers, who will no doubt agree with him… right?
    Let me know when that occurs. Until then, it’s just worldnetdaily.

  60. ‘It’s like watching a trainwreck, for me, and I know that I am as much a part of it as Wild Bill and Hugh, et. al.’
    Robert, what are you actually saying here?
    Is it Obama, his administration, and what the government is doing to us? The courts (Supreme Court and lower courts) are not even willing to hear the cases. That is regardless of whether Wild Bill and I and others have a different view than you. And Congress just sits there refusing to deal with Obama’s eligibility issue, and a host of other issues. Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon led a Chrysler dealers’ lawsuit in the 2nd District Court, correctly alleging that the lower court Judge Gonzales committed fraud on the court in the Fiat-Chrysler purchase. Gonzales tampered with a witnesses’ testimony in his opinion. Donofrio and Pidgeon are sanctioned over the matter, and smacked down badly. Donofrio refuses to ever willingly set foot in a Federal Court. Donofrio and Pidgeon are saying that the Constitution is dead. All this is explained on Donofrio’s site. Donofrio is saying that the Courts refusal in this case is more damaging the Obama’s lack of eligibility. Yes, trainwreck is the right word. Trouble is, we all are on the train. Other right words include “sinking ship.”

  61. It’s like watching a trainwreck, for me, and I know that I am as much a part of it as Wild Bill and Hugh, et. al.

  62. Timothy – Like Mitt Romney said, Nice try 🙂
    Have you ever watched Fringe? This is like the other universe.

  63. I think we will have a conclusion to this before the elections…

    Agreed.
    But you fail to recognize that we already DO have a conclusion to this. In any case, having Obama on the ballot in all 50 states come election day will be a pretty huge dose of reality for those who claim that his eligibility is not a decided matter.

  64. It simply does not say that “A child born here of alien parents becomes a natural born citizen.” Here the Supreme Court is not writing the words “natural born citizen”.

    No- they are describing the decision in the case, that is why it is the “Syllabus” of the case. In Perkins, they decided- as Lawrence points out- that Ms. Elg did not lose her US citizenship because Ms. Elg was a “Natural Born Citizen.”
    As far as the clear ruling that US citizenship is JUS SOLI, I provided it for you when you last attempted this argument- it was the logic of the appeals court that held Elg to be Natural Born. As I have previously provided these direct quotes to you, I see no need to provide them again.
    And the reason the lower court spoke to it was to answer the question brought about by the contention that Elg lost her citizenship due to her parents moving her to Sweden- the court ruled that she did NOT lose her status as a “Natural Born Citizen” because US citizenship is based on JUS SOLI and not- as the appeals court clearly and unequivocally stated- JUS SANGUINUS, which is citizenship based on parents.

  65. There was no holding relating to natural born, just some, at best, dicta which is not controlling.

    So the court calling Ms. Elg a “Natural Born Citizen” is not precedent, just dicta?
    What case “controls” then, Lawrence?
    Of course, we can also go to Wong- I know birthers like to attempt to create some difference between “Native Born” and “Natural Born” but the difference is just not there- note that the Perkins court uses BOTH terms interchangeably.

  66. Yes Hugh, she was a natural born citizen. Be that as it may, the case had nothing to do with that fact. The case was about whether or not she lost her US citizenship due to the actions of her parents in taking her to Sweden.

  67. Lawrence:
    In other places it has been said that Perkins v Elg provides an example of a natural born Citizen. Yes, Miss Elg is an example of a natural born Citizen, born in US with two citizen parents at the time of her birth.

  68. Just wanted to say hello to Wild Bill and Hugh. Glad to see that you guys are keeping Robert honest! He really does enjoy misrepresenting the Perkins Case. He uses it all the time to bolster his position but the problem is that the case has nothing to do with natural born, lol. There was no holding relating to natural born, just some, at best, dicta which is not controlling. I think we will have a conclusion to this before the elections, if not, we just have to make sure to vote Mr. Obama out of office and get to the task of restoring America. God bless you and God bless America!

  69. Robert:
    1. A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.
    This passage does not even speak of natural born Citizen. It expressly says that “A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U.S 328.” It simply does not say that “A child born here of alien parents becomes a natural born citizen.” Here the Supreme Court is not writing the words “natural born citizen”.
    Is this an example of “US citizenship is based on jus soli, the place of birth and NOT jus sanguinus, the citizenship of the parents.”?
    If this is so, why does the Supreme Court or any lower court for that matter even speak of parentage in Perkins v Elg or any other case IF in fact the citizenship of the parents means nothing?
    The citizenship of parents is noted as part of every citizenship case I have seen.
    1.A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.
    2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.
    3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329.
    4. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. P. 307 U. S. 329.
    Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. P. 307 U. S. 334.
    5. This right of election is consistent with the naturalization treaty with Sweden of 1869 and its accompanying protocol. P. 307 U. S. 335.
    6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing “That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . ” was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. P. 307 U. S. 342.
    Page 307 U. S. 326
    This is true not only where the parents were foreign nationals at the time of the birth of the child and remained such, but also where they became foreign nationals after the birth and removal of the child.

  70. In any case:
    Tick tock. The Birther controversy officially joins the Flat Earthers, 9/11 Truthers, and Moon Landing Hoaxers in November 2012, the day Obama is on the ballot in all 50 states.

  71. Oh, well. Seems that there is even more controversy. Such as: Just where was Stanly Ann Dunham during the last six months of her pregnancy?

    Yeah, WB. HUGE controversy, just huge.
    I expect it to blow up any day now.

  72. US law determines who a citizen is and is not. If a person has had any other citizenship that person fails to be a natural born Citizen.

    You’ve said that, but have failed to show me a court case that agrees with you.
    Until then… here is Perkins for you:
    A child born here of alien parentage becomes a citizen of the United States. P. 307 U. S. 328.
    2. As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality. P. 307 U. S. 329.

    3. A citizen by birth retains his United States citizenship unless deprived of it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by his voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles. P. 307 U. S. 329.
    4. It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties. P. 307 U. S. 329.
    Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance. P. 307 U. S. 334.
    5. This right of election is consistent with the naturalization treaty with Sweden of 1869 and its accompanying protocol. P. 307 U. S. 335.
    6. The Act of March 2, 1907, in providing “That any American citizen shall be deemed to have expatriated himself when he has been naturalized in any foreign state in conformity with its laws, . . . ” was aimed at voluntary expatriation, and was not intended to destroy the right of a native citizen, removed from this country during minority, to elect to retain the citizenship acquired by birth and to return here for that purpose, even though he may be deemed to have been naturalized under the foreign law by derivation from the citizenship of his parents before he came of age. P. 307 U. S. 342.
    Page 307 U. S. 326
    This is true not only where the parents were foreign nationals at the time of the birth of the child and remained such, but also where they became foreign nationals after the birth and removal of the child.

    And, of course, later they call Ms. Elg a “natural born citizen.”
    In any case, Hugh, this is old ground. Eons ago, I showed you the appeals court ruling that was upheld by the Perkins Supreme Court- the logic of the appeals court was clear and concise: US citizenship is based on jus soli, the place of birth and NOT jus sanguinus, the citizenship of the parents.

    In these two quotes you have persons born within the Republic, of parents owning no allegiance to any other foreign sovereignty, are natural born citizens.

    OK. I’m not sure what you want me to say, Hugh. I will repeat what I said before: unless Bingham was wrting for a court with jurisdiction over the matter, his opinion is irrelevant.
    In sum: you might not agree with the interpretation of the Constitution currently in force (as many believe that Roe v. Wade is incorrect and should be overturned) there is no doubt that JUS SOLI citizenship is the current interpretation for Natural Born Citizen.

  73. Oh, well. Seems that there is even more controversy. Such as: Just where was Stanly Ann Dunham during the last six months of her pregnancy?
    Ane when she and BHO Sr co-habitate?
    Beats me.

  74. Robert:
    US law determines who a citizen is and is not. If a person has had any other citizenship that person fails to be a natural born Citizen. But foreign countries do not determine who a US citizen and who a US citizen is not.
    In Perkins v Elg the Supreme Court has declared that Marie Elg had two citizen parents. It was a factual part of the case. Go read it for yourself.
    But here is my post of August 6, 2010:
    “To quote Perkins v Elg 307 US 325:
    ‘The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship…’
    Elg’s mother was naturalized citizen, as was her father! So Perkins v Elg says that there were two citizen parents. Then how can Perkins v Elg describe the Elg’s as “Swedish parents then naturalized here…?” If both of Elg’s parents were not naturalized citizen[s] then the Supreme Court is absolutely lying!”
    My question:
    Do you really think you know more about these issues than John Bingham?
    Your reply:
    “No. But I do know that what John Bingham thougt or didn’t think is completely irrelevant to the point we are discussing. What the Supreme Court has ruled regarding the 14th Amendment? Now THAT is relevant.”
    This is what John Bingham said and it is completely relevant to our discussion.
    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
    Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
    In these two quotes you have persons born within the Republic, of parents owning no allegiance to any other foreign sovereignty, are natural born citizens.
    This means that natural born citizenship requires two citizen parents, not one parent only. Obama cannot be a natural born Citizen since Obama’s father was a British subject and he never naturalized.

  75. Here Donofrio is saying that Obama fully admits that his birth status is governed by the United Kingdom.

    OK, Hugh. So now you AGREE that Donofrio is saying that “his [Obama’s] birth status is governed by the United Kingdom?”

    Your quote from Berg speaks of Indonesian law and Indonesian state citizenship only. It does not even mention US citizenship.

    Did you read the link? Berg clearly and unequivocally states that Obama could not be a Natural Born Citizen because INDONESIAN law precludes it.
    Read the link.

    So, it is laughable that British law would control US citizenship.

    Of course it is. Why Donofrio posits such a thing is beyond me.

    To say that all citizens are natural born Citizens is absurd.

    Agreed. Who would say such a thing?

    It is possible that a child born in the United States has non-citizen parents or parents that naturalized after the child was born. Such children are citizens, but not natural born Citizens.

    Incorrect- they are Natural Born Citizens, by way of jus soli, as has been clearly defined by the court (see Perkins Elg, quoted way back when for you).

    Do you really think you know more about these issues than John Bingham?

    No. But I do know that what John Bingham thougt or didn’t think is completely irrelevant to the point we are discussing. What the Supreme Court has ruled regarding the 14th Amendment? Now THAT is relevant.

    The Supreme Court listened to John Bingham

    Then I am sure you can quote the court case that states and decides that two US citizen parents are needed to produce a Natural Born Citizen….
    I’ll wait here, Hugh.

  76. “Obama fully admits that his birth “status” was governed by the United Kingdom. I have always wondered how it is possible a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom can be considered a natural born citizen of the United States? I feel that is a very rational question to ask. The contradiction is self evident.”
    Here Donofrio is saying that Obama fully admits that his birth status is governed by the United Kingdom. Then Donofrio asked how can such a person be considered a natural born Citizen, which Donofrio declares to be a very rational question. And he notes the self-evident contradiction. Such a person cannot be a natural born Citizen.
    Your quote from Berg speaks of Indonesian law and Indonesian state citizenship only. It does not even mention US citizenship.
    Donofrio holds that a person born in America with two citizen parents at the time of his birth is in fact a natural born Citizen. Donofrio and John Bingham (cited in Donofrio’s article) view foreign governance as a disqualifier.
    So, it is laughable that British law would control US citizenship. That was one of the
    main reasons for the War of 1812. The United States was saying that the United States Constitution and its other statutes, etc. govern its citizens. So, in this respect, I agree with you.
    As I have said before, the Constitution itself requires that senators and representatives only be citizens; whereas, Presidents are required to be natural born Citizens. To say that all citizens are natural born Citizens is absurd.
    It is possible that a child born in the United States has non-citizen parents or parents that naturalized after the child was born. Such children are citizens, but not natural born Citizens.
    Donofrio, John Bingham, and the other lawyers mentioned in Donofrio’s article all agree.
    Do you really think you know more about these issues than John Bingham? I certainly do not! He was one of the authors of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Do you not think he actually knew what a natural born Citizen is, and the qualifications thereto. I would think so! The Supreme Court listened to John Bingham.

  77. And if you believe that Berg does not say Indonesian law governs US citizenship, you are not reading what Berg has said- see Wild Bill’s link of April 30; a taste from the link:
    Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Soetoro/Obama, an Indonesian State citizen. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie).
    Here is the link to Berg, so you can read it for yourself:
    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/obama-indonesian-citizenship-makes-obama-ineligible-philip-berg-april-28-2011-obama-birth-certificate-not-legitimate/
    As far as Wild Bill’s thoughts on the matter, I cannot say. After he posted the link, he became very quiet when questioned on the matter and simply said it was Berg’s thought, not his- and of course WB wouldn’t come out and agree or disagree with the article he posted. Typical.

  78. From the website you linked us to, Hugh:
    Obama fully admits that his birth “status” was governed by the United Kingdom. I have always wondered how it is possible a person whose birth status was governed by the United Kingdom can be considered a natural born citizen of the United States? I feel that is a very rational question to ask. The contradiction is self evident.
    Yes- I laugh when someone suggests that the test of US citizenship is “governed by the United Kingdom.”

  79. Robert:
    Donofrio is not saying that US citizenship is governed by British law. The United States fought the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 to settle that issue. Berg is not saying that Indonesian law governs US citizenship.
    Will Bill will agree with what is written here. You are misreading what Donofrio is saying.

  80. I had to chuckle last night when I thought of your post, Hugh, and Donofrio’s hilarious idea that US citizenship is governed by British law.
    Every bit as funny as Wild Bill’s support of Berg’s idea that US citizenship is governed by Indonesian law.
    My parents were citizens of Italy, and my wife is filipino… so whose laws govern our children’s citizenship?
    I’m sure you guys see the joke of it… it’s no wonder that Donofrio has been laughed out of every court whose time he chooses to waste…
    Thanks for the fun!

  81. Back to the Land of the Snark, huh Hugh?
    That’s OK- you and I both know that the USSC disagrees with your opinion, and that will be definitively and finally proven when Obama is on the ballot in all 50 states come 2012.
    After all, you can question his birth place, but no one (not even Obama) disputes that his father was never a citizen. As far as precedent goes, that will be a pretty big meatball to have out there… to much of a fact for even a birther to ignore.

  82. The birth certificate can never be the final authority as to the natural born Citizen issue since at the time of writing there were no birth certificates. The Courts looked to the location of the birth of the child, and the whether the parents were citizens (natural born or naturalized) before the birth of the child.
    The following is from Leo Donofrio’s site: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
    The date of entry is March 29, 2011.
    United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Hugo Black, in a concurring opinion in Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), emphasizes his reliance upon the statements made by Representative Bingham and Senator Howard in Congress which pertain to the drafting and adoption of the 14th Amendment. Justice Black stated that “it is far wiser to rely on” the words of Bingham and Howard when analyzing the 14th Amendment.
    This is crucial to understanding that Obama is not eligible to be President as it provides the strongest Supreme Court statement – post Wong Kim Ark – indicating that the current occupant of the White House is not in legal possession of the office of President.
    Here is the relevant statement by Justice Black:
    “Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.” (Emphasis added.)
    A few weeks ago, I published a report entitled, “The House of Representatives Definition of “Natural Born Citizen” = Born of Citizen Parents in the US“. (Please review that report now as I have directly re-posted from it below.)
    During a debate (see pg. 2791) regarding a certain Dr. Houard, who had been incarcerated in Spain, the issue was raised on the floor of the House of Representatives as to whether the man was a US citizen. Representative Bingham (of Ohio), stated on the floor:
    “As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.” (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”. Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872.)
    Notice that Bingham declares Houard to be a “natural-born citizen” by citing two factors – born of citizen parents in the US
    .
    John Bingham, aka “father of the 14th Amendment”, was an abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln’s assassins. Ten years earlier, he stated on the House floor:
    “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))
    Then in 1866, Bingham also stated on the House floor:
    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
    According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.
    Obama’s own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:
    “As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

  83. Truly, Lakin had an illustrious career before he threw it all away and left another to do his duty for him. If it has ever appeared that I disparaged Lakin for his previous service, I apologize.
    Sad.

  84. Robert –
    Lest you forget:

    LTC Lakin’s numerous awards and decorations include the Army Flight Surgeon Badge, Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with one Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Armed Forces Expedition Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon sixth award and the NATO service medal. He has served previously in Honduras, Bosnia, El Salvador, Korea, and Afghanistan.

    Sounds to me like he served in combat zones.

  85. It would have meant so much more if any of these “patriots” had shown up to the homecoming for the soldier who served in Afghanistan in Mr. Lakin’s place, putting his own life in danger while Terry stuffed himself with home cooked meals…

  86. mliliam –
    Thank you for the support of Terry Lakin. If I had been in the area and still had any one of my rides, I would have joined the escorts.

  87. By the by, Obama’s 2012 campaign is now using the entire birther foolishness to raise money for his (doomed) re election campaign.
    Nothing like aid and comfort to your political enemy, huh?

  88. You ,Robert are a pathetic looser.

    What is a “looser?”

    Mr. Lakin served his country , and stood up for what he believes. He was willing to serve his time

    All true- just remember to add “… and was discharged from the service under Less Than Honorable” circumstances. It’s true- you can look it up.

    I along with a growing number of Americans believe the same

    .
    Link to the “growing number of Americans” please?

    Mr Lakin along with many other brother and sisters that have served and are still serving , swore by an oath to defend our Constitution not follow the dictates of someone, mistakenly, elected President.

    Go back to high school and retake civics. It is not the job of the miltary to decide who was “mistakenly” elected.
    BUT: mlil: I do want to congratulate you and thank you for having the spine to accurately refer to Terry Lakin as “Mr. Lakin.” The entire “LTC Lakin” respect went out the window when he was convicted.

  89. This thread of BS debating still gowing nowhere I see. Do you people have lives?
    @ Robert. I happen to be ,the So Called Dirt Bag Bike Rider that needs a shower. You don’t have the intestinal fortitude to say that garbage in my face,Boy .
    You ,Robert are a pathetic looser. What have you done for this country Robert? Have you ever served this great country, in any way? Mr. Lakin served his country , and stood up for what he believes. He was willing to serve his time , take his punishment like a man,and not whine about it. He still believes that PBO is not Constitutionally eligible to be the POTUS. I along with a growing number of Americans believe the same. And we are entitled to our beliefs right or wrong. BTW , Mr Lakin along with many other brother and sisters that have served and are still serving , swore by an oath to defend our Constitution not follow the dictates of someone, mistakenly, elected President. Have a nice day folks 🙂

  90. Citations? Are you serious?
    Give me the fact that I noted that you don’t believe, and I will gladly provide a citation.

    Join the miltary, put on the uniform. Then talk to me about serfving. And honor.

    Lakin was convicted by a jury for disobeying orders he admitted were legal orders, and left the service after serving a stint in Fort Leavenworth.
    THAT is disgracing the uniform he wore, no matter our personal politics.
    Thanks for the laugh on the “nerve” part though, WB- what kind of “nerve” does it take to sit at home while another soldier serves in your place? Our hero!!

  91. Robert, my friend.
    Put some citations with your stuff. Stop throwing out crap.
    Join the miltary, put on the uniform. Then talk to me about serfving. And honor.
    Or don’t you have the nerve?

  92. LOL- the “motorcycle club?” From the photos it looked like one drop out who needed a shower.
    But- onward. You wanted news… OK. Let’s go with these headlines… let me know if any of them aren’t cold hard FACTS:
    “Convicted felon released from prison, but pension and retirement remain lost”
    “Obama Releases Long Form Birth Certificate”
    “Vocal Birther Declines Presidential Run”
    “Serious GOP leaders dismiss birthers”
    and even
    “Polls Show Huge Drop in Birther numbers after release of birth certificate.”
    How is that for NEWS, WB?
    How about you?? Anything beyond what is gleaned from “worldnetdaily” and “obamacrimes?”
    Oh- and yes. I am happy that a dolt who refused to do his duty and disgraced the uniform was convicted and served his time.

  93. Nice, Robert.
    You apparently didn’t read the words of the article which says that there were about 80. Nor did you cite the motorcycle club that provided an escort.
    Thanks. But in the future, could you, please, try to be a reporter of the news? Not an agitator?
    Sorry. That ain’t gonna happen, is it?
    Also glad to see that you’re so happy.
    And, OBTW, the fat lady has yet to sing.

  94. Thanks for adding to the humor WB.
    “Got tanked by the CIC?” Are you insane? What happened to personal responsibilitiy and being accountable for one’s own actions? Mr. Lakin didn’t follow legal orders, therefore Mr. Lakin was penalized. Orders even Lakin himself admitted were legal.
    Lakin is not The Victim here or anywhere. He is a person who made his choices like an adult.
    And The Fat Lady sang the moment Lakin was convicted…. you can fantasize all you want about pardons, etc., once BHO is out, but no true Republican that I know would give a “soldier” who shirked his duty a second thought.

  95. Wild Bill,
    Dont’ take personally anything that Robert has to say, he is simply the devils advocate.

  96. Oh, yes, Robert. Thank you for laughing at the destruction of a proud warrior who got tanked by the CIC. Glad to know that you are a patriot.
    Get ahold of yourself. You are quite obviously unwilling to put on a uniform and stand for this country.
    You, Robert, are the one to be laughed about. Or perhaps just pitied.
    And, oh, BTW, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet.

  97. Or are you being paid by PBO to promote this line of… whatever?

    LOL- sure, WB. I’m not a birther, ergo I must support PBO or be in his employ.
    THINK FOR YOURSELF, WB, and you will clearly and concisely see why Berg’s suggestion and interpretation is silly.
    By the by- the 9th circuit is not hearing a claim anything like Berg’s, and in any case is by far the most liberal circuit in the nation.

  98. Robert –
    Why question the comment of an attorney who has spent more money on this than you or I? Are you more infomed? Or are you being paid by PBO to promote this line of… whatever? Please, Robert, how is it that you are so well informed about the issue? Where did you get your law degree or creds as a law officer?
    There should be something tomorrow fron the 9th Circuit Court. Let’s wait and see.

  99. So… WB. you sure are quiet regarding your opnion of Berg’s theory, that Indonesian law controls Obama’s citizenship, at least as far as “Natural Born” status goes…

  100. The Birth Certificate Issue Hasn’t died.. I recall that it was never going to carry on for any length of time according to Robert and a few others. So far it has made it to the annual White House Correspondent’ Association Gala at the Washington Hilton hotel, Washington, DC , and you get to hear about right from Baracks own mouth.
    Is it not amusing that something with such little significance has made it this far?
    IMHO , Obama has just added fuel to the fire. I believe this topic has been running since around 11/10/2008. Instead of shrinking it is growing.
    Maybe the lack of trust in our system , maybe, it is , just so absurd , someone might dare to question its validity, with an open mind to the possibility that there are other entities involved in the greatest hoax of all time. As history has taught us , only time will tell.

  101. Don’t be coy, WB… of course it is from Philip Berg, but you believe Berg is correct, don’t you?
    Kind of humorous, no? That because Indonesian law says a person is a citizen of Indonesia, that person cannot be a Natural Born Citizen of the US?
    Even you must be snickering at that one, WB.

  102. Robert? Are you awake?
    That is from Phil Berg. The attorney. Not me.
    And I am sure that he is far better resourced than I.
    Thanks for the comment. An yeah, I did read it. Did you? Really?
    I doubt it.
    But don’t quit. I don’t.
    USN, 2 Aug 64, Gulf of Tonkin, DD 731. And proud of it.

  103. Did you read the article, WB?
    Your “matter of Indonesian citizenship” is – according to the article- based on INDONESIAN law at the time- i.e., according to Indonesian Law, BHO is a citizen of that nation, and ONLY a citizen of that nation.
    Is that what you are saying, WB?

  104. Yup. Good read.
    Now we wait intil the 9th Circuit hears Orly and Kreep on Monday. Could be interesting. Found that link yet?
    Hi Loyd. Good to hear from you.

  105. Thanks for the link, WB.
    Interesting article, but did I miss the part that quoted the US law that you were talking about? “The law at the time?”
    Please advise a basic vicinity to look- beginning of comments, end of article, whatever.
    All I saw was a lot of conjecture (Obama had an Indonesian passport) and quoting of Indonesian laws on citizenship (irrelevant to our discussion).
    So- again- “the law at the time?”
    Thanks.

  106. But, I think we should ask Robert for his opinion,as we know he is the Supreme Authority on All Law and Legal Matters of The World.

    You are certainly coming across as bitter and whiny today, LilLoyd. SPARKLING comment about the Royal Wedding, though… just really shines a light on the level of your input.
    But, back to the point: you believe Berg, I will believe the Supreme Court.

  107. WB, I read the Article that you posted. Berg seems to know what he is talking about. But, I think we should ask Robert for his opinion,as we know he is the Supreme Authority on All Law and Legal Matters of The World.
    Personally, I believe Robert has indulged himself with way too much Obama Kool Aide .
    I say Kool Aide and not Cool Aid , as we know if Obama was Cool he might have been invited to the Royal wedding.

  108. That point, Robert, has been iterated numerous times and doesn’t need to be repeated. Suffice it to say that PBO did have dual citizenship at his birth. Now, at age 23 he apparently lost his UK/Kenyan citizenship by lack of action on his part. However, there is still the matter of Indonesian citizenship.
    Read the following article:
    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/obama-indonesian-citizenship-makes-obama-ineligible-philip-berg-april-28-2011-obama-birth-certificate-not-legitimate/

  109. So come on, WB! You made an assertion regarding “the existing law at the time.”
    Can you back it up, or not?

  110. I know, WB- anything but a birther is “singing the praises of pbo.” I have been clear how I feel regarding his policies, so no need to repeat it here.
    And nice try, WB, but very Typical Birther of you. YOU made the assertions, you back them up.
    For starters, tell us about the “existing law at the time” that you claim made Obama take the nationality of his father…

  111. Hi Robert –
    Glad to know you’re still around and still singing praises of PBO who, incidentally, could have saved the career of a decorated soldier/doctor who has now spent almost six months in a military prison and will be dishonorably discharged soon. And PBO could have shown mercy and produced the damn long form a long time ago.
    Hope you’re happy about a destroyed career. However, I’m not.
    BTW, what do you think backs up any of your assertions?

  112. But at least there is something we ALL can agree on: that simpering jerk Lakin must be crying today…. throwing away his career and pension over this “silliness?”
    Can we ALL laugh at that, at least?

  113. As an initial read, WB’s post shows why Obama never EVER had any reason to release his birth certificate- it does nothing to impact the “logic” of the birthers.
    Of course, even WB admits in a roundabout way through his post that BHO is blameless in this matter.
    So, although I know WB runs like the wind from questions such as these, here goes:

    And that does NOT prove that he is ineligible for office, because of his father’s nationality.

    Father’s nationality: irrelevant.

    By the law existing at the time, he took on the nationality of his father, Kenyan and/or British. Dual citizenship which is a disqualifier.

    Factually false.

    Now, IF the item being shown is proved to be authentic, then it proves that he was born in Hawai’i. And that’s it. Other questions remain.

    None relevant to his eligibility.

    How did he travel to Pakistan?

    More than likely by aircraft.

    How was he registered at Occidental College? American or other?
    How did he get to be the head of the Harvard Law Review without EVER publishing any comments? And by the way, yes he did get his JD in 1991 according to my alumni album. And so am I also in there, but I’m listed as having got my creds in 1992.

    Three questions, and not one relevant to the question of POTUS eligibility.

    When did his name change from Soetoro back to Obama after he left Indonesia, since he was a citizan of Indonesia in order to go to school there? That was the law in Indonesia. There is no known record of the name change.

    So- keeping total: SIX questions in the post, and not one is relevant to the question of eligibilty. Not a single one.

    No, I’m not satisfied.

    No doubt, Detective.

  114. Do not give up yet, Robert. And it took him TWO WEEKS to come up with the document. WOW! I can come up with mine in less than two minutes. From 1943 in Illinois.
    Nothing has been proven unless it might be that PBO was born in Hawai’i. That’s it. And that does NOT prove that he is ineligible for office, because of his father’s nationality.
    By the law existing at the time, he took on the nationality of his father, Kenyan and/or British. Dual citizenship which is a disqualifier.
    Now, IF the item being shown is proved to be authentic, then it proves that he was born in Hawai’i. And that’s it. Other questions remain.
    How did he travel to Pakistan?
    How was he registered at Occidental College? American or other?
    How did he get to be the head of the Harvard Law Review without EVER publishing any comments? And by the way, yes he did get his JD in 1991 according to my alumni album. And so am I also in there, but I’m listed as having got my creds in 1992.
    When did his name change from Soetoro back to Obama after he left Indonesia, since he was a citizan of Indonesia in order to go to school there? That was the law in Indonesia. There is no known record of the name change.
    No, I’m not satisfied.

  115. I haven’t either, fredv, but I am still watching the goings on.
    I think the Donald is on a mission and I hope it works out well. PBO needs to cough up infor that he is withholding. Anything less than that is cowardess. And the money he has spent keeping records from his constituants?
    Something ain’t right.
    I’ll have to check my Harvard Alum books, but I know I’m in there. I’m not sure that PBO is.

  116. I haven’t posted here in a long time. I am curious as to how some of you feel regarding Donald Trump sending “investigators” to Hawaii to see what they could find (or couldn’t find) about Obama’s birth certificate. This site was a good source for finding links to other related stories that many of you posted before. Perhaps it is time to get this debate going again. I will check back in a few days.

  117. Um. Been awhile since the March 4 conference. Has WND reported the news?
    I know how bad news creates simply more co conspirators, but at the risk of setting off another paranoid Gene rant, I will simply point out that the Supreme Court AGAIN refused to hear the birther case. From a court that has enough solid conservative votes to hear the case today if they so desired.
    “Stunning” indeed.

  118. Just a milestone for Warren’s site that the birthers MUST ignore: this board opened in November 2008 with the story of a Don Quixote attack on Obama’s eligibility.
    Since then, how many times have birthers visited the page to tell us that things are “heating up.”
    That an investigation is “right around the corner?”
    That the next court case will be “the one” that has actual evidence.
    Who here remembers all the “Tick Tock, Tick Tock” foolishness?
    Over two years.
    And after the March 4 Supreme Court conference, we will have yet ANOTHER birther loss to add to the roles.
    All this, and there are enough solid conservatives on the Supreme Court to hear a case today if they so desired.
    0 and 100 is not a record to be proud of…

  119. Bill/Ann –
    Just as I suspected!!! It finally comes out!
    The Obamanites are using FAKE PEOPLE on web
    social networks, to make it look like there
    are more people supporting Obama then there
    actually are:
    http://slapblog.com/?p=9736
    I reiterate the point I made earlier about
    “Robert”. I have strong suspicions that he
    is not a single or ‘real’ person. Rather, he’s
    an Obamanite or ACORN plant. Therefore, the best
    thing to do is IGNORE HIM and act like he’s
    not there, NO MATTER WHAT “he” says.
    Gene

  120. Thank you for posting the article, Wild Bill.
    The article you quote is an excellent example of two things:
    1. The willingness of worldnetdaily.com to blatantly and completely mislead its readership; and
    2. The utter willingess of the worldnetdaiy.com readers to be mislead.
    To wit: This is NOT a “stunning” development as WND claims- it is absolutely positively Standard Operating Procedure from the Supreme Court.
    Whenever a petition to a specific USSC justice is denied by that justice and that petition is refiled (as is the case here) the case ALWAYS goes to conference. Reason? It keeps petitioners who have ZERO case from running to nine different justices for nine different denials. So: distribute for conference, deny petition. Case closed.
    This has happened more than once for the birthers- last time I recall, WND reported a “stunning break from precedent” when Clarence Thomas distributed a birther case for conference when one was refiled before him after being denied by another justice.
    Schedule by Thomas for Conference. Writ subsequently DENIED.
    As will be the case here.
    Sad that people will swallow the same tripe time and time again.
    Also: I find it funny that WND would go through the exercise of speculating on Scalia and four votes without explaining to its readers that TODAY- right now- this minute- if the four solid conservatives on the court (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia) believed a birther case had merit it could be scheduled on the court’s docket at their will. FOUR VOTES is ALL it takes to hear a case.
    Why doesnt WND share that fact?

  121. When I said ignorance of the “law”, I was referring to the Constitution, something the Democruds (as they recently demonstrated in the House) know nothing and care nothing about.

    If you are referring to the Charlie Rangle incident, yes, that was hilarious. As to their propensity to dis-regard the constitution and the will of the people, well, that speaks for itself. If you cannot serve the people, and abide by the constitution, do the right thing and come home.

  122. Ann, WHO, specifically, is “withholding the information?”

    Robert,
    Anyone who knows the circumstances of BHO’s birth and is not providing the authentic data to back it up.

  123. I really am heartened by Joseph Farah’s commentary, and I hope to God he is right (and he usually is, BTW) when he says a resolution to this controversy is “right around the corner”. And if that does indeed occur, the Obamanites, the Democruds, and the Media are going to owe REAL Americans a HUGE apology, with some sort of reparations, for all the incredible lies and disparaging comments they heaped for the past three years toward us “Birthers”, a label I now proudly wear.
    But no matter on that. So long as Barack Obama continues to refuse to produce any evidence that he was born in the USA, we will consider his “presidency” in violation of the law, and we will not let up on this noble fight.

  124. Oops, sorry. I may have spoken out of turn. We may not NEED to wait 21 months. Something’s up:

    Stunner! Supremes to give eligibility case another look
    Challenge to Obama getting 2nd conference before court
    In a stunning move, the U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled another “conference” on a legal challenge to Barack Obama’s eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, but officials there are not answering questions about whether two justices given their jobs by Obama will participate.
    The court has confirmed that it has distributed a petition for rehearing in the case brought by attorney John Hemenway on behalf of retired Col. Gregory Hollister and it will be the subject of a conference on March 4.
    It was in January that the court denied, without comment, a request for a hearing on the arguments. But the attorney at the time had submitted a motion for Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who were given their jobs by Obama, to recuse.
    Should Obama ultimately be shown to have been ineligible for the office, his actions, including his appointments, at least would be open to challenge and question.

    See:
    http://www.drudgereport.com
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=264897
    And here’s more good news:

    Eligibility resolution nears
    Posted: February 17, 2011, 1:00 am Eastern
    If anyone has a right to be frustrated and demoralized about the eligibility issue, it is me. For nearly three years, I have stuck my neck out on it, devoting massive news-gathering resources to unwrapping Barack Obama’s real-life narrative, endured abuse as a “conspiracy theorist” and “wacko” only to see my news organization still standing virtually alone. Ironically, I’m not discouraged at all about getting resolution to this controversy. In fact, I believe it is right around the corner.
    I can understand the reason for the discouragement of others. They’ve watched court case after court case dismissed. They’ve watched an officer and a gentleman by the name of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin go to prison for trying to get at the truth. They’ve witnessed their majority views of skepticism about Obama ridiculed and marginalized. They’ve seen a near blackout of media coverage of the real issues of constitutional eligibility. But what most people have not yet noticed is that judgment day is near.
    Nearly a year ago, I spelled out how this issue would be resolved no later than 2012. Today, I can honestly and enthusiastically say, “See, I told you so.” Back then, Americans were still just beginning to become aware of the many contradictions in Obama’s life narrative and the fact that there was no meaningful evidence of his constitutional eligibility. Today, at least 58 percent of Americans don’t believe his story – and want to see real proof. That is a crisis for Obama. That’s not a fact that will change should winds of economic recovery blow in his direction over the next two years. But there’s an even bigger crisis he’s facing in 2012 if he plans to stand for re-election. Again, as I predicted last year, states are approving strict eligibility tests to get on their ballots as presidential candidates. Back then, I was hopeful four or five states might make such moves, virtually ensuring no candidate of questionable eligibility could ever again run for the presidency, let alone assume office. My prediction, it turns out, was too conservative. So far, 11 states have introduced such legislation this year alone, with some of them sure to pass into law. So be of good cheer, all you crazy “birthers”! We’re winning. The system is correcting itself. The people are having their say. States are asserting their sovereign rights to conduct free and fair elections. It’s all good. And there really is resolution in sight.

    See:
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=264341
    We ARE winning, folks!!!!

  125. The poll surveyed 400 Republican primary voters nationwide from February 11th to 13th.

    Thanks for the correction, Gene. Republican primary voters are a far more conservative group in general.
    This is the same poll that I linked everyone to on February 15.

    How do they know it is “erroneous”?

    Easy. They see the same immutable fact that Speaker Boehner sees. The state of HI says he was born in HI… end of story.

    Nevertheless, that’s an astounding 72% of Republicans who either say they are NOT SURE their president is legitimate, or else outright believe he IS NOT legitimate

    .
    Aww, Gene. You were doing SO well. And now you fall off the Fact Wagon again. RIF, I suppose.

    I’m getting more and more confident that we WILL, with the help of God, defeat thisbastard at the polls in just 21 months. Hang in their, folks.

    Agreed.

  126. Here’s a direct link to the poll I cited above, folks:
    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_US_0215.pdf
    And here is the poll question I discussed:
    Q11 Do you think Barack Obama was born in the United States?
    Yes……….. 28%
    No ……….. 51%
    Not sure .. 21%
    The poll surveyed 400 Republican primary voters nationwide from February 11th to 13th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-4.9%. Unfortunately, the poll did not survey Independents and Democrats, or at least did not report data for those groups. I wish it had, as I suspect there are also high proportions of Independents and possibly even Democrats who question Obama’s eligibility. I think these pollsters know and fear that, as you can tell they themselves are somewhat biased, when the say a 51% majority of national GOP primary voters “erroneously” think Obama was not born here. How do they know it is “erroneous”? No one knows, for Obama refuses to prove it! That’s the whole point of this discussion!
    Nevertheless, that’s an astounding 72% of Republicans who either say they are NOT SURE their president is legitimate, or else outright believe he IS NOT legitimate. On the one hand, as I explained earlier, these figures are not surprising, given the fact that Oblahblah is clearly hiding something. Yet I’m also quite certain that there has never been such an incredible phenomenon within the United States before. We are therefore in “unchartered waters” so far as history is concerned. And given the disastrous performance of this “president” in so almost every respect (e.g., terrible economy, skyrocketing deficits, massive unemployment, unpopular and now unConstitutional socialized medicine, an Egyptian crisis, an Iranian crisis), I’m getting more and more confident that we WILL, with the help of God, defeat this illegal bastard at the polls in just 21 months. Hang in their, folks.

  127. I see Robert is excited because he thinks the so-called “birther” law has been suppressed in Arizona, probably through bribes and/or threats on some Republicans.

    Just like my neighbor’s six year old daughter- ALWAYS a laughable excuse.
    “The dog ate my homework.”

  128. A poll yesterday showed that an incredible 51% of Republicans now believe Oblahblah was born outside the US, and another 20% or so are not sure WHERE he was born. Thus, over 70% of Republicans (and I’ll bet many Independents and even some Democrats) either have doubts or else do not believe our “president” is legitimately serving in office.

    See what I mean? Gene can’t even read a simple poll and get the facts straight.
    Hint for you kids: the poll was NOT in fact of “Republicans,” and Gene mistakenly believes. It was of a considerably smaller group…

  129. I think Robert is losing the argument.

    LOL. I would dearly love to hear what you read in that poll that makes you make such a nonsensical remark.
    Tell me what you think the numbers say, Bill.

  130. Bill and Ann,
    I see Robert is excited because he thinks the so-called “birther” law has been suppressed in Arizona, probably through bribes and/or threats on some Republicans. Actually, it hasn’t (they still may be able to pass it), but it means nothing in any case. The irony is if Robert truly cared about Oblahlbah and the Democruds, he should be UPSET that such a law would be blocked. Let me explain.
    A poll yesterday showed that an incredible 51% of Republicans now believe Oblahblah was born outside the US, and another 20% or so are not sure WHERE he was born. Thus, over 70% of Republicans (and I’ll bet many Independents and even some Democrats) either have doubts or else do not believe our “president” is legitimately serving in office. That is an ASTOUNDING figure. At CPAC, several Republicans started making jokes about Obama’s failure to produce a birth certificate, so they are now using this issue AGAINST HIM in campaigning. That means we’ve already won on this question in terms of public sentiment. It means that NO MATTER WHAT this “president” does, most Republicans will not believe he did it legally.
    Now why do you suppose this figure is so high? Is it because of an incessant campaign by talk radio, FOX News, bloggers, or others raising questions about Obama’s birth? Not at all. It’s because Obama and the Democruds have been FIGHTING the American People with a legitimate question on this issue EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. And this is what people like Robert and the other Obamanites don’t get: The more they fight and suppress, the more convinced people become that Obama IS HIDING SOMETHING, and the more they come to believe he was NOT born here. Hence these incredible poll numbers.
    So each time something happens like what just occurred in Arizona, the Obamanites may win a battle, but they also come a step closer to losing the war. But hey, if that’s the way they want it, what can we do? All I can say is they will lose in the end, because the truth WILL emerge, sooner or later.
    Gene
    PS: Ann – When I said ignorance of the “law”, I was referring to the Constitution, something the Democruds (as they recently demonstrated in the House) know nothing and care nothing about.

  131. I’ll tell you this about PBo’s birth – it has not been confimed at a specific date or place, and, given his other names, who the heck knows? No doctor, no hospital, no nurse, no… Actually? No.

    Are any of the questions you list above relevant to eligibility? Acually? No.

  132. I think it is more the lack of, or withholding of, information regarding medical records, as you state, that is the most bothersome to me. I think even in the most austere of conditions, these facts are known.

    Ann, WHO, specifically, is “withholding the information?”
    I may even agree with your answer, by the by…

  133. I am sure there are many nuances to the requirement that one be a natural born citizen, so it could end up a moot point if pursued.

    Name one “nuance.”

    I do think it is against the law to cover up facts to government officials and I cannot help but think that is what is being done and perhaps BHO is complicit in that.

    Most certainly, that WOULD be a crime. So what evidence do you have that the State of HI officials are lying, including the Republican past governor of Hawaii and her appointees?
    Why would they lie?

  134. I’ll tell you this about PBo’s birth – it has not been confimed at a specific date or place, and, given his other names, who the heck knows? No doctor, no hospital, no nurse, no… Actually? No.

    I think it is more the lack of, or withholding of, information regarding medical records, as you state, that is the most bothersome to me. I think even in the most austere of conditions, these facts are known.

  135. Hey, Ann…
    I’ll tell you this about PBo’s birth – it has not been confimed at a specific date or place, and, given his other names, who the heck knows? No doctor, no hospital, no nurse, no… Actually? No.

  136. Robert,
    I am sure there are many nuances to the requirement that one be a natural born citizen, so it could end up a moot point if pursued. I do think it is against the law to cover up facts to government officials and I cannot help but think that is what is being done and perhaps BHO is complicit in that. Perhaps there is something new that I am unaware of – has his authentic birth certificate been produced and verified?

  137. Gene:
    No answer needed (of course) but thank you for providing your back up on MLK.
    In a strange sort of way, I agree with what you are saying but I think that when you call a man like that a “fraud” you miss the point that the facts (FACTS!) you accurately cite pale besides his contribution to the United States.
    It’s a little like calling Thomas Jefferson or George Washington “evil” because they owned slaves. In context it might be true, but it misses their larger character accomplishments.

  138. I completely agree.

    Interesting, Ann. To what “law” do you suppose Gene is referring?
    For the life of me, I can’t figure out what law he might be citing…and I KNOW he could never reason it out.
    So maybe you can?

  139. Well, never mind Arizona.
    The birther bill is gone, shot down in flames by a GOP controlled Senate committee that was assigned the bill. Three Republicans joined the two committee dems to soundly defeat the bill on a 5 to 2 vote.
    Treasonous devils.

  140. I doubt many people will buy that, but even if they did, it means little. If a 50-year old man is that naive that he doesn’t even know the circumstances of his birth, there’s no way he should be POTUS. Besides, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    I completely agree.

  141. I doubt many people will buy that, but even if they did, it means little. If a 50-year old man is that naive that he doesn’t even know the circumstances of his birth, there’s no way he should be POTUS. Besides, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

  142. Now where’s the damn birth certificate? Like I said, no lie can live forever

    If no authentic birth certificate is produced – and it begs the question why one hasn’t been, his excuse will probably be that he had nothing to do with the circumstances of his birth and only believed what people told him.

  143. Thanks, Bill, and I LOVE this quote:
    “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” – Barry Soetoro aka “president” Barrack Obama.
    Gee, Barry, I could not have said it better!!! Now where’s the damn birth certificate? Like I said, no lie can live forever.

  144. Bill –
    Well, you are absolutely right about this issue being
    alive and well:

    Poll: Majority of Republicans Doubt Obama’s Birthplace
    By Kyle Trygstad
    Roll Call Staff
    Feb. 15, 2011, 12:34 p.m.
    A slim majority of Republicans are still in disbelief that President Barack Obama, now in his third year in office, was born in the United States and therefore is legally eligible to be president, according to a poll by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling. (From The Roll Call, February 16th, 2011)

    There’s a new book coming out on the subject called “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”, by Dr. Jerome Corsi. It will be released in May (I just pre-ordered my copy). So contrary to what some people here might be saying, this issue not going away – it’s heating up!
    I cannot help but draw parallels between the Leftist media cover-up of the current sham of a “president” Barry Obama, and another high profile leftist darling of the 1960s with a questionable background, namely Martin Luther King.
    King was a known womanizer. His close associate Ralph Abernathy stated in his 1989 autobiography King had a “weakness for women”. Even President Lyndon Johnson once said that King was a “hypocritical preacher”. And King biographer David Garrow wrote about his having a number of extramarital affairs, including one with a woman King saw almost daily. King wrote off his numerous affairs as a form of “anxiety reduction”. But these facts were all downplayed by the Media.
    King was a plagiarist. In October of 1991, a Boston University Panel found unequivocal evidence that King plagiarized his dissertation by “appropriating material from sources not explicitly credited in notes, or mistakenly credited, or credited generally and at some distance in the text from a close paraphrase or verbatim quotation.” There is also evidence that King plagiarized orations as well, including parts of his “I Have a Dream” speech. Again, the media basically just yawned.
    But most significantly, King was allied with Communists. One of his most trusted advisers was NYC lawyer Stanley Levison, who was involved with the Communist Party USA. When they talked about instituting a “Martin Luther King Holiday” in the 1980s, a number of concerned Americans, including REAL President Ronald Reagan, pointed out these and other allegations, and opposed the holiday for that reason. But a United States district had ordered all known copies recorded audiotapes and written transcripts of King to be sealed from the public until 2027!!!! Consequently, Reagan was essentially forced into signing the holiday as law in 1983.
    Does all this sound familiar?

  145. Robert –
    Thanks.
    My reading of the time line of PBo puts his mother in Seattle about the time he was 15 days old. And how could that be? The records are clear on that.
    Then comes the SSN contorversy. Born in Hawai’i. Never been in Connecrticut? Hell, I ilved there, but my SSN says Oregon. Thats when I got my card and my first job.
    PBo needs to “fess up.”

  146. Well, folks, I knew it was only a matter of time before Robert the ACORN-plant would be calling me a bigot. That’s always the last, sure-fire tactic of the Left: “When all else fails, call them a racist”.

    Let’s not forget facts, Gene. You were the first one to pull the race card.
    Anywho: perhaps I am like many African Americans, and have a sensitive spot where MLK is concerned.
    So I tell you what: why don’t you tell me why you would call a gentleman who in fact “ushered in” civil rights for millions of americans a “fraud.”

    BTW, even if the question WAS racist, does that mean Obama was born in Hawaii? Of COURSE NOT!

    Agreed. The COLB is what means BHO was born in HI.

  147. Well, folks, I knew it was only a matter of time before Robert the ACORN-plant would be calling me a bigot. That’s always the last, sure-fire tactic of the Left: “When all else fails, call them a racist”. You can count on them doing that just like you can be sure the sun will come up tomorrow morning. So now we apparently are all racists for asking whether Barry Soetoro, who has not provided one iota of conclusive proof that he was really born in the USA, was in fact born in Hawaii. I guess Robert also thinks we are racists for putting any black or Hispanic criminals in jail. I guess in his mind, only whites are worthy of prison, and only whites need to show proof of birth to join Little League teams, get drivers licenses, or become President. Yeah, I guess I see how it’s supposed to work.
    BTW, even if the question WAS racist, does that mean Obama was born in Hawaii? Of COURSE NOT!
    Like I said before, people like Robert and his Lefty ACORN pals are no less than the Devil incarnate. There can be no negotiations, no compromise, and no communicating directly with them. These are lying, evil people, without any sense of justice, and with absolutely no dignity or integrity.
    Call your Congressman, and urge him to make Barry Soetoro’s long form birth certificate public once and for all.

  148. My speculation is that we are actually witnessing the end of ‘political correctness’, and the last gasp of the screaming anti-war generation, which was largely ushered in by another high-profile, Leftist-controlled fraud: Martin Luther King, a womanizing plagiarist who regularly associated with known communists.

    Well. I think I can see Gene’s REAL problem with Barack Obama.
    Are these really the types of people you want to hang your hat with, WildBill?

  149. Bill makes a great point. It doesn’t make much sense to say “The President of United States was born in the USA. He just refuses to prove it. And he’s probably committed identity theft. Nevertheless, he’s eligible for the office”.

    Your insensate Gene.
    Obama HAS proven he was born in the US.

  150. What did the article “prove,” WB? It just appeared to be a rehash of what we already know… state legislators have introduced bills. [yawn]
    Let me know when they pass and are signed into law… THEN you have something (until they are inevitably thrown out by the first court to review it).

  151. Great post, Bill. It most DEFINITELY proves your assertion that the issue is alive and well.
    And isn’t it amazing how not just Oblahblah, but Democruds in general are against upholding the law? In Texas, for instance, as this article notes, the bill will pass overwhelmingly in the House, but Democruds in the state Senate “would block the bill from getting the two-thirds majority it needs to pass”. And you watch, corrupt Democruds like ACORN-plant Robert will hold up that failure to pass the legislation as vindication, and some sort of “proof” that Obumma was born in Hawaii. Liberal logic for you.
    But it won’t work everywhere. They will get this passed in at least a few key states, and that will be enough to stop the bastard.

    Hope and change!

  152. Bill makes a great point. It doesn’t make much sense to say “The President of United States was born in the USA. He just refuses to prove it. And he’s probably committed identity theft. Nevertheless, he’s eligible for the office”. That makes about as much sense as saying Bill Clinton did not have sex with “that woman”.
    Strange times we are in. But it will not last. My speculation is that we are actually witnessing the end of ‘political correctness’, and the last gasp of the screaming anti-war generation, which was largely ushered in by another high-profile, Leftist-controlled fraud: Martin Luther King, a womanizing plagiarist who regularly associated with known communists. After we get rid of this sham of a “president” and retake the Senate, the perpetually infantile baby-boomers and their allies will no longer be a factor. Oh, we’ll still hear their whining voices from time to time, but they will fade away. It will be a new era, the true end of the asinine ‘Age of Aquarius’. And it will ALL be for the better.

  153. With regard to the CT SSN, if it wasn’t actually issued to PBo, then there is fraud and a violation of federal law

    I have no idea what you are talking about. If it wasnt issued to PBO (is “PBO” Obama?) it is a fraud? OK. How does that impact his eligibility to be President?

    I have no idea what you quoted.

    See my post of Feb 11, 8:16pm:
    (By the by: I will agree with the Republican Secretary of State of Arizona, who said that birther laws were ridiculous and would never stand up in court)

  154. Robert –
    With regard to the CT SSN, if it wasn’t actually issued to PBo, then there is fraud and a violation of federal law.
    And please explain this

    A year or two ago AZ tried to pass a so called birther law- wherein extra credentials are required beyond what HI had provided for Obama. The thing failed, and what I quoted above was what the AZ GOP secretary of state said about the measure.

    I have no idea what you quoted.

  155. The older I get, the more I’ve come to see that they are truly of the devil.

    Wow. What a thing to say about roughly 50% of our fellow citizens.
    And no doubt Gene would wrap himself in the flag tomorrow and claim to love the USA.

  156. Oh, and you keep asking me why I dont respond to things like the Conn. SSN, etc.
    Easy: it has nothing to do with his eligibility. Well, that AND it’s from Orly Taitz, which should be enough to give any person pause.
    So, tell me Obama is a liar, a cheat, a communist, a closet Muslim, and I may believe you. But he is WITHOUT DOUBT eligible to be POTUS.

  157. Have you not noticed that there are several states now concerned? Or that the billboards are continuing to grow? And even members of Congress who question are growing in numbers?

    What is “growing” about that, WB? State legislatures can get just about ANY bill put forward by about any loon backbencher… let me know when on is signed and passed into law.

    I will simply ignore your BTW, other than to ask: What “birther laws”? Please enlighten me and the others.

    A year or two ago AZ tried to pass a so called birther law- wherein extra credentials are required beyond what HI had provided for Obama. The thing failed, and what I quoted above was what the AZ GOP secretary of state said about the measure.
    As far as you MSNBC comment, I’m sorry I don’t blindly believe what WND, Obamacrimes.com and the rest spit out. But tell you what- let me know when serious conservative publications start doubthing: say Wall Street Journal, etc.

  158. Bill-
    Yes, I hear what you’re saying. And the irony is, Robert IS correct in some ways, in that chances are, the Social Security Number issue WILL go nowhere. But that’s not because there’s nothing there; I’m sure something IS there.
    Rather, it’s because the Democruds, the old media, and whoever else is behind this Obumma will once again manage to suppress the facts. What’s annoying about people like Robert, his ACORN pals, and liberals in general is they immediately tout that suppression as some sort of “proof” that Oblahblah was born in Hawaii. That’s like saying “I won’t let you out of the closet and see the weather. That means it’s not raining outside.”
    To put it bluntly, liberals are MASTERFUL liars. They’ve been doing it for decades, and it is very frustrating for decent, honest, straight-forward people like you and me to deal with them. The older I get, the more I’ve come to see that they are truly of the devil. That’s why it’s best not to even interact with them.
    But like Monica’s stained blue dress, the truth cannot be hidden forever. It WILL come out eventually, one way or another. Robert and his ilk know this, and that’s what gets to them. So sad having to live in constant lies like that. No wonder liberals are such pitiful, despicable people. And they wonder why REAL Americans hate them so much.
    Gene

  159. Tell you what, Gene,
    I’ve been rattling his cage for… a long time and won’t stop. He is from the “show me” state – or so he has said. I’m a midwest kid from the Land of Lincoln (but left there in 1950). Prefer the place I live on the west coast – Oregon.

  160. Bill –
    I have not seen any such quote from the Arizona Secretary of State myself. It could be true, but I don’t know. But no matter. That’s just on opinion in any case.
    Nevertheless, you should take my advice, and ignore Robert altogether, NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS. He’s not worth the time.
    Gene

  161. Robert –
    Have you not noticed that there are several states now concerned? Or that the billboards are continuing to grow? And even members of Congress who question are growing in numbers?
    If you haven’t, please stop listening to MSNBC and find some additional sources of news.
    I will simply ignore your BTW, other than to ask: What “birther laws”? Please enlighten me and the others.

  162. “Grown” WB? By what standard?
    My prediction stands.
    (By the by: I will agree with the Republican Secretary of State of Arizona, who said that birther laws were ridiculous and would never stand up in court)

  163. Robert –
    It has continued to grow regardless of what you predicted. And with about eleven states, if memory serves me correctly, prepared to enact state law which will REQUIRE that any person running for POTUS produce an original BIRTH CERTIFICATE, one signed by the attending physician or other competent witness, what do you think PBo will do?
    The fat lady hasn’t sung yet.

  164. Like a snowball rolling down a hill, it’s getting bigger, folks:

    Prediction: six months from now, the snowball will be not one whit larger than it is today, and WND will still be flogging the horse.
    August 10, 2011. Make a note of it.
    I will be proven correct. Again.

  165. PS: In checking through this site, I notice Robert has nothing at all to say about this issue. I think you’ve given him another big headache in trying to talk around this one as well. LOL!

    So you DO care about what I say, you just have no answer!
    Thank, Gene. Gives me a warm feeling inside…

  166. Bill –
    No! I DIDN’T see this! Thanks for sharing it. And while I’ve heard bits and pieces about this issue, I never looked at it very closely until now. So this is yet another piece of evidence demonstrating how this sham of a “president”, who has all the dignity of a new car salesman, is probably nothing of what he says he is. When you put all these things together, it is absolutely incredible as to what is going on today.
    Gene
    PS: In checking through this site, I notice Robert has nothing at all to say about this issue. I think you’ve given him another big headache in trying to talk around this one as well. LOL!

  167. Like a snowball rolling down a hill, it’s getting bigger, folks:

    The push at the state level to ensure no future president enters office under the cloud of suspicion that he or she might not be constitutionally eligible is growing.
    At the request of alocaltea-party group, Tennessee state Sen. Mae Beavers has filed a bill that would require presidential candidates toshowan original birth certificate establishing constitutional eligibility for the office before getting on the ballot beginning in 2012.
    Beavers told a local television station she said she wouldn’t comment about whether or not she believes Obama meets the test because she has no personal knowledge about whether or not he can prove it. She said, however, this legislation would erase all concerns in future elections.
    “We just want to make doubly sure in Tennessee if we put someone on the ballot, they are qualified to run,” said Beavers.
    That makes 11 state legislatures now considering such bills – with several of them well on the way to passage.

    Like I said before, THIS is the way to go. Even if one actually believes Barry Soetoro was born in Hawaii, how could anyone in good conscience be against such laws?
    If the Obamanites can’t surmount this one, I would not be surprised if Obama chose not to run again.

  168. “We have not exaggerated in presenting the question of the constitutional rule of law being at stake in this matter. A man has successfully run for the office of president and has done so, it appears, with an awareness that he is not eligible under the constitutional requirement for a person to be president…Despite a vigorous campaign that he has conducted to make ‘unthinkable’ the very idea of raising the issue of his eligibility under the Constitution to ‘be’ president the issue has not gone away.” – Attorney John D. Hemenway, representing retired Col. Gregory Hollister, to the Supreme Court, in a case charging that “president” Barry Obama is not eligible under the Constitution to occupy the Oval Office.
    Read more at:
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=261393

  169. Well- at least we agree (well, except Gene) that the COLB is authentic.
    So we are left with HI state officials who lied when they said the information on the COLB is correct- officials including the Republican governor of the state.

  170. What hospital needs to confirm anything, WB?
    The State of HI already did that. WND said that the information on the COLB is wrong, and HI – just a couple of weeks later- stepped in and said that the information is correct. And you know which of the two – WND or HI – had access to the records.

    And that would not comprimise the law. At least as far as I can tell.

    I know it would where I live, but I have no idea as far as HI goes. HIPPA (is that the acronym?) laws are extremely strict.

  171. Oh, Robert. The COLB is probably authentic. So what? It is not proof. And since Abercrombie can’t get a hospital to confirm…
    Well? And that would not comprimise the law. At least as far as I can tell. Still no hospital putting up a placard or sign that says “The President of the United States, President Obama, was born here.”
    And so far…

  172. Here you go, WB, from Farah:
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=104163
    Yes, it is true that I do not believe that document to be a forgery and WND has reported that. But that “certification of live birth” proves nothing about Obama’s eligibility, because it was issued for births that took place outside the country.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=104163#ixzz1CUSQRkGE
    He simply believes that the information on it is wrong.
    Note to, that Farah goes on to say that the HI state officials never clearly said Obama was born in HI. Unfortunately, the WND “open letter” is written just a few weeks before the HI official mader her second statement where she DID clearly say that Obama was born in Hawaii.

  173. Sorry to repost like this, but for those who like Worldnetdaily.com, it is important to point out that EVEN WND believes the COLB is not (NOT) a forgery.
    Thanks- carry on.

  174. I know you like to igmore me, Gene, and that is fine… the ONLY way the birthers win is by ignoring the counter argument.
    But please don’t think your ignoring me will stop me from pointing out your dishonesty and inaccuracies.
    To wit: I agree with you on the credibility of The Daily Kos- it is no better (but no worse) than Worldnetdaily.
    Problem for you is that the basic facts of the COLB have been verified by state officials in Hawaii. That’s where your argument against the COLB falls to dust.
    And yes, Gene. You MUST ignore that, because you can under no circumstances face it.
    Thanks!

  175. Lawrence –
    Please take my advice, and do NOT respond to Robert’s request. I believe he’s an ACORN plant. Don’t swallow his bait. You see how he’s constantly throwing out put-downs? For instance, consider his asinine insinuation that World Net Daily is not a credible source. According to him, we are supposed to accept a redacted Certificate of Live Birth posted by the DAILY KOS, a site that is about as serious as the Marx Brothers, and at the same time, he has the damn nerve to tell you that WND is not credible? Yeah, RIGHT! Also don’t be fooled by his apologies and gestures toward conciliation, as they mean nothing as well.
    Please just ignore him, NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS. Eventually, he’ll get the message that we are no longer interested in conversing with him. He is not worth the wear and tear on your keyboard. No Obamanite is.
    Gene

  176. Thanks, Lawrence!
    Wrong is wrong is WRONG. She said “original birth certificate.” I was only thinking of the “vital records” statement, so you are correct.
    But I will ask again on Abercrombie: do you have a statement from him saying they can’t find it? What is the Evans story?
    CREDIBLE link please- i.e., no worldnetdaily, etc.
    And, to repeat, you were correct and I was wrong.

  177. I don’t have the foggiest idea, but since Barry and momma showed up in Seattle fifteen days after his supposed birth in August, and she had to fly there, January makes a lot of sense.
    What I see is this just getting bigger until it finally does break.

  178. No surprise to me on Evans. They got to him either with bribes, threats, or both. The Democruds with their union thuggery tactics are masters at that. I’m learning that we cannot rely on any person or persons to bring about justice on this matter, as there are just too many ways the Democruds can get to them. But this avenue of the states require a birth certificate is far more effective, as well as long-lasting.
    But that’s interesting about the Bay of Pigs comment he made. He definitely slipped up. Does that Kenyan birth certificate say he was born in January?

  179. I find it interesting that now Evans has recanted his story about Abercrombie saying that there is no birth certificate. I wonder how that came about? With so many changes so often, there has to be somethiing not right.
    The other one that I found interesting was Obama saying that The Bay of Pigs incident happened when he was three months old, which, if true, means that he was born in January which could explain a bunch of stuff.

  180. The following states are looking to require candidates to produce a birth
    certificate: Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Missouri,
    Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Obama won four
    of them in 2008: Connecticut, Indiana, Maine, and Pennsylvania. While
    that in itself would not have been enough to tip the election, it definitely
    is a problem for the Obamanites, no question about it. Besides, how would
    it look to have a president in office that didn’t even qualify for the ballot in
    20% of the states?
    Want to get reelected, Oblahblah? SHOW US YOUR PAPERS!!!!
    I LOVE it!!!
    THANK GOD we won so many state representative seats in the
    2010 election. It’s a new day, folks!

  181. Ok Robert, here you go:
    On Oct. 31, 2008, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii Department of Health, issued this statement: “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
    On July 28, 2009 Dr. Fukino made this statement: “Therefore I, as director of health for the state of Hawaii, along with the registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
    “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….”
    Reporter Mike Evans claims that he was told by Governor Abercrombie’s Office that a search had been made of Vital Records and no Birth Certificate for President Obama could be located. The office also stated that Honolulu’s two hospitals said they didn’t have the birth certificate.

  182. Bill –
    Here’s another one:
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=255489
    Serves you right, illegal “president” Obama, for messing with the State
    of Arizona, which wanted to stem the tide of your precious illegal aliens
    streaming into this country. Hopefully, this will increase pressure on the
    Clintonistas to call for the birth certificate. They’d better, as their party is
    crumbling before their eyes.
    Like I said before, no lie can live forever. One way or another, we
    will get to the truth on this matter.
    Gene

  183. Bill –
    Did you see this? This is great!
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=255965
    It just goes to show, if there’s a will, there’s a way! If we can’t get to
    the bastard one way, we’ll find another. These 10 states control 107
    electoral votes. There’s no way the Democruds can ignore them.
    And the request is a simple, as well as reasonable one. What is
    King Shit going to do? File 10 suits to say he doesn’t need to prove he
    was born in the USA? If that doesn’t prove he’s hiding something, what
    does? With all the renewed attention on this issue due to the
    bone-headed Governor of Hawaii’s blunder, any such legal actions will
    only intensify the public’s doubts that Oblahblah was born in the USA,
    thereby making it a de facto campaign issue. LOL! I LOVE this!
    Gene

    “When Br’er Rabbit can’t get through one way, he change
    his way. And by and by, he get where he wanna be.”

  184. Actually, Gene, strike what I said about a ceremony before a federal judge.
    But do you have any evidence of Obama becoming a naturalized US citizen by completing the (shortened) naturalization process that would have been required had he been born overseas to a US citizen parent?
    Also: what do you propose as the reasons the HI state officials (including the Republican governor of the state) were willing to lie about Obama’s birth?

  185. OK, Gene. So you believe that Obama is a US citizen but was born in Kenya.
    So- just to make sure we are on the same page- how did Obama BECOME a US citizen, if he wasn’t, in fact, born on US soil?
    Your grandfather went through a naturalization process- so where and when did Obama go through his naturalization process? Where and when did Obama become a US citizen?
    And how, pray tell, is this entire naturalization process (including a large group swearing ceremony by a federal judge) being kept secret?
    Better yet, Gene: ignore the question and call me an Acorn plant. You will only make yourself look silly attempting to back up your ludicruous assertion…

  186. Republican Representative Eric Cantor recently stated that Obama is a U.S. citizen. The Obamanites are having a wet dream over this, but I haven’t the foggiest notion why. To set the record straight, I ALSO BELIEVE OBAMA IS A U.S. CITIZEN. But that is NOT the issue. The issue is WHERE Barry Soetoro was born.
    In fact, my grandfather was a U.S. citizen as well. But my grandfather was born in Europe, not the United States, and thus neither my grandfather nor Barrack Obama, who we now know was born in Kenya, were or are legally able to serve as President of the United States. Barrack Obama is in office illegally. Soon (I hope) the American public will wake up from their 2-year coma and demand that this terrible injustice be corrected.

  187. He figures that if we make a concerted effort to elect a black person president (even if he is not eligible), that will prove to the whole world that America doesn’t consider race in anything it does.

    Is this your final conspiracy theory about me, Gene? I just want to be sure you aren’t sticking by your old theory that I’m a “victim of white guilt.”
    Keep me posted, Gene. I enjoy it!

  188. Hmmm, first the Hawaii Officials say they have the birth certificate and have seen it themselves. Then a new Governor comes into office and promises to prove once and for all that Robert is right and the Governor can not FIND the birth certificate at all. Very interesting, but fishy. Could it be that all the crazy “birthers” were right after all? What do you think Robert?

    Got to get your facts out there, Larry. Don’t say “birth certificate” if that’s not what the HI state officials said… they said they had seen and verified the “vital records.”
    So when did Abercrombie say they couldnt find those vital records? Can you point me to that, Lawrence?
    I’ll wait here!

  189. Robert doesn’t “think” anything. Robert – and he actually may
    be more than one person – is an Obamanite ACORN plant,
    defending Obama for no other reason than because he’s
    black. He figures that if we make a concerted effort
    to elect a black person president (even if he is not
    eligible), that will prove to the whole world that America
    doesn’t consider race in anything it does. Yeah, go figure.
    So don’t waste your time with him. He’ll just harp on one
    small detail of what you said and distort it, or blow it
    out of proportion. The best thing to do is act like he doesn’t
    exist (and soon ACORN won’t).

  190. Hmmm, first the Hawaii Officials say they have the birth certificate and have seen it themselves. Then a new Governor comes into office and promises to prove once and for all that Robert is right and the Governor can not FIND the birth certificate at all. Very interesting, but fishy. Could it be that all the crazy “birthers” were right after all? What do you think Robert?

  191. Bill –
    I can’t seem to find much linking this Neil Abercrombie
    to the Clintons. In fact, in the 2008 election, he supported
    Oblahblah. So perhaps I was wrong about him being a
    Clintonista. Rather, he’s just quite stupid – an overaged
    hippie moron with a big dumb mouth.
    Well, I guess that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt
    that Obama was born in Hawaii. I mean, what other conclusion
    can one draw?
    Gene

  192. The far more plausible scenario is this governor, who was in Congress during the 90s, is in all likelihood a Clintonista, and is operating under Hillary instructions. Obama knew all this from the beginning. That’s why he went to Hawaii over Christmas, to offer deals to the governor to keep his trap shut, but none were attractive enough. The governor then let the cat out of the bag in a seemingly innocent way, so as to not offend any of his supporters who like Obama, while at the same time carrying out the Hillary plan to destroy him. Hence the outcome we have now.

    LMAO. Truly: it DOES take a wild conspiracy theory like the tale Gene spins to be a birther.
    At what point was Abercrombie visited by the reanimated corpse of Vince Foster, Gene? I bet THAT would keep him quiet!
    Thanks for the laugh, though… is it OK if I share it around the Acorn office this morning? Eric Cantor is going to be in a bit later for a secret meeting, and he will get a real kick out of it!

  193. Thanks, Bill. And here now is a lot more fuel for this fire:
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=254401
    Well, it’s all really heating up now, thanks to this boneheaded governor. But the guy is not nearly as innocent as he pretends. He damn well knows, like everyone else with half a brain (and that includes this ACORN plant Robert), that Oblahblah was NOT born in Hawaii. Once again, for the 1000th time, our alleged “president” could clear all this up in two minutes by signing the release form for the birth certificate and paying perhaps a mere $25 fee. WHY DOESN’T HE DO SO?
    The far more plausible scenario is this governor, who was in Congress during the 90s, is in all likelihood a Clintonista, and is operating under Hillary instructions. Obama knew all this from the beginning. That’s why he went to Hawaii over Christmas, to offer deals to the governor to keep his trap shut, but none were attractive enough. The governor then let the cat out of the bag in a seemingly innocent way, so as to not offend any of his supporters who like Obama, while at the same time carrying out the Hillary plan to destroy him. Hence the outcome we have now.
    The trouble is, the Republicans will never do anything about this on their own. For one thing, they WANT Obama there now -just look at how many GOP votes he brings in! But also, the media will once again pillory the GOP like they did during the Monica Lewinsky days, and who wants that? So there’s no incentive at all for the GOP to demand the truth. If anything, it will come from the Hillary people, who of course, will blame the GOP and Tea Party for everything. Or, the Media itself will finally come to view this as a story worth pursuing, and may start demanding it themselves. One way or another, and sooner or later, the truth will come out. As the saying goes, “No lie can live forever.”

  194. WASHINGTON (AP) – The new Republican House majority leader says he doesn’t think questions about President Barack Obama’s citizenship should play a role in the discussion of policy matters…House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says he believes Obama is a citizen and that most Americans are beyond that question.
    “I don’t think it’s an issue that we need to address at all. It is not an issue that even needs to be on the policy-making table right now whatsoever,” he said.
    Appearing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cantor refused to call people who question Obama’s citizenship “crazy.”

    The irony of all this is, I AGREE with the Representative. We ARE beyond the question of Obama’s citizenship. I believe “president” Oblahblah IS a citizen! The Congressman is being cute. He’s using a diversionary tactic. Obama’s citizenship is NOT the issue. There are MANY US citizens who were born outside the country. Cantor’s merely saving face for later on when it is finally confirmed that US citizen Oblahblah was not born in the US. Cantor can later rightly claim that he never stated that Obama was born in the USA.
    The issue is Obama’s birthplace, which has now been well-demonstrated to be in Africa, and that makes him ineligible to be president. The Governor of Hawaii has indirectly confirmed this. Case closed.

  195. It just gets better and better:

    Pressure was mounting on Hawaii Governor Neil Abercrombie today amid increasing confusion over whether President Obama was born there.
    Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961.
    He told Honolulu’s Star-Advertiser: ‘It actually exists in the archives, written down,’ he said.
    But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.
    And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

    From the following:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348916/Hawaii-governor-says-Obamas-birth-record-exists-produce-it.html

  196. So it turns out now that the moronic Governor of Hawaii cannot seem to find Obama’s long form birth certificate:
    http://visiontoamerica.org/story/hawaii-governor-cant-find-obama-birth-certificate.html
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=252833
    Uh, huh. Why are we not surprised?
    I’m curious – does anyone know much about this jerk Abercrombie? Is he a Clintonista? If yes, that would explain a lot.
    (Sigh!) I guess I should to start the countdown for Robert the Obamanite to start jumping up and down like a lunatic. Can’t ACORN find something else for that lifelong loser to do? Oh, well. Ready, set, go: 10,9,8,7…

  197. Ouch. According to what Speaker Boehner said today, birthers wont be getting any sort of satisfaction from the HoR.
    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Concentrate on America’s business!

  198. Meanwhile, back in reality:
    As I have heard nothing, it appears that superior officers have NOT reduced or commuted Mr. Lakin’s sentence.
    Good thing; it would have been a slap in the face of Major Dobson’s sacrifice to do anything at all for Terry.

  199. Notice how Chris admits that this is still an “issue”. At 1:18, he holds up a LONG FORM birth certificate, and compares it to a COLB. That’s not quite the way he was talking last year to Gordon Liddy about this subject:

    LOL, you either didnt watch the video or you didnt pay attention.. Matthews states quite clearly what he thinks of the birthers.

    The actual figure is probably more like 40%.

    Gene The Pollster!! Hilarious, kid!

  200. 2011: LET THE REAL FIREWORKS BEGIN!!!
    As I predicted, this issue is now really starting to heat up, now that the House will be in GOP hands. There will be subpoenas flying around all over the place against the worst “president” and Administration in US History, though none of them will pertain to the obvious fact that he’s hiding something with regard to his past. And yet, the Democruds smell blood, and because of that, the Hillary people will be leading the charge to get illegal “president” Obama out of office by pointing out the likely fact that he was born outside the USA.
    In response to this, the Governor of Hawaii, Democrat Neil Abercrombie, has decided to get into the act:
    http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13739513
    Notice how the article says: “So now Governor Abercrombie wants to do something to dispute claims the president’s parents somehow lied about their son’s birth place…Exactly how Abercrombie will be able to produce additional evidence is still unclear.”
    Still unclear?!? What the HELL are these people talking about???? It is CRYSTAL CLEAR!!! Just provide the long form birth certificate! See? Simple! And clear as a bell! No complications.
    But will they do that? Never!!! We get assurances. We get evasions. We get ridicule. We get tears. We get accusations. We get redacted COLBs. We get newspaper clippings. We get unofficial “testimonials” from government officials. We get everything, EVERYTHING, EXCEPT what we ask for.
    You want to end this controversy, Governor? JUST PRODUCE THE GODDAMN BIRTH LONG FORM CERTIFICATE!!! Like we’ve asked about 3 million times now!!! Get it, Neil, you super moron?
    AMAZINGLY, even a total jerk like Chris Matthews now sees the light:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baH0fi2oVHs
    Notice how Chris admits that this is still an “issue”. At 1:18, he holds up a LONG FORM birth certificate, and compares it to a COLB. That’s not quite the way he was talking last year to Gordon Liddy about this subject:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6ilvPTW3lE
    As Matthews points out, even the NY Slimes “poll” (which, of course, is biased junk) shows only 58% of the public believes the lie that Obama was born in the USA. The actual figure is probably more like 40%. So that means that half the country now doubts the “president” was born here in the USA. It took Chris a year to parrot EXACTLY what Lou Dodds said (as well as what I am saying):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc3hmcnw-K4
    The truth will come out yet, folks. Get set for some real drama. This is going to make the “Monica’s stained dress” revelation look boring.

  201. “Even you,” huh?
    LOL. Same back to you, Larry. Politics is all fun, but it pales besides family and friends.

  202. We can still campaign on behalf of Lt. Col. Lakin. It isn’t over yet. And the General who oversees this can still change any and all of the proceedings. His determination is supposed to happen Wednesday. And even if it goes against the Lt. Col., the fight can go on.

    All true.
    My recommendation is that you support Lakin in the manner suggested by his attorney (the gentleman hired by Mr. Lakin): money or a job, as he is going to need it given the fact that he has thrown away his military pension and very possibly his medical license.
    You can write letters to the general as well, of course. But that won’t put food on his family’s table.

  203. Once again please take my advice and do not waste your words on Robert.

    Good advice, Gene. Certainly, the only way ANY of these arguments work is when there is no one around to argue the point and refute what you are saying.
    Cuz- well, you know what happens when these arguments go to courts. 0 for 90?

    I think he’s an ACORN-funded Obamanite plant whose sole function is the scan all chat rooms and try to demoralize REAL Americans on issues like this one.

    OK- as that is the second time you have made that accusation, can I safely assume you are retreating from your earlier assertion that I am in fact a Victim of White Guilt?
    Good enough. Let it state for the record that I am An Acorn Plant until such time as Gene decides to make up some other wild accusation about me…

  204. Ok, I know that you have a firm point of view on the question of Obama’s eligibility but how can you ignore the fact that Lt. Colonel Lakin was deprived of any opportunity to present a defense? That just leaves me amazed!

    Why amazed? Lakin was never “deprived of any defense.” He was deprived of an attempt at discovery that was irrelevant to his Court Martial. Remember- the orders Lakin refused were the orders of his superior officers. As Lakin clearly admitted, the orders he refused to follow had nothing to do with Obama and his eligibility… they were the orders of his superior officers, whose authority exists independant of the President and no matter who is president.

    I believe that Obama is not eligible, regardless of where he was born, because his biological father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth.

    I know- and that is a valid well supportable point of view. Unfortunately, standing Supreme Court Law (as we have been over, Perkins and Wong) clearly and unequivocally disagree with that point of view.

    Naturally he took what steps he could to minimize the consequences to himself and his family.

    So you are saying this great patriot lied? Which time? In the youtube video when he said he had constitutional questions, or on the stand, when he admitted he was wrong?
    Or are you saying he did NOT lie and now simply sees that his position that there was a constitutional question involved was incorrect?

    His “admission” was clearly part of a plea deal to reduce his sentence.

    There was no plea deal. He plead guilty to some charges without a deal, and was found guilty on the other charge.

    You question the Lt. Colonel’s patriotism but he earned the following awards and decorations during the course of his military career:

    Granted. Thank you. But he won’t be remembered for any of that- his service ended as a convicted felon and in a less than honorable separation.
    Should we agree with his attorney that Mr. Lakin was “naive?”

    It is not a matter of a conspiracy Robert, it is a matter of deprivation of the most basic rights guaranteed by the constitution to all Americans. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have allowed your blinders, on your beloved “birther” issue, to make you miss an assault on our liberty . . . If they can do it to Lt. Colonel Lakin, then they can do it to any of us.

    Exactly incorrect. It is a matter of a soldier not following the orders of his superior officers. Nothing more. Just a guy who didnt do his duty. And for that, he must accept the consequences.
    Proof? Lakin now sits in prison.
    (And please don’t try to claim its not a conspiracy- for what you suggest to be true to be in fact true- it MUST be a conspiracy)

  205. Larry and Gene –
    We can still campaign on behalf of Lt. Col. Lakin. It isn’t over yet. And the General who oversees this can still change any and all of the proceedings. His determination is supposed to happen Wednesday. And even if it goes against the Lt. Col., the fight can go on.
    Meyy Christmas and a Happy New Year (in case I don’t chime in again before then).
    Wild Bill

  206. Robert:
    Ok, I know that you have a firm point of view on the question of Obama’s eligibility but how can you ignore the fact that Lt. Colonel Lakin was deprived of any opportunity to present a defense? That just leaves me amazed!
    I would like to remind you that I am not a “birther”, you like to use that name but it does not apply to me and many others who question Obama’s eligibility. I believe that Obama is not eligible, regardless of where he was born, because his biological father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. It would be interesting to find out if Obama was really born in Hawaii, as is claimed, but that is really not relevant to the issue.
    Once the Military Tribunal prevented any kind of defense Lakin’s fate was essentially sealed. Naturally he took what steps he could to minimize the consequences to himself and his family. His “admission” was clearly part of a plea deal to reduce his sentence.
    You question the Lt. Colonel’s patriotism but he earned the following awards and decorations during the course of his military career:
    The Army Flight Surgeon Badge, Combat Medical Badge, the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal with three Oak Leaf Clusters, the Army Achievement Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, the Armed Forces Expedition Medal, the Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon sixth award and the NATO service medal.
    He has also served previously in Honduras, Bosnia, Korea, and Afghanistan.
    It is not a matter of a conspiracy Robert, it is a matter of deprivation of the most basic rights guaranteed by the constitution to all Americans. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have allowed your blinders, on your beloved “birther” issue, to make you miss an assault on our liberty . . . If they can do it to Lt. Colonel Lakin, then they can do it to any of us.
    Larry

  207. Larry –
    Once again please take my advice and do not waste your words on Robert. As I stated before, I think he’s an ACORN-funded Obamanite plant whose sole function is the scan all chat rooms and try to demoralize REAL Americans on issues like this one. Obviously your arguments are very reasonable but Robert (and he may actually be more than one individual) does not seek to be a reasonable person. He will say anything just to counter you, and will not in any way be rational. He is not worth anyone’s time. Treat him as you would treat any other non-entity – in other words, act like he’s not even here. That’s all he’s worth, anyway.
    Gene

  208. Two additional notes:
    1. Major Dobson was the officer who was deployed to Afghanistan while Lakin sat at home, refusing to fulfill his duty. Maj. Dobson had recently returned from Afghanistan, AS HAD HIS WIFE. Lakin’s cowardly actions forced Dobson to return to Afghanistan early, instead of having the time he deserved with his wife.
    So you guys laud Lakin, I will honor Major Dobson as the “true American” in this sorry tale.
    2. This is from the prosecutor’s closing argument… he quoted a speech from Douglas MacArthur. “Duty, honor, country:”
    “It is to win our wars. Everything else in your professional career is but corollary to this vital dedication. All other public purpose, all other public projects, all other public needs, great or small, will find others for their accomplishments; but you are the ones who are trained to fight.
    Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.
    Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men’s minds. But serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the Nation’s war guardians, as its lifeguards from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiators in the arena of battle. For a century and a half you have defended, guarded and protected its hallowed traditions of liberty and freedom, of right and justice.
    Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government. Whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be.
    These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a tenfold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country.”

    Were the general to give this speech today, my guess is the birthers would want him up on charges of treason.

  209. It is impossible for me to understand your glee at the result in the Lakin case. As an American, assuming you are one, you should be as outraged as I am at the unconstitutional conduct of the Judge and this “court”.

    When does your position become obviously untenable to you, Larry? How are ALL THESE PEOPLE wrong, and internet birthers correct? Now Col. Lind and three (I believe) US Army officers on the court martial panel conspired to deny Lakin a “fair” trial? Was the senior officer whose orders Lakin disobeyed in on this game?
    Are all these people not the “true americans” you refer to later in your post?
    Clearly, the military judge and court ruled correctly: the discovery Lakin demanded was indeed irrelevant to the trial- the orders Lakin disobeyed were the orders of those officers in his chain of command. Those officers had authority that Lakin disobeyed.
    Don’t believe me? Believe Lakin. At his trial, he admitted that what he did was wrong, that his superiors had an authority over him independant of the commander in chief.
    The orders Lakin disobeyed were not Obama’s orders. They were the orders of his superior officer.

    I for one will do whatever I can, write, make calls, send emails and talk to my fellow citizens in order to get this outrage overturned and see to it that Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin, not Mr. Lakin as you referred to him in your post, gets the fair trial that the Constitution guarantees to us all! I hope that all true Americans will do the same.

    How about we call him “convicted felon, DR. Lakin?” At least if and until his medical license is stripped from him…

  210. PS: Once again, please do not interact directly with Robert. He’s
    probably an ACORN-funded Obamanite plant. They pay them to influtrate
    chat rooms all day long. The best thing to do is just ignore them. We’ll
    get them all in 2013.

    So no more wild accusations that I am a victim of “white guilt?”
    LOL- thanks Gene!!!
    Larry: no time to read your comments in full now- suffice it to say, I disagree and will comment later. Thanks.

  211. Robert:
    It is impossible for me to understand your glee at the result in the Lakin case. As an American, assuming you are one, you should be as outraged as I am at the unconstitutional conduct of the Judge and this “court”.
    Even the most vile killers are given the right to a FAIR trial in America. In the Lakin case the defense was denied the ability to do discovery, and to call and question witnesses. In essence Lakin was denied the ability to present a defense.
    Such an action violates not only our sense of justice and jurisprudence but it dishonors all of the brave men and women who have served, and are serving in our Armed Forces. Their gift of blood, life and limb is thrown into the gutter by the rulings of this Judge.
    I find this to be more of a threat to the freedom we enjoy in America than the fact that Obama might not legally be our President. If a citizen, and in this case a dedicated veteran of our Armed Forces, can be deprived of the ability to defend themselves in a court of law then close the book on freedom in this country.
    I for one will do whatever I can, write, make calls, send emails and talk to my fellow citizens in order to get this outrage overturned and see to it that Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin, not Mr. Lakin as you referred to him in your post, gets the fair trial that the Constitution guarantees to us all! I hope that all true Americans will do the same.

  212. Bill –
    Don’t you just love how the Obamanites not only applaud the suppression
    of the facts as a victory, but also regard it as some sort of “proof” that
    our illegal ‘president’ was born in the USA? Amazing!
    Gene
    PS: Once again, please do not interact directly with Robert. He’s
    probably an ACORN-funded Obamanite plant. They pay them to influtrate
    chat rooms all day long. The best thing to do is just ignore them. We’ll
    get them all in 2013.

  213. In other words, about nothing.
    Did you see Lakin’s comments at his Court Martial? Now he admits that he was wrong, and that his orders from his superiors were legal.
    Duh.
    I wonder what he will do if he loses his medical license?

  214. Mr. Lakin was sentenced today- confinement, loss of rank, discharge.
    I know the Maddox was involved in the Gulf of Tonkin, but no more than that WB. I will look into it.
    While I do, I can only wonder what it has to do with Obama…

  215. Thank you, Robert.
    And from one who has been denied about the USS Maddox on August 2, 1964, and who was there, put on my shoes, and then walk a mile.

  216. I apologize in advance if I am hurting anyone’s feelings, but many here WERE interested and supportive of LTC Lakin.
    It appears that today LTC Lakin admitted to the world that the orders he refused to follow were LAWFUL ORDERS.
    http://www.caaflog.com/
    As the website I link to is not something I have sourced before, I am open to anyone’s dispute of the new FACTS.

  217. Well, that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. In mean, how in the world could anyone have thought otherwise? Silly us!

    In a nutshell, Gene is correct.

  218. Yes, of course Gene. That is what it ALWAYS comes down to, isn’t it?
    The Great Big Massive Government Conspiracy To Keep Us From The Truth.
    Even the USSC is in on it… no, no, of course that doesn’t sound far fetched in the least. LOL.
    On the upside: you are correct on 2012. About the only person that can derail an Obama one term and out is Sarah Palin.

  219. Ah, yes! A court once again all stifled discussion, blocked all attempts to learn the facts, and did its utmost to prevent the truth from being revealed. Well, that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii. In mean, how in the world could anyone have thought otherwise? Silly us!
    No lie can live forever. The truth will come out sooner or later.
    But I was wrong about one thing: I now doubt that the GOP will pursue the birth certificate issue, but not because everyone all of a sudden thinks that Obama wasn’t born in Kenya. Today’s action by the SCOTUS to suppress the facts does NOTHING to dispel that idea. Rather, it’s because the Worst President in History has proven himself this month to be a terrific vote-getter for the Republicans. He will again in 2012. Thus, the Republicans have no interest at all in getting to the truth of this matter. If there is anyone who will pursue it, it will be the Hillary people (who interestingly enough, were the ones to raise this whole question in the first place).
    It will probably now be not until after the Messiah loses reelection – if he even runs – when the truth will start to emerge on all this. In the meantime, for those interested in learning more about our illegal “president”, a nice summary can be found at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=199373

  220. Kerchner request for Writ DENIED. Case over.
    Judge who said the suit was “frivolous” confirmed in his ruling.
    Boy. Did it get quiet in here, or what?

  221. Why is the Constitution of Kenya relevant to the matter of BHO’s eligibility, Lynn?
    (Of course, you may just be noting the fact and not commenting on relevance…)

  222. Based in the new Constitution of Kenya, Obama may be a citizen of that country.

    Citizenship by birth
    .
    14. (1) A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen.
    .
    (2) Clause (1) applies equally to a person born before the effective date, whether or not the person was born in Kenya, if either the mother or father of the person is or was a citizen.
    .
    (3) Parliament may enact legislation limiting the effect of clauses (1) and (2) on the descendents of Kenyan citizens who are born outside Kenya.
    .
    (4) A child found in Kenya who is, or appears to be, less than eight years of age, and whose nationality and parents are not known, is presumed to be a citizen by birth.
    .
    (5) A person who is a Kenyan citizen by birth and who has ceased to be a Kenyan citizen because the person acquired citizenship of another country, is entitled on application to regain Kenyan citizenship.
    .
    Dual citizenship
    .
    16. A citizen by birth does not lose citizenship by acquiring the citizenship of another country.

    For one thing Kenya has a more liberal citizenship policy than those here who would oppose Obama as rightfully president would have for America.

  223. OK, add the silliness regarding Elana Kagan being the “respondent” in a lawsuit to the VOLUMES of stuff you guys have wildly thrown against the wall and watched slide off.
    The issue is dead.
    Gene: I want to allow you the chance to gloat, once the GOP gains HOR and Senate majorities, and begins investigations into Obama’s birth. Here is my email address: [email protected]
    Contact me once a subcommittee commences an investigation, as you predict.
    I’ll wait for you email…. but it won’t happen.

  224. By the by, more news on the LTC. Lakin front: he has “deferred his plea.”
    Looks like I might have been correct if a little late: look for Our Hero to agree to a quick departure to Afghanistan in return for dropping the charges…

  225. Don’t forget to quote the appeals court whose decision the court upheld, Hugh.
    Clearly. Unequivocally. Jus Soli.

  226. To quote Perkins v Elg 307 US 325:
    “The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship…”
    Elg’s mother was naturalized citizen, as was her father! So Perkins v Elg says that there were two citizen parents. Then how can Perkins v Elg describe the Elg’s as “Swedish parents then naturalized here…?” If both of Elg’s parents were not naturalized citizen then the Supreme Court is absolutely lying!

  227. By the by WB and Gene: check out the top of THIS VERY PAGE and see who is listed as the “Respondent” in the Berg lawsuit… Elana Kagan?
    No! Solicitor General Garre, an appointee of George W. Bush.
    Is he in on the conspiracy as well?

  228. Thanks, Hugh.
    You completely ignore two cold hard facts:
    1. Ms. Elg’s mother never attained US citizenship; and
    2. The appeals court ruling in Elg clearly and unequivocally stated that the logic was based on location of birth and not citizenship of parents… this was the decision upheld by the Court.
    Finally, don’t forget that Wong was indeed Natural Born- there are only two kinds of US citizens (Natural Born and naturalized), despite what the “birthers” say…

  229. Robert:
    I am juxtaposing Wong Kim Ark and Perkins v Elg, as follows:
    Wong Kim Ark was born in the United States of parents, who at the time of his birth were subjects to the Emperor of China. The Supreme Court declared Wong to only be a born citizen and not a natural born citizen.
    Marie Elg is declared to be a natural born citizen with two citizen parents naturalized at the time of her birth. Elg lost no citizenship whatsoever.
    I would agree with you that all born citizens are natural born citizens if the Supreme Court had declared Wong Kim Ark to be a natural born citizen, but they did not do so.
    Both Elg and Wong were born in America, but the citizenship status of the parents was definitely different. The Supreme Court in Wong was restrained to declare him a natural born citizen since his parents were not American citizens. Therefore, Wong was only a born citizen.
    On the other hand, Elg’s parents were found to be naturalized citizens, so the Court declared Elg natural born, despite any juris soli reasoning’s. This is how the Court ruled and the basis was two citizen parents.
    To assert that “born citizen” means “natural born citizen” stretches rational thought to the breaking point. Individual words mean something. Different words have different meanings. Lawyers are careful in the words they chose to present their case. Court Justices follow the same pattern.
    If citizen and natural born citizen mean the same thing why did the Framers use the words natural born citizen in the Constitution?

  230. I do not have a standing court opinion, but I do know what the Founders said about dual citizenship.

    AND you have cogent, well thought out opinions to back yourself up. Even as I disagree with you, I see your point.
    But I DO have standing court opinion on my side, and a clear reading of the Constitution… TWO kinds of citizens, that is all: “Natural Born” and naturalized.

  231. Robert:
    I said:
    ‘It is not a matter of losing US citizenship! It involves being an Indonesian citizen, and that fact encroaches upon natural born citizenship. Natural born citizens can never have any competing allegiances to any foreign country.’
    You said:
    ‘You keep saying these things and then completely failing to bring up a standing court opinion that agrees with your position.
    Why is that?”
    I do not have a standing court opinion, but I do know what the Founders said about dual citizenship.
    Now, the 14th Amendment, Section 1 says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
    “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” disallows any dual citizenship.
    Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

  232. So, once again, stop with the… whatever. Look for threads that can prove your point. I keep looking. OOOOPS! That’s right, I”m just a copper and an engineer/scientist with many years experience.

    Who has admitted not needing to read what is posted.
    Proof: COLB, verified by HI state officials.
    Done.

  233. Okay, Robert. We lose. But on what facts?
    Prove your case. But I don’t think you can.
    So, once again, stop with the… whatever. Look for threads that can prove your point. I keep looking. OOOOPS! That’s right, I”m just a copper and an engineer/scientist with many years experience.
    As we say in the trad: It isn’t if you’ll get caught, just when.

  234. It is not a matter of losing US citizenship! It involves being an Indonesian citizen, and that fact encroaches upon natural born citizenship. Natural born citizens can never have any competing allegiances to any foreign country.

    You keep saying these things and then completely failing to bring up a standing court opinion that agrees with your position.
    Why is that?

  235. Frankly, Robert, I repectfully disagree. I’m even now MORE convinced that I, along with Hugh, Gene, Ketchrig and others, are right and you just can’t stand our position.

    I know you are “convinced.” You have no evidence, but when has that meant anything?

    BTW, do you watch or listen to Glenn Beck?

    Nope.

  236. It is not a matter of losing US citizenship! It involves being an Indonesian citizen, and that fact encroaches upon natural born citizenship. Natural born citizens can never have any competing allegiances to any foreign country.

  237. Frankly, Robert, I repectfully disagree. I’m even now MORE convinced that I, along with Hugh, Gene, Ketchrig and others, are right and you just can’t stand our position.
    BTW, do you watch or listen to Glenn Beck?

  238. In addition, there is another good analysis of the passport issue here

    Yes, GREAT analysis if you pay no attention to the fact that the analysis completely ignores the requirements for a US citizen to lose his citizenship.
    i.e. Obama’s mother could not have done that for him.
    Other than that, SPARKLING analysis of the “passport issue.”
    WND gets another Grade F.

  239. So now it turns out that Elena Kagan is involved with mysterious must-not-ever-be-seen birth certificate, and it is speculated that the Scamster-In-Chief had elevated this non-judge to the Court as a payback for her help.

    OK, now that is HILARIOUS.
    I tell you guys what you need to do: look up the duties and particulars for “Solicitor General,” and then get back to me. Take a moment to peruse the Court docket and see in just how many cases the Solicitor General is the responsdent when the case involves the US government…
    Take a moment to learn the role of the solicitor general in deciding what cases the court will hear…
    By that time, I MIGHT be done laughing at you and worldnutdaily.com!

  240. Yup, Gene, you’re spot on.
    In addition, there is another good analysis of the passport issue here
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=187813
    And did anyone see the story about BHO’s age claim on his Facebook page? He apparently un-aged by four years recently. By the old information on his Facebook page, he would have had to have been born in 1957 and not 1961. I don’t know what the truth is, but if he was born in 1957, Hawai’i was not yet a state.
    Hmm…..

  241. So now it turns out that Elena Kagan is involved
    with mysterious must-not-ever-be-seen birth
    certificate, and it is speculated that the Scamster-In-Chief
    had elevated this non-judge to the Court as
    a payback for her help. Makes sense.
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=187797
    Less than 90 days to go, folks. My God, November
    cannot come soon enough.

  242. Good news:
    LTC. Lakin has been officially referred for Court Martial, and a judge has been appointed. Arraignment set for August 6.
    On the downside, this will mean the judge in the case is soon to be called treasonous, a “traitor,” etc., etc.
    Lakin should be ashamed of himself.

  243. Robert:
    How far are you from Jefferson Barracks National Cemetery? I visited there in August 2007 and August 2009. Two of my Dad’s shipmates are buried there. Many deer are in the area! I was at my Dad’s naval reunion and stayed at Maryland Heights.

  244. As an aside, I see that East St. Louis is cutting 30% of the police force, along with other cuts. Not good.

    Right accross the river from me.

  245. Deal.
    As I’ve told you before, I was a cop, and I am a retired scientist/engineer (who also spent a lot of time trying to educate laywers – not kidding) so I try very hard to examine what it is I see. And I have very good recall of specifics (from my cop days).
    As an aside, I see that East St. Louis is cutting 30% of the police force, along with other cuts. Not good.

  246. Look at what mama applied for in 1968. No application for BHO. That was stricken out. So, how did BHO get to Hawai’i in 1971 if he wasn’t on mama’s passport?
    As I have suggested before, since he did go to Pakistan, it might well have been on an Indonesian passport. And that looks more possible with this latest revelation. Yes? Not to say I’m right, but on the other hand…
    Let’s just see how this plays out and not start another I-said-he-said bunch of stuff.

  247. OK.
    And… ok.
    Help me out here, WB. What is the significance of what I am looking at, as it applies to BHO’s eligibility to serve as POTUS?

  248. Have you noticed that the LtCdr hasn’t quit?

    I have.
    And I realize he is heading for a hard time sentence resulting from a court martial.
    AND, of course, right wing bloggers are attacking the patriotism of the hearing officer in charge of the case.

  249. “The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, (the United States) has lost her citizenship…”

    No idea, and I agree that you have a point: “parentS”. But look what they say later:
    “Miss Elg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on October 2, 1907. Her parents, who were natives of Sweden, emigrated to the United States sometime prior to 1906, and her father was naturalized here in that year.”
    Nothing at all about her mother.
    And, no, i do not think that the court is lying.
    Finally= look at the logic that the court upheld. The logic clearly and distinctly THROWS OUT the idea that citizenship is based on the parents’ citizenship (jus sangunius) and clearly AFFIRMS the idea that citizenship is based on location of birth (jus soli).

  250. The Expatriation Act 0f 1907 is not explained. Fine! Ok!

    Thank you. Chalk one up for ‘theobamafile.com”

  251. Robert:
    The Expatriation Act 0f 1907 is not explained. Fine! Ok!
    Now, you explain to me how the Supreme Court can declare both of Elg’s parents to be naturalized citizens in Perkins v Elg 307 U.S. 325, as follows:
    “The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, (the United States) has lost her citizenship…”
    The phrase “Swedish parents then naturalized here” indicates that both of Elg’s parents were naturalized citizens before Elg’s birth since Elg is declared in the Court’s ruling to be a natural born citizen, rightly so.
    The Supreme Court declared both parents to be naturalized citizens as a statement of fact in the question “… has lost her citizenship…”
    So, the Supreme Court never had any doubt that Mr. and Mrs. Elg’s were, in fact, citizens.
    Is the Supreme Court lying? If Mrs. Elg was never a citizen, then the Supreme Court is indeed lying!

  252. Let’s try it this way, Hugh. As noted, theobamafile.com states this about Elg’s mother:
    her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907
    And then it points you to a link that theobamafile.com believes supports that statement. Here is the link:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=cHZc5GJOlwIC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=Naturalization+Act+of+1906+for+spouse+for+US+citizenship&source=bl&ots=wCiAeQ5w_J&sig=REGRieP3B11K6r-1MbAvo8BG630&hl=en&ei=t1KfSf3tJpDdnQe6v_38DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Naturalization%20Act%20of%201906%20for%20spouse%20for%20US%20citizenship&f=false
    You tell me where in that link it states that ANYONE “derives” US citizenship from anything in the Expatriate Act of 1907.

  253. Elg’s father naturalized in 1906…

    Correct.

    … and Elg’s mother followed him in 1907.

    On what do you base this statement?

  254. The Obamafile.com is not purposely lying.

    Of course they are, Hugh. They tell you this about Ms. Elg: “her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907”
    Wrong. Incorrect. Dishonest.
    No person could “derive” any citizenship from the Expatriate Act of 1907.

  255. Robert:
    The Obamafile.com is not purposely lying.
    Let me quote the Supreme Court again:
    Quoting Perkins v Elg 307 U.S. 325, as follows:
    “The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, (the United States) has lost her citizenship…”
    The phrase “Swedish parents then naturalized here” indicates that both of Elg’s parents were naturalized citizens before Elg’s birth since Elg is declared in the Court’s ruling to be a natural born citizen, rightly so.
    In fact, the Supreme Court is declaring that both of Elg’s parents were citizens, not one parent but both parents.
    Elg’s father naturalized in 1906, and Elg’s mother followed him in 1907.

  256. And I do want to correct one thing: in point of fact, I do think that theobamafile.com is purposely lying.
    Heck, I’ve proven it for this instance.

  257. Marie Elg’s mother never lost her citizenship since she was married to a naturalized citizen and not an alien. Therefore, there was no need for her to regain citizenship since she had never lost it.

    She never HAD US citizenship, Hugh.

  258. Obamafile.com is not lying. Marie Elg’s father had naturalized before the implementation of the Expatriation Act of 1907. Therefore, Marie Elg’s mother was a US citizen. Go read the quote in the book yourself.

    I read it, and while the ObamaFile may not be lying, they are certainly incorrect. They say this:
    “her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907”
    And then they give this quote from the book to back up the statement:
    “Under the act, a naturalized or US-born citizen lost her citizenship after marriage to an alien; she could only regain it if the husband naturalized.”
    Those two statements are not the same… the quote they use as back up does NOT say that a woman automatically became a US citizen if her husband naturalized. The act DID say that a woman could LOSE her citizenship.

  259. Robert:
    Marie Elg’s mother never lost her citizenship since she was married to a naturalized citizen and not an alien. Therefore, there was no need for her to regain citizenship since she had never lost it.

  260. Robert: Here is a more accurate quoting. I am typing the words and just not copying and pasting.
    I will directly quote A Companion to American Immigration by Irene Bloemraad and Reed Ueda, page 40, as follows:
    “The 1907 Expatriation Act extended the logic linking a woman’s citizenship to her marital status and the status of her spouse. Under the act, a naturalized or US-born citizen lost her citizenship after marriage to an alien; she could only regain it if the husband naturalized.”

  261. Robert:
    Concerning what the Obamafile.com site says:
    “The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907“.
    I will directly quote A Companion to American Immigration by Irene Bloemraad and Reed Ueda, page 40, as follows:
    “The 1907 Expatriation Act extended the logic linking a woman’s citizenship to her marital status and the status of her spouse. Under the act, a naturalized or US-born citizen lost her citizen to an alien; she could only regain it if the husband naturalized.”
    Obamafile.com is not lying. Marie Elg’s father had naturalized before the implementation of the Expatriation Act of 1907. Therefore, Marie Elg’s mother was a US citizen. Go read the quote in the book yourself.

  262. All you have to do is read the Expatriation Act of 1907 (federal statute) as proof. Remember, Elg was born prior to enactment of the U. S. Constitution’s Nineteenth Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, and a woman’s status was tied to that of her husband.”

    I tell you what, Hugh. Go to “theobamafile.com” and you see what it says about the Expatriate Act of 1907. This:
    “The U. S. Supreme Court in 1939 held that Elg was a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN because she was born in Brooklyn, New York on October 2, 1907, her father was naturalized as a U.S. citizen in 1906 under the Naturalization Act of 1906, and her mother derived her US citizenship in 1907 under the Expatriation Act of 1907“.
    AND THEN go to the very link theobamafile.org uses as its proof of the statement!!!
    Do they say the same things?
    You tell me. Tell me what is says about a woman GAINING citizenship as opposed to LOSING citizenship.
    In point of fact, theobamafile.com is lying to you (huge surprise): the Expatriation Act of 1907 ONLY said that a US citizen woman could lose her citizenship by marrying a foreign citizen, and NOT the other way around (a foreign woman did NOT automatically gained US citizenship by her husband’s naturalization)

  263. Robert:
    Here is a quote from http://www.theobamafile.com/obamanaturalborn.htm.
    Clicking on “federal statue” at The Acts of 1906 and 1907
    http://books.google.com/books?id=cHZc5GJOlwIC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=Naturalization+Act+of+1906+for+spouse+for+US+citizenship&source=bl&ots=wCiAeQ5w_J&sig=REGRieP3B11K6r-1MbAvo8BG630&hl=en&ei=t1KfSf3tJpDdnQe6v_38DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Naturalization%20Act%20of%201906%20for%20spouse%20for%20US%20citizenship&f=falseleads to a book
    …explains what I know about it. The book is A Companion to American Immigration by Irene Bloemraad and Reed Ueda. You will find the answer on page 40.
    Again here is the quote:
    “After the Naturalization Act of 1906 created the Naturalization Standards for U.S. Citizenship, Congress passed the Expatriation Act of 1907 to allow SPOUSES of naturalized U.S. citizens to be considered naturalized U.S. citizens as well.
    “Perkins v. Elg doesn’t explain that but that was THE LAW ENACTED at the time when Elg was born in New York. The Court’s job is to apply the relevant facts to the law. The law as discussed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 was that in order to be a “natural born citizen,” you had to be born in the U.S. Mainland AND born to U.S. Citizens PARENTS (PLURAL NOT SINGULAR). The key here is BOTH PARENTS WERE U.S. CITIZENS at the time of Elg’s birth. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1939, ruled that Elg was a “natural born citizen” using DEDUCTIVE REASONING to clarify why. The law is corroborated.”
    All you have to do is read the Expatriation Act of 1907 (federal statute) as proof. Remember, Elg was born prior to enactment of the U. S. Constitution’s Nineteenth Amendment, ratified on August 18, 1920, and a woman’s status was tied to that of her husband.”
    I cannot find anything more specific about all except these references. I do know that there are Presidents that because Presidents due to the fact that their mothers followed the naturalization of their husbands, thereby qualifying their sons for the Office of Presidents. My reference for this is Leo Donofrio who says that natural born citizen is a circumstance of birth. This has happened for every President except for Chester Arthur—proven by Donofrio—and Obama. In Arthur’s case the American public did not know of his circumstance so there is no precedent.

  264. Elg’s father obtained his citizenship through the Naturalization Act of 1906, and Elg’s mother obtained her naturalization through the Expatriation Act of 1907.

    Can you give me something on the Expatriation Act of 1907? The only thing I find is that the act declared that a female US citizen marrying a foreign male lost her US citizenship.
    Of course, that has nothing to do with Elg- unless there is more to the act than I see…

  265. Quoting Perkins v Elg 307 U.S. 325, as follows:
    “The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, (the United States) has lost her citizenship…”
    The phrase “Swedish parents then naturalized here” indicates that both of Elg’s parents were naturalized citizens before Elg’s birth since Elg is declared in the Court’s ruling to be a natural born citizen, rightly so.
    Elg’s father obtained his citizenship through the Naturalization Act of 1906, and Elg’s mother obtained her naturalization through the Expatriation Act of 1907.
    Marie Elizabeth Elg is a citizen “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
    The 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1906 and the Expatriation Act of 1907 were the applicable American laws when Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in 1907.

  266. I guess the bottom line (for me, at least) on the question regarding Natural Born Citizen, as opposed to the COLB, is that while there are cogent well reasoned arguments that it takes TWO US citizens to make a “Natural Born Citizen,” that is simply not the current and standing interpretation of the courts.

  267. These are the same bunch who would love nothing more than to see an anti-American drop a kid here, educate him thoroughly in some communist country and then come back and hang out for 14 years so he can say he’s entitled to be our President.

    Hugh, YOU must see the Jon Stewart bit where he ridicules very nearly this EXACT fantasy… “have the baby, and then… YOU WAIT…. until… he WINS the presidential election.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ketJSP-bv3k

    Absurd I know, but that’s what all this “tolerance” crap is about.

    Yeah, we agree Hugh. It’s absurd.

  268. Explain to me why that has meaning to these discussions, please?

    I’m guessing this is some sort of a joke?
    How could it be anything but a joke, to ask what meaning a decision on JUS SOLI vs. JUS SANGUINUS would have when discussing court opinions on the Natural Born Citizen status of a US citizen?

  269. Sure true, Robert. What opinions have been rendered in the matter of BHO? Cite them.

    What opinions need rendering, WB?

  270. Sure true, Robert. What opinions have been rendered in the matter of BHO? Cite them.

  271. Your last “quoting” provided no references. I, for one, was not sure whether you were citing Perkins v Elg (the District or Supreme Court cases) only or other Supreme Court cases. The “amendment” citation was perhaps the 14th Amendment, but I am not sure.

    Federal Court of Appeals, AFFIRMED by the US Supreme Court. The link was provided in an earlier post.
    http://www.loislaw.com/advsrny/doclink.htp?alias=FDCCASE&cite=99+F.2d+408#fn600

    Since the President is the Commander-in-Chief the Founders desired that he have not foreign allegiances ever that would infringe on his authority and ability to protect America. Dual citizenship carries with it the idea of “dual loyalty”. The Founders wanted no such thing for the Presidents. Dual loyalty and dual citizenship, of which the Constitution is silent, violates natural born citizenship.

    YOUR interpretation, and that is fine. But NOT the interpretation of the courts, which have the final word. And the same holds true for the undead revolution bloggers- fine opinions, but the courts’ are the opinions that count.

  272. Robert –
    You said

    As a result of the adoption of the amendment, whatever
    differences existed between statesmen and jurists on the general
    subject prior to the War Between the States was put to rest, and
    it may now be stated as an established rule that every person
    born within the United States (except in the case of children of
    ambassadors, etc.), whether born of parents who are themselves
    citizens of the United States or of foreign parents, is a citizen
    of the United States.

    The decree of the District Court declaring appellee to be a
    natural born citizen of the United States is in all respects
    affirmed.
    There you go- CLEARLY stated. Jus soli, NOT jus sanguinus.

    Citizen.
    Explain to me why that has meaning to these discussions, please?
    And, in order for me to understand my ignorance, what court has ruled on BHO’s right to hold the Office of President? And ruling is not a dismissal of the pleading because, other courts can take up the issue. I want a ruling. Perhaps I missed it.

  273. Here is another entry from the Undead Revolution blog:
    “On February 11, 2010 at 11:03 pm Joss Brown said:
    It was not only the Framers’ intention (cf. grandfather-clause = US citizens who are also foreign subjects are not natural born). More importantly it was the law. Before Wong Kim Ark every child born of foreign parent(s), i.e. a child with foreign allegiance and non-US citizenship or subjecthood, was not even a US citizen. Nobody considered children of unnaturalized immigrant parents to be citizens, let alone natural born citizens. Only after Wong Kim Ark did all that change, but SCOTUS still only made Wong Kim Ark a citizen, not a natural born citizen.”
    Correct, but it’s been all said before. Leo Donofrio’s blog went into the first lengthy discussion on this, especially Wong Kim Ark. Kamira (from UR) went into the only 3 possible types of citizens at the time of the signing of the Constitution; and Barry v. Mercein (citation from our research in these comments somewhere) is an example of the law you refer to – children of fathers who were not citizens were not lawfully considered citizens, whether born here or not. They followed the nationality of their fathers; partus sequitur patrem as noted by Justice Story and others (see Barry v. Mercein).
    There is a main theme among the many cases we found. Both parents needed to show and demonstrate the desire to make the United States their permanent residence, as this goes back to the caution George Washington made during the Revolution and what this first piece was introduced to clarify.
    Most Justices know this history; hence their disclaimer when it comes to being asked if those anchor babies can run for President. They refuse to align Wong Kim Ark with Article II, because they know they’re treading on ground that goes against Washington’s own directives and the first laws that were made on the subject. They can’t deny that history so they just skip over it, neglecting to take either position.
    It’s the #1 reason why we need to vote out these progressives who want to see the Constitution and its history scrapped, and even those who aren’t brave enough to defend it honestly. These are the same bunch who would love nothing more than to see an anti-American drop a kid here, educate him thoroughly in some communist country and then come back and hang out for 14 years so he can say he’s entitled to be our President. Absurd I know, but that’s what all this “tolerance” crap is about. We’re told we’re the bad guy if we don’t tolerate it. I say go over to their country and try and pull the same thing. They’ll get as much rope as the noose that hangs them for trying it. – UR

  274. Here is a note from the blog at the Undead Revolution, centering in on a letter from Thomas Jefferson to J. Cartwright dated 1824.
    UR folks:
    I thought you’d app
    reciate what seemed to me to be a timely post from one of Leo Donofrio’s readers.
    It shows Jefferson’s ultimate contempt for those who would claim that the founders incorporated or took their lead from the British common law when forming a new government for the U.S.
    Judging from the date given, the statement was made in the months prior to his death. ‘Gloves off’ kind of stuff (what did he have to lose?).
    Tom Says:
    September 18, 2009 at 3:22 am
    Thomas Jefferson to J.Cartwright 1824
    (It)Our Revolution….presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those(laws) of nature…

  275. Robert:
    I said:
    A natural born Citizen can have no competing allegiances during his life. Dual citizenship is not allowed according to the Founders.
    You asked:
    “Where in the Constitution does it say you can’t have dual citizenship?”
    Since the President is the Commander-in-Chief the Founders desired that he have not foreign allegiances ever that would infringe on his authority and ability to protect America. Dual citizenship carries with it the idea of “dual loyalty”. The Founders wanted no such thing for the Presidents. Dual loyalty and dual citizenship, of which the Constitution is silent, violates natural born citizenship.

  276. Robert:
    In Marbury v Madison, it states: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.” [p175]
    I have quoted the above sentence directly from Marbury v Madison more than once on this blog. It basically means that every clause and every word in the Constitution is important and not without meaning.
    The quote and reference is there for all to see. You do not have to agree with the quote or what I even think about, but the quote and reference is clear.
    Your last “quoting” provided no references. I, for one, was not sure whether you were citing Perkins v Elg (the District or Supreme Court cases) only or other Supreme Court cases. The “amendment” citation was perhaps the 14th Amendment, but I am not sure.
    We (Wild Bill, Gene, Larry and I) may agree with you or not, but the way in which you handled the quoting is, as Wild Bill says ‘nonsense’. High School English teachers would not put up with it.

  277. I’ll bet dollars to donuts Robert is a Obamanite plant.

    Wait a minute… a couple of weeks ago, you’re excuse to avoid the issues was that I was a “victim of white guilt.”
    Can you at least TRY to be consistent?

  278. Bill/Hugh –
    LOL! Had enough of this?
    I’ll bet dollars to donuts Robert is a Obamanite plant.
    There’s just no point in reasoning with him or these
    people. I still say the same thing: Ignore him.
    It does demonstrate, however, how pernicious
    the Obamanites are to our society and country.
    IMO, they cannot be engaged with or met halfway.
    It is beyond that.
    I believe that after November, fundamental changes
    – REAL change, not the Obama “hope and change”
    malarkey- will be coming to this country, and all for
    the better. Just look at the mounting anger of 80% of the
    country against this 20% comprised of Obama supporting
    riff-raff; there will be repercussions to that for sure.
    Yes, I believe we will get to the bottom of this
    birth certificate issue. But it will not stop there.
    More is coming for sure. What we are really seeing
    is the end of the 80-year FDR/Kennedy Era in
    American politics, and this sham of a “president”
    is just a last gasp of the Left. When you start looking
    at things that way, everything begins to make sense.
    Think about it.
    Gene

  279. I’m very tired of your nonsense, however, I told you before, I’m staying in the discussion.

    I know, I know. “Nonsense” like directly quoting federal court cases doesn’t do alot for you.
    Or are you tired of me pointing out unequivocal errors in ridiculous websites you link us to… like the recent howler that Obama’s mother “exchanged his US citizenship?”
    Anywho, I think the court is pretty clear.

  280. Robert –
    I’m very tired of your nonsense, however, I told you before, I’m staying in the discussion.
    Hugh –
    If Larry sends it, please forward to me.
    Gene?
    Offer still goes. Send it to Hugh.
    Wild Bill

  281. Now, I would really like to see a true response to the above rather than some rantings about “birthers”.

    Well, how about this- instead of my “rantings” about birthers versus your ludicrous web sites and desperate “it must have been a mistake” theories, we go to the direct words of a court of competent jurisdiction, a federal court that decided this very issue?
    Which is it? “Jus soli” by place of birth, or “Jus sanguinus,” by citizenship of parents….? Lets Quote The Court!!
    The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of
    Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the
    sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early
    American decisions applied that as the common law in this
    country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits
    and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural
    born citizen of the State and of the United States.
    And this was
    undoubtedly the view of Mr. Justice Curtis in his dissenting
    opinion in the Dred Scott Case, 19 How. 393, 581, 15 L.Ed. 691,
    in which he said:
    “* * * we find that the Constitution has recognised the general
    principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend
    on the place of birth
    .”
    This doctrine of citizenship by reason of place of birth is
    spoken of by the writers on the subject as the jus soli or common
    law doctrine. The Roman rule is different and is in effect in
    many of the continental European countries. This is called the
    jus sanguinis and depends upon the nationality of the parents and
    not upon the place of birth. Professor Bluntschild, in speaking
    of the latter doctrine
    , said:
    “The bond of the family lies at the foundation of national and
    political life, and attaches the child to the people among whom
    he is born. The opinion that fixes upon the locality of nativity,
    instead of the personal tie of the family, as the cause of
    nationality, abases the person to be a dependence of the
    soil.”[fn1]

    But this was not the common law.

    As a result of the adoption of the amendment, whatever
    differences existed between statesmen and jurists on the general
    subject prior to the War Between the States was put to rest, and
    it may now be stated as an established rule that every person
    born within the United States (except in the case of children of
    ambassadors, etc.), whether born of parents who are themselves
    citizens of the United States or of foreign parents, is a citizen
    of the United States.


    The decree of the District Court declaring appellee to be a
    natural born citizen of the United States is in all respects
    affirmed.

    There you go- CLEARLY stated. Jus soli, NOT jus sanguinus.

  282. Robert:
    You said that you want the courts to note my logic, before you would receive my explanation for Elg’s natural born citizen status. That is certainly fair, and I will get you hopefully a really good answer, if possible.
    We think the decision of the lower court is in all respects correct.
    The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of
    Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the
    sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early
    American decisions applied that as the common law in this
    country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits
    and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural
    born citizen of the State and of the United States. And this was
    undoubtedly the view of Mr. Justice Curtis in his dissenting
    opinion in the Dred Scott Case, 19 How. 393, 581, 15 L.Ed. 691,
    in which he said:
    “* * * we find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend
    on the place of birth.”
    If this be the case, then why did the Supreme Court rule in Wong Kim Ark that Wong was only a citizen and not a natural born citizen? Wong was born in America, and yet his parents were Chinese subjects that never naturalized to the United States.

  283. Since native citizen, native born and native American citizen all have the same meaning, i.e. born in the United States, the court referred to Ms. Elg’s legal status as a US citizen thirteen times.

    Add “Natural Born” to your list of phrases with the same meaning.

    Based on the above it should be clear, even to someone as stubborn as you, that this case can in no way support the proposition that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States.

    LOL- riiiiiggght. Because you and Larry say the justices made what amounts to a clerical error.

    However, if, after he attained the age of majority, Mr. Obama applied for and was issued an Indonesian passport then that would have resulted in the renunciation of his US Citizenship.

    Irrelevant, but I believe you are wrong: you must RENOUNCE your US citizenship in a sworn oath.

    You have voiced the opinion that only “birthers” see a difference between native born and natural born. I have no idea where you got this idea and would be interested to see your source.

    Look no further than Perkins Elg, where the Court uses the terms interchangeably.
    There are TWO kinds of citizens in the US:P
    1. Natural Born (same as Native Born)- a person born in the US; and
    2. Naturalized- a person who becomes a citizen by act of law.
    That’s it.

  284. Robert:
    I have reread Perkins v. Elg. Based on that reading it is not clear to me whether Ms. Elg’s mother had become a naturalized US citizen prior to her daughter’s birth. If Mrs. Elg was a US citizen at the time of her daughter’s birth then the daughter would be a natural born citizen as envisioned by the Constitution. If not, then she would not be a natural born citizen since one of her parents was not a US citizen at the time of her birth, but she would be native born. (Much the same as for Mr. Obama, Jr. since there is no controversy about the fact that his father was not a US Citizen at the time of Obama’s birth. In fact, Mr. Obama, Sr. never became a US Citizen).
    In going through the case I noted the following language used by the court in discussing Ms. Elg’s status as a citizen of the US:
    1. Native citizen is used ten (10) times.
    2. Native born is used twice.
    3. Native American citizen is used once.
    4. Natural born is used once.
    Since native citizen, native born and native American citizen all have the same meaning, i.e. born in the United States, the court referred to Ms. Elg’s legal status as a US citizen thirteen times. Only the one time, at the very end of the opinion, was the term natural born used and that is why I think it is very reasonable to say that the usage was in error. Now, as stated above, if Ms. Elg’s mother was a naturalized US citizen at the time of Ms. Elg’s birth then Ms. Elg would in fact be a natural born citizen.
    Based on the above it should be clear, even to someone as stubborn as you, that this case can in no way support the proposition that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States. That is the case whether he was born in Hawaii, or not.
    Now, as to the Indonesian argument, I find myself in complete agreement with your position that during his minority nobody could have given up Obama’s US Citizenship (assuming for sake of the argument that he was in fact a US citizen at the point in time). As was the case with Ms. Elg Mr. Obama did return to the United States and resumed his US Citizenship. However, if, after he attained the age of majority, Mr. Obama applied for and was issued an Indonesian passport then that would have resulted in the renunciation of his US Citizenship. I have heard allegations about this but have not seen any proof that this occurred and wanted to mention it here just to cover all the bases.
    You have voiced the opinion that only “birthers” see a difference between native born and natural born. I have no idea where you got this idea and would be interested to see your source. It is odd that the two terms exist if they have the exact same meaning, don’t you think? The best definition of native born that I have come across simply states: “Belonging to a place by birth”. The best definition that I have come across for natural born is: “A natural born citizen is one born in the United States of America to parents who are citizens or one who is born outside the United States of America and its outlying possessions of parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States, and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of the child.
    Now, I would really like to see a true response to the above rather than some rantings about “birthers”.

  285. You are certainly correct the Marie Elizabeth Elg is a natural born citizen, but not for the reasons you think.

    Not for the reasons I think, Hugh- but for the reasons clearly spelled out by the federal courts in the case. Did you bother to read the opinion of the court, that went in depth into the basis for citizenship being place of birth and NOT citizenship of parents?
    I liked the website you pointed me to, though- it makes the same silly mistake that Wild Bill’s link made, i.e. that Obama lost his citizenship claim due to an Indonesian adoption.
    So… unless the courts noted your logic, Hugh, I will stick with what they DID note.

  286. A natural born Citizen can have no competing allegiances during his life. Dual citizenship is not allowed according to the Founders.

    Where in the Constitution does it say you can’t have dual citizenship?

    Also, Obama is using the name Barry Soetoro. This is a potential problem for Obama.

    Yes- a huge problem. LOL.

  287. OMG!!! Robert!!!! There it is!!!

    Another piece of evidence that he was born in Honolulu, and is therefor a Natural Born Citizen. Yet ANOTHER piece of evidence that the COLB is indeed correct and accurate.
    Thanks, WB!

  288. Robert:
    Please check the link below!
    Marie Elizabeth Elg was born in 1907 after both of her parents became US citizens. Her father naturalized to the United States through the Naturalization Act of 1906. Her mother received her citizenship through the Expatriation Act of 1907 before Marie was born.
    You are certainly correct the Marie Elizabeth Elg is a natural born citizen, but not for the reasons you think.
    A natural born citizen must be born in country and have US citizen parents before his birth. One or both parents not being a citizen will not do. This is in accordance with the writings of our Founders and Framers.
    http://www.theobamafile.com/obamanaturalborn.htm

  289. Robert:
    Here is the link. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy’s religion as Islam.
    A natural born Citizen can have no competing allegiances during his life. Dual citizenship is not allowed according to the Founders. Also, Obama is using the name Barry Soetoro. This is a potential problem for Obama.
    http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/08/ap_photo_of_bar_1.php

  290. By the way, has anyone seen the Indonesian school record that Wild Bill was on about?
    What could that possibly prove?

  291. At most, you could claim that the one natural born reference in the case is dicta but taking the case as a whole, I think my rationale makes much more sense. Ms. Elg was native born but she was absolutely not a natural born citizen as envisioned by the Constitution and the founders.

    No, that’s not what I could claim “at most.” The court clearly defines the term.
    As far as “your rationale” goes, in terms of Obama who cares? The ONLY rationale that matters is that of the court that rules.
    You may well have a very cogent and thoughtful argument for what the founders believed, but it is not how the court ruled.

  292. The question in Wong Kim Ark was only about Wong being a “citizen”, and not a “natural born citizen”.

    But as there are only two types of citizens- “Natural Born” and “naturalized,” that doesn’t matter.

    To put it another way, the Supreme Court cannot give an answer to a question that has not been asked.

    They clearly gave a definition of a “Natural Born Citizen.”

  293. You are about as funny as a cyst on a toad’s butt, in other words, not at all.

    Why thank you, Larry! But you share a good portion of the credit for serving me up an inane softball like “they made a mistake.”
    As you say, funny stuff.

    Ms. Elg was born in Brooklyn, NY to Swedish parents. That makes her native born, i.e Brooklyn, NY is part of the United States.

    And it bears repeating that birthers are the only ones who think there is a distinction between “native born” and “natural born.”
    When a non birther asks for a court case to back up this distinction… silence reigns.

    Again, the case had absolutely nothing to do with the natural born eligibility clause of the Constitution. You can say it does as often as you want but the case speaks for itself.

    The case certainly – clearly and concisely – determines that a child born of non citizen parents is a — QUOTE: “Natural Born Citizen.”
    (Do you guys keep missing that term?)

    Ms. Elg was native born but she was absolutely not a natural born citizen as envisioned by the Constitution and the founders.

    Again: point out the court case the makes a distinction between “Native Born” and “Natural Born.”
    You can’t do it. That’s because the only place the distinction occurs is in nutbar websites.

    In closing, I take offense at your flippant use of the term “birther”.

    Cry me a river. I take offense at being called a “hypocrite,” “victim of white guilt,” and “Obamaite.”

  294. Robert:
    The question in Wong Kim Ark was only about Wong being a “citizen”, and not a “natural born citizen”. According, the Supreme Court could only answer to Wong being a citizen or not being a citizen. The Supreme Court found Wong to be a “citizen” only, and not natural born.
    The question in Perkins v Elg was to Elg being a “citizen” and not to being a “natural born citizen”. To correctly answer the question as “natural born citizen” the question itself had to be, to the effect, “Is Elg a natural born citizen?” The question must relate specifically to the answer.
    To put it another way, the Supreme Court cannot give an answer to a question that has not been asked.

  295. Robert:
    You are about as funny as a cyst on a toad’s butt, in other words, not at all. I like your selective quoting however from my post. So, what the case is about is irrelevant to the ultimate decision, now that is funny!
    Ms. Elg was born in Brooklyn, NY to Swedish parents. That makes her native born, i.e Brooklyn, NY is part of the United States. The case itself was about whether the fact that her parents returned to Sweden with intent to give up their naturalized American citizenship resulted in Ms. Elg loosing her native born US citizenship.
    Since Ms. Elg returned to the US, shortly after reaching the age of majority, the Court correctly ruled that she did not lose her US Citizenship. End of story. Again, the case had absolutely nothing to do with the natural born eligibility clause of the Constitution. You can say it does as often as you want but the case speaks for itself.
    At most, you could claim that the one natural born reference in the case is dicta but taking the case as a whole, I think my rationale makes much more sense. Ms. Elg was native born but she was absolutely not a natural born citizen as envisioned by the Constitution and the founders.
    In closing, I take offense at your flippant use of the term “birther”. You like to use that a lot. Logic and truth will decide this issue and not name calling buddy!

  296. In a nutshell, Hugh: for Obama’s eligility, the only interpretation of Natural Born Citizen that matters is the interpretation of the Supreme Court: and their current standing interpretation is found in Perkins.
    English Common Law, not Vattel.

  297. But how can you ignore the fact that there is a large group of people that are saying something different? It is not like one or two that is saying something different, but a bunch of people, and they are in agreement about the facts. These people are about finding out the truth wherever it leads

    How? Simple: I understand how our constitutional republic operates. In the end, you can show me any “large group of people” thinking whatever they want regarding what the Constitution says, and it still means nothing compared to what that small group of nine justices think.
    I know TONS of intelligent, thoughtful people who think Roe v. Wade was wrong. In terms of the standing law of the land, so what? Abortion is legal based on what the supreme court justices said, not what the other perfectly intelligent people think..
    And, as I have shown you, their ruling was clear in Perkins. No citizen parents needed to make a Natural Born Citizen. Done.

  298. Robert:
    Thank you for your note. Please see what I wrote to you. I do not really know enough to disagree greatly because you seem to have studied these cases and I have not done so. In this note to you I am mentioning a letter from UR@UCONN, and the author of the note says that English Common Law was conflicting with what the Founders and Framers were saying.
    You can say I am crazy, laugh, whatever you want. But UR@UCONN is perhaps a 100-people or more, and they all in this theme about the Founders, Framers, and a certain Frenchman that you do not want anything to do with. Ok! Fine! They have covered English Common Law, Roman Law, etc. And I am sure they have covered the Supreme Court cases that you have talked about.
    But how can you ignore the fact that there is a large group of people that are saying something different? It is not like one or two that is saying something different, but a bunch of people, and they are in agreement about the facts. These people are about finding out the truth wherever it leads.
    And the difference in the facts has made a difference in American history.
    How do you know that you are right about the situations we have spoken about when you find contradictions with your opinions? Or why did UR@UCONN have a logjam with English Common Law?
    Now UR@UCONN is a brainy-group, and the logjam was not caused by lack of intelligence.

  299. Robert:
    As to ‘according to whom’, I will not answer you directly, but I will give the readers of this blog something to consider from the Undead Revolution at UCONN, a student-group that has researched and studied the natural born Citizen issue (and other citizenship issues), and what the Founders and Framers had to say about the issue. They have studied the philosophers and writers that impacted colonial thinking upon citizenship matters. UR@UCONN has support from their parents, professors, constitutional lawyers, etc.
    The letter, written from one group-member to another, is a clarification of particular points, an after-thought to previous notes, clarification of particular points, an after-thought to previous notes.
    I do not think you will receive what this long note from UR@UCONN says, but that you will scoff, mock, laugh at these notes and the ideas expressed therein.
    But know this for certain that there are a lot of things, important things, about the natural born Citizen issues that you have not even considered.
    On July 1, 2010 at 1:58 am undeadrevolution said:
    “Steve, [J]ust to clarify. I suppose you mean by “unsupervised, brief notes” that were taken during the constitutional debates, you’re referring to Madison who didn’t like Yates’ notes and then the other side who didn’t appreciate the fill-ins when speakers couldn’t write. I’m not being picky. I know you’re trying to keep things simple, but someone would distort that.
    The only thing I would add is that Locke did have his following. Locke and Vattel agree on many major points and they disagree on others. It’s the interpretations that I believe caused sides to form.
    But in all reality, I think the invitation that Washington watch over the debates was because they trusted him as the better authority overall. Many people like to draw the gratitude to Vattel when it comes to A2, but it was really George Washington who was the respected authority that the delegates were drawn to because he had the hands-on experience that Vattel merely talks about. I know Steve knows this, but I’m just adding for rx.
    The reason why there is no debate on A2.S1.C5 to read, is because there was no objection to inserting that the president be a “natural born citizen”. They were all aware of Washington’s feelings toward having connections to the country and the fear of foreign influence. A2.S1.C5 passed without a peep out of one of them. They all unanimously agreed. Not one of them got up and objected.
    Washington said little during the debates, but when he had something to say, they shut up and listened. Had Washington understood A2.S1.C5 to mean a jus soli interpretation, guaranteed you would have heard about it and loudly! They debated age requirements of the office and things of that sort, but they never questioned that the executive office required a “natural born citizen” and they were well aware of the criteria that Washington had set for his own army which was bars above what a “natural born subject” was in England. Everyone knew it back then. And everyone should know it by now.
    Washington’s early criteria of being a “native born, settled resident of this country with ties to it and family connections in it” is reflective of the “domicil” clause in Vattel’s treatise. Jacobs clarifies the French translation so there can be no argument as to what Vattel meant by it. Story puts it to use in the law and he’s quoted in Barry v. Mercein where we’re not talking about the Chinese situation who appealed after The Chinese Exclusion Act was abolished! The founders knew exactly what they were talking about. They changed the word “subject” to “citizen” for reasons well-stated by Ramsay and others.
    I don’t understand why people are blogging that we are saying we have the Vattel link. Yes, we do. But isn’t Washington, who had much more to say on this issue and formed this country, a lot more important? You know there’s a lot more that he had to say that Vattel didn’t that’s not out there where citizenship is concerned. And there’s a lot more others said, too. I can see I have a lot of uploading to do. But if I upload every reference I have to Vattel, does that mean that what I have on the founders will go unnoticed? I hope not!
    I remember back when we practically had to beat over the lawyers’ heads to look to the Revolution because NONE of them were doing that. Not one lawyer who had a case in this eligibility issue said one word about the Revolution back then. Only Leo was receptive to the information. Even Apuzzo, when he jumped into the loop, had no idea what we were saying or trying to research. I recall the post where Zapem said they had to call him and tell him the key was in the Revolution! Right after Zapem did all the work on S.R. 511, too! OMG! What’s going on here? It was all about Vattel this, Vattel that, English Common Law and driving off a cliff of confusion. Telling people to go look up William Blackstone and other erroneous garbage that has nothing to do with A2. And them BAM!, where do we find the best answers? Sure enough, right in the Revolution with David Ramsay setting them all straight. I want the 6 months of my life back wasted on English Common Law by lawyers who don’t know what the hell they are doing and kick the ones helping them in the face!
    The answer comes from the founding fathers, namely George Washington but there are many others. Vattel is only a book well-known to the American colonies that speaks to how they were going to manage after the whole ordeal in an effort to keep what they fought for.
    Samantha ~~
    Undead Revolution”

  300. Here is a link to the lower court ruling, AFFIRMED by the US Supreme Court:
    http://www.loislaw.com/advsrny/doclink.htp?alias=FDCCASE&cite=99+F.2d+408#fn600
    We think the decision of the lower court is in all respects
    correct.
    The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of
    Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the
    sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early
    American decisions applied that as the common law in this
    country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits
    and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural
    born citizen of the State and of the United States. And this was
    undoubtedly the view of Mr. Justice Curtis in his dissenting
    opinion in the Dred Scott Case, 19 How. 393, 581, 15 L.Ed. 691,
    in which he said:
    “* * * we find that the Constitution has recognised the general
    principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend
    on the place of birth
    .”

    Ouch!!!
    End of game for that one.

  301. Aetna Life Insurance v Haworth 300 U.S. 227 seems to be the case that was sent to the Supreme Court on appeal.

    Incorrect… Aetna was only used to define the word “controversy.”

    Miss Elg’s natural born Citizenship should agree with what the Founders and Framers say about the nature of “natural born Citizen”. All the evidence should fit like hand to glove.

    According to whom?
    What we have is the Supreme Court clearly and concisely stating that a child born on US soil of non citizen parents is a “Natural Born Citizen.”
    End of story- no dancing needed.

  302. Robert:
    Would it not be good idea to look at the Aetna Life Insurance case 300 U.S. 227 to determine what the Justices actually were giving as reasons for Miss Elg being a natural born Citizen? Aetna Life Insurance v Haworth 300 U.S. 227 seems to be the case that was sent to the Supreme Court on appeal. I cannot find the Aetna case.
    There are other cases that mention “natural born Citizen”, and I think it is prudent to take what these cases say about “natural born Citizen” into consideration. Furthermore, Miss Elg’s natural born Citizenship should agree with what the Founders and Framers say about the nature of “natural born Citizen”. All the evidence should fit like hand to glove.
    Below is the part of Perkins v Elg that mentions Aetna Life Insurance v Haworth 300 U.S. 227.
    Fifth.—The cross petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg ‘solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.’ The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants
    Page 350
    (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 57 S.Ct. 461, 81 L.Ed. 617, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg ‘to be a natural born citizen of the United States’ (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.

  303. I submit that the use of the term “natural born citizen” was intended to say “native born citizen” as had been used throughout the case.

    LOL!! Re read what they said, Larry. Beyond some half baked “they made a mistake” conjecture, it’s all there: Ms. Elg is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States.
    By the by- birthers are the ONLY group I have ever heard of attempt to draw a (in fact nonexistant) distinction between Native Born and Natural Born.
    In any case: the court said “NATURAL BORN.”

    I have said it before, that the case has absolutely nothing to do with the POTUS eligibility clause of the Constitution.

    It is clear to me that you don’t understand the clause- birthers question if the term “Natural Born Citizen” requires citizen parents, and it is clear from this case that the term does NOT require that.

    Oh my, your whole argument just went up in smoke, interesting.

    Yeah… because Larry says “the court made a mistake!!”
    (Every time I think things can’t get funnier…!)
    Anywho- I think your emotional investment in this is way to deep Larry- falling back to “the court made a mistake” is about the weakest I have seen here, and that INCLUDES Crazy Greek’s diatribe about the COLB “paper” not having been around when Obama was born… Gosh, that was funny.

  304. Dear Robert:
    You keep citing Perkins v. Elg as support for your position on Obama’s eligibility. I have said it before, that the case has absolutely nothing to do with the POTUS eligibility clause of the Constitution. Following is the Court’s own description of the issue before it:
    “The question is whether the plaintiff, Marie Elizabeth Elg, who was born in the United States of Swedish parents then naturalized here, has lost her citizenship and is subject to deportation because of her removal during minority to Sweden, it appearing that her parents resumed their citizenship in that country but that she returned here on attaining majority with intention to remain and to maintain her citizenship in the United States.”
    During the course of the discussion the Court makes reference to the fact that plaintiff is a native citizen of the United States. Native because she was born in Brooklyn, New York but not natural born!
    The respondents’ rationale was as follows:
    But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.”
    This is followed by the Court stating: “The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants 350*350 (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.”
    I submit that the use of the term “natural born citizen” was intended to say “native born citizen” as had been used throughout the case. In any event, the case had nothing to do with the Constitutional Eligibility issue and therefore you are incorrect to cite it as support for your position.
    Oh my, your whole argument just went up in smoke, interesting.
    Larry

  305. The best course of action is to not engage the Kool-Aid drinkers.

    Make up your mind, Gene: am I a “Kool Aid drinker” or am I “suffering from white guilt?””
    The constant switches and evasions are the constant switches of a birther, you know…

  306. You just won’t listen, will you?

    “What stupid mistake?”
    The stupid mistake that your link makes:

    Following scenario (1) or (2), Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. In this case, Obama’s mother would have exchanged his US claim to citizenship for citizenship of Indonesia, as the adoptive son of Lolo Soetoro, for which he has at times claimed the name “Barry Soetoro,” citizen of Indonesia.

    WRONG. A mother cannot “exchange” her child’s US citizenship claim.
    So the laughable website is based on the opinion of a frenchman and a factual error.
    No thanks- I will believe the opinion of the Supreme Court.

  307. Hugh and Bill –
    See what I mean? There’s just no point
    in trying to reason with Robert. My strong guess
    is he’s an Obamanite plant, probably on the payroll
    of ACORN or some similar group. They infiltrate
    chat rooms and web sites, and counter anything
    and everything said against their “messiah”.
    Why? To demoralize us, obviously. It’s stupid,
    and it will not work, but that’s their
    modus operandi nonetheless.
    The best course of action is to not engage
    the Kool-Aid drinkers. Pretend they are not there.
    In a sense, they won’t be, about 6 months
    from now, after they get TROUNCED in the
    elections. At that point, everything is
    going to change, and we will get to the
    bottom of this illegal “president’s”
    citizenship status for sure.
    And believe me, the tsunami IS coming. Even
    in Presidential elections, the turnout is usually
    just around 50%. But I’ve been hearing estimates
    that the turnout this November will be 65-75%!
    Gene

  308. Mr. Barry Soetoro was, in fact, a citizen of Indonesia. We have seen his student records. That being true, your agruement does not hold water.

    Are you making stuff up again, Wild Bill?
    Worry less about what a frenchman and what Indonesians say, and worry about what the US Constitution says…
    Unless, of course [snicker] you have some double secret proof that Obama renounced his US citizenship… ?
    By the by: Didn’t YOU get a belly laugh out of that stupd mistake from the link you posted… ???

  309. I am not a constitutional expert like you!

    Coy sarcasm from a guy throwing about his knowledge of Wong and Marbury v. Madison?? Doesn’t exactly ring true, does it?

    Did not call him “Natural Born” then what is the reason for the use of the different wording?

    Don’t know, and it isn’t relevant… see Perkins v. Elg, a later case.

    It tells me that the words have different meanings.

    Good one! YES, they DO have different meanings. ???

    I am not talking about Perkins!

    Of course you aren’t. If you do, your case disappears… therefore, you will continue to avoid it like the plague.
    NO WONDER you guys only get any place in internet chat rooms, and are laughed out of every court you walk into…

  310. Robert –
    Mr. Barry Soetoro was, in fact, a citizen of Indonesia. We have seen his student records. That being true, your agruement does not hold water.

  311. Robert:
    I am not a constitutional expert like you! I will have to read Perkins! But I am not talking about Perkins!
    But if it is as you say, “Yep. ALL US born “citizens” are “Natural Born Citizens,” and you say, “They said Ark was a “citizen.” Did not call him “Natural Born” then what is the reason for the use of the different wording?
    Perhaps, the reason that the Justices in Wong did not refer to him as natural born is because, in fact, Wong was not a natural born citizen.
    Explain to me, you’re the constitutional expert and you must have read all the Supreme Court cases.
    All the words of the Constitution mean something. So, “natural born Citizen” means something apart from “citizen”. It tells me that the words have different meanings.
    In Marbury v Madison, it states: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.” [p175]
    These words from Marbury v Madison explain how Supreme Court Justice are to interpret the Constitution.

  312. :LOL- so what evidence is there that Obama renounced his US citizenship- which, in fact, he COULD have done for himself under the age of 18…
    Is the US Department of State in on the conspiracy?? Has the record of Obama renouncing his US citizenship hidden from us??

  313. In this case, Obama’s mother would have exchanged his US claim to citizenship for citizenship of Indonesia, as the adoptive son of Lolo Soetoro, for which he has at times claimed the name “Barry Soetoro,” citizen of Indonesia.

    Sorry for the third post- BUT the above is from the article provided by WB.
    Wild Bill: Why do you give ANY credence to an article that says something as blatantly stupid and demonstrably false as the statement above?? ANY high school senior could tell you that a minor child cannot renounce his or her US citizenship, and their parents can’t do it for them.

  314. And while I am sure I have said this before, it bears repeating. This little back and forth with Hugh and WB about what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen is EXACT PROOF of why Obama is handling this situation exactly correctly… releasing any sort of long form birth certificate wouldn’t solve any of the birther nonsense either way…

  315. I have seen the Vattel stuff, WB, and no- I don’t care to waste my time with “Canda Free Press” any more than I wish to go to Worldnetdaily.com for anything but a laugh.
    The internet is a dangerous place if you aren’t critical of what you read.
    So… YOU believe the frenchman’s opinion of a Natural Born Citizen, and I will believe our very own United States Supreme Court.

  316. Robert –
    I’m going to refer you to an article from the Canada Free Press. Here it is – in part, but I suggest that you read the entire article.
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22782

    Our Undocumented White House Resident
    By JB Williams Tuesday, May 4, 2010
    “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
    This quote is taken directly from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations, which has been a world recognized and time honored reference guide to understanding “natural law,” and the natural birthrights of national citizenship recognized by all civilized nations for more than two-hundred and fifty years.
    Emerich de Vattel was a Swiss philosopher, diplomat, and legal expert who lived from 1714 – 1767, and whose theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations was released in 1758; in English, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns.
    Vattel’s book established many time honored standards of natural law recognized the world over and it is an historical reference regarding the Constitutional eligibility requirement for the offices of President and Vice President, Natural Born Citizen, found in Article II – Section I – Clause V.
    “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”
    Vattel confirms in clear concise language what a “natural-born citizen” of a nation is…
    “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”
    In other words, by “nature’s law” – not by way of man-made statute. In fact, unalienable by way of man-made statute, as mans law cannot alter or overcome the laws of nature. This is in fact “international law” via the Law of Nations. It is not enough that a sovereign nation identify its citizens. Other nations must recognize the rights of sovereign citizens from foreign lands.
    Unconfirmed Obama Scenarios
    •Obama was not born in Hawaii, but rather Kenya. He would in this case be a “naturalized” citizen (IF) he went through the standard US Naturalization process. He would in no way be a “natural-born citizen” in this possible scenario. Obama has thus far refused to prove beyond any doubt that he was born in Hawaii.
    •Obama was born in Hawaii, but to a US mother and Kenyan Father. In this possible scenario, Obama could be a “native-born” citizen of the US. He would certainly be a “natural-born” citizen of Kenya, due to the birthrights of his father. This would make Obama a “dual citizen” with “divided” national loyalties. On this basis, he would not pass the test for office, but would be the poster-child for why the natural-born citizen clause exists.
    •Following scenario (1) or (2), Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. In this case, Obama’s mother would have exchanged his US claim to citizenship for citizenship of Indonesia, as the adoptive son of Lolo Soetoro, for which he has at times claimed the name “Barry Soetoro,” citizen of Indonesia. Even if Obama had endured a naturalization process to return to US citizenship status, he would then be a “naturalized-citizen” rather than a “natural-born” citizen eligible for the office he currently holds.
    As the term “citizen” is very broad and includes “naturalized” citizens, it is NOT the requirement for the office of president or vice president.
    As the term “native-born” relates only to “place of birth,” and is also not the stated requirement for the Oval Office mentioned in Article II – Section I, it has no bearing on the matter of Obama’s eligibility for office.

  317. Are all US born citizens natural born citizens?

    Yep. ALL US born “citizens” are “Natural Born Citizens.”

  318. Was Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen or a citizen only? Was Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen? What did the Supreme Court rule? Did the Supreme Court say Wong was a natural born citizen or a citizen only?

    They said Ark was a “citizen.” Did not call him “Natural Born.”
    Kind of part and parcel of the reason the birther argument is so laughable though, hugh- you willingly ignore facts that don’t fit into your view. Why do you choose to ignore the later case (Perkins)?
    Perkins: Never overturned. Supreme Court AFFIRMED a lower court ruling that said a child born in the US of a non citizen parent is a quote- ” NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.”
    Why do you ignore Perkins v Elg, hugh??

  319. Robert:
    Was Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen or a citizen only? Was Wong Kim Ark a natural born citizen? What did the Supreme Court rule? Did the Supreme Court say Wong was a natural born citizen or a citizen only?
    Are all US born citizens natural born citizens?

  320. Gene, Loyd, Wild Bill and Crazy Greek and I…all of us have personally reasoned with you and you consistently throw it back in our face.

    If by “throw it back in your face” you mean point out your factual errors, then yes.

    The legal ruling on Wong Kim Ark was about citizenship only (That only was to be decided). But you assert that citizenship and natural born citizen is same thing. It certainly is not!

    Strange that you mention Wong but ignore Perkins v. Elg, wherein the Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling that went in depth into why Ms. Perkins was a “Natural Born Citizen” via the geography of her birth (the English Common Law base) versus requiring citizenship of parents to determine Natural Born (the Roman Common Law base).

    Even in the Constitution, which is superior law to any law in the land, says that Representatives and Senators must only be citizens to hold office, whereas, Presidents must be natural born citizens.

    OK.
    I’m not sure how that is the least bit relevant here, but I don’t mind you mentioning it… I agree that a politician like Governor Schwarzenegger is eligible to be a legislator but not president.

    Therefore, I can only conclude that there is a difference in what the Founder and Framers meant concerning the words “citizen” and “natural born citizen”.

    Agreed.

    We have given you an abundance of evidence!

    Evidence of what, Hugh? That their is a difference between “Natural Born” and other citizens? I never disagreed with that.
    Unfortunately, as the courts have clearly and unequivocally stated, Natural Born is determined by place of birth.
    Let me help you- think of it this way: a Natural Born Citizen is a citizen whose citizenship requires no act of law (i.e. naturalization). They are BORN with US citizenship.

  321. Robert:
    Gene, Loyd, Wild Bill and Crazy Greek and I…all of us have personally reasoned with you and you consistently throw it back in our face. The legal ruling on Wong Kim Ark was about citizenship only (That only was to be decided). But you assert that citizenship and natural born citizen is same thing. It certainly is not!
    Even in the Constitution, which is superior law to any law in the land, says that Representatives and Senators must only be citizens to hold office, whereas, Presidents must be natural born citizens.
    Therefore, I can only conclude that there is a difference in what the Founder and Framers meant concerning the words “citizen” and “natural born citizen”.
    We have given you an abundance of evidence!

  322. Respect your elders and go look for it yourself.

    Respect the Constitution and give me something credible- the only thing I can find on the subject is nutty right wing nuts twittering on about Sun Yat Sen…

  323. Robert –
    My daughter is 38.
    Apparently I’m older than you.
    Respect your elders and go look for it yourself. I’ve given you plenty of information. I’d love to go back and dig up all the stuff, but I’m tired, 67, have an acre of ground to improve, and very little time to chase down what has already been said.

  324. The COLB is NOT proof. Go back and look at the posts way back when where a gentleman who was PROVEN to be born in China got a COLB from Hawai’i.

    Which post, WB? Can you give me a date?
    How did he secure the COLB?
    And: please tell us where the HI state officials verified the accuracy of the information on his COLB…

    Go back and look at some other information about the COLB and relevance to claiming Hawai’ian heritage. Couldn’t be done. Not enough info.

    I have no idea what you mean by that.

    Sorry, but I’m right.

    So the HI Health Dept officials and GOP governor of the state are lying… because you say so?

  325. Robert –
    The COLB is NOT proof. Go back and look at the posts way back when where a gentleman who was PROVEN to be born in China got a COLB from Hawai’i.
    Go back and look at some other information about the COLB and relevance to claiming Hawai’ian heritage. Couldn’t be done. Not enough info.
    Sorry, but I’m right.

  326. This is why I didn’t even bother to respond to his questions about the Civil Rights Act. It’s a waste of time.

    OK, now that is a FUNNY one, Gene!
    My daughter is six, and even she wouldn’t expect such a blatant evasion to get by…
    So= anytime you feel ready to back up your words with some thought, you let me know.

  327. Bill –
    There’s really little point in engaging Robert in any discussion.
    He’s not rational, and certainly not reasonable. My guess is
    that he’s a plant. The Leftists and Obamanites have been doing
    this: They assign (usually unemployed) people to conservative
    chat rooms to act as contrarians to everything said. They want
    to dispirit us whenever and wherever they can. Fortunately,
    it is not working. Everything is pointing to a tsunami this
    November, now just 3 ½ months away.
    This is why I didn’t even bother to respond to his questions
    about the Civil Rights Act. It’s a waste of time.
    I see that the Department of Justice of President Nothing-to-Hide
    is now stopping people from looking at his student loan records as
    well:
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=178837
    Transparency. Ha!
    Gene

  328. As has been documented, the thing posted was insufficient to prove a person as a person born in Hawai’i. By the laws of Hawai’i.

    Quite the opposite has been clearly and conclusively “documented,” WB. The information on the COLB has been verified as accurate by State of HI.
    Done.

    Pardon me, but I do think this isn’t going away, but I do think it will come to a conclusion

    I agree that it won’t “go away” in the same way that the idea that the moon landings were faked won’t “go away.” Or the idea that Hitler’s brain is cryogenically preserved in Argentina won’t “go away.” But that doesn’t mean it didn’t come to a conclusion the day the COLB was released.

  329. Robert –
    Pardon me, but I do think this isn’t going away, but I do think it will come to a conclusion. Which way, I won’t say, but it will stay in as an issue until BHO shows a real birth certificate. What has been posted is not a real birth certificate.
    That being said, don’t start again with the premise that it is sufficiant. As has been documented, the thing posted was insufficient to prove a person as a person born in Hawai’i. By the laws of Hawai’i.
    I’m not passing judgement since I’m not a judge. But I have a very ill feeling about this whole thing.
    Have a good night, gentlemen.

  330. By the by, Vitter is already providing evidence that he is taking birthers for a ride… see this quote:
    “I think if we focus on that issue, and let our eye off the ball in terms of this fall’s election, in terms of ongoing policy votes, week in and week out in Congress, I think that’s a big mistake,” he said.
    Translation: OF COURSE I will talk your game now, but don’t expect me to do anything about it once I am elected…
    (Amazing- this one fell apart faster than just about any of the rest have… how ARE those Orly lawsuits going these days?)

  331. Let’s see how long it will take before Robert starts jumping up and down like a madman again

    I’d ask you for an example of me “jumping up and down like a madman,” Gene, but I know that that would be like asking you which parts of the 1964 Civil Rights Act you want repealed… you will just clam up, and avoid the question.

    I’ll start the count like we used to do as kids when we played
    football: One Mississippi, Two Mississippi, Three Mississippi…

    Kind of reminds me of the posters here like Crazy Greek who were going “Tick Tock, Tick Tock” about this over a year ago…
    Pretty obvious how that went then- the same way it will go now.
    Question for you guys: Don’t you think Vitter is simply playing to the lowest common denominator among his supporters by just bringing this up at a campaign event?
    After all- if he TRULY believes it to be an issue- what is stopping the Honorable United States Senator from standing up on the Senate floor tomorrow and sponsoring a bill or resolution regarding this issue?
    Nothing?
    Sounds to me like some birthers are being played…. !

  332. Now a US Senator has joined the chorus saying that
    alleged “president” Obama’s eligibility should be determined
    in the courts:
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=178321
    It’s just a matter of time folks, as well as an election. And
    with just 3 1/2 months to go now, things are looking very
    good. The Democrats have given up on House, and I think
    that with hard work and a little luck, the Senate will go
    our way as well.
    Let’s see how long it will take before Robert starts
    jumping up and down like a madman again. I’ll start
    the count like we used to do as kids when we played
    football: One Mississippi, Two Mississippi, Three
    Mississippi…

  333. Back to insults again? I sorta resent that.

    It wasnt intended for you- I was more referring to the Sharptons of the world, who see racism at every corner. It becomes a fall back for everything: i failed because racism held me back.
    That said, trying to call Obama’s motivations racist in the Panther case is hard to swallow.

    BHO and his eligibility to serve.

    Pretty much a settled issue, outside internet message boards.
    Poor Lakin must be regretting his foolishness, now…

  334. Robert –

    Amateur.

    Back to insults again? I sorta resent that.
    At least you are right about the Panther decision. It was very wrong, but then, there was no decision – just a decision to drop the case.
    Now, how about we get off this racial stuff and go back to what this is supposed to be? Forgotten what that was? BHO and his eligibility to serve.
    Gotta go clean the mower deck on my tractor. Later.

  335. Color may be a factor, but attitude is always involved.

    It’s your attitude ABOUT skin color and/or genetic marker… that is racism.
    If it’s not about ethicity, it isn’t racism- it may be just as unfounded and foolish, but it isn’t racism.
    The problem with calling Obama a racist for the Panther decision is the same as calling just about anyone a racist, including GW Bush for some of his policies… you don’t have any evidence of “racism,” you just don’t like the decision and want to immediately assume the lowest common denominator as the motivation.
    Gene is correct when he says that people would be screaming “racist” if GW Bush had made a similar decision… the Al Sharptons of the world, who see racism in everything. The same is true here- calling Obama a racist for the Panther decision is an Al Sharpton move. Amateur.
    And the Panther decision was wrong, and needs to be reviewed.

  336. Robert –

    Racists care about the color of your skin (or whatever other genetic marker they pick- eg judaism), and nothing else.

    In some cases, yes, but believe me, in 67 years of life – I’ve seen a lot and learned a lot. Color may be a factor, but attitude is always involved. Trust me.

  337. No, the racism I know about is an attitudinal issue, not skin color.

    I think you are doing an INCREDIBLE reach here, WB.
    Racists care about the color of your skin (or whatever other genetic marker they pick- eg judaism), and nothing else.

    And I don’t believe that Gene way making any enthic or racial comment about your background.

    Agreed he said nothing disparaging. But he brought it up, and then said he doesn’t care about it?

    Oh, yeah, BTW, the Appeals Court may have dismissed Mario Apozzo’s case, but it seems that they may have opened a new door since they didn’t dismiss on the merits.

    As with a raft of other cases- so no “new” doors have been opened that werent opened by other dismissals. And, this time, it comes out of Mario’s pocket.

  338. Robert –
    A bit back you said

    I think you are attempting to step into something you know nothing about… racism that you talk about is about one thing: skin color, pure and simple.
    And by that measure, Obama is undeniably “black.”

    No, the racism I know about is an attitudinal issue, not skin color. As far as BHO, his heritage is well documented. Now, based on my family heritage, I could claim to be Swiss or French hyphenated American, but those are very small parts of my family heritage of Great Britain. But all that aside, I simply say that I am an American whose ancestors immigrated to the United States – legally, but the way, many generations ago.
    And I don’t believe that Gene way making any enthic or racial comment about your background.
    Oh, yeah, BTW, the Appeals Court may have dismissed Mario Apozzo’s case, but it seems that they may have opened a new door since they didn’t dismiss on the merits.

  339. Anyway, since we are on the Black Panther case, and gene calls me a hypocrite for my position on the case…. tell me, gene: what IS my position?
    I don’t recall ever stating my opinion of that particular case…
    Also- I don’t care if you call me a “hypocrite,” but you might want to watch out for Wild Bill- he wants to “keep things civil,” and I am SURE that he means that just as much for those who happen to agree with him…

  340. Robert, I don’t care WHAT your race is. You’re nothing but a damn hypocrite.

    Then why did you bring up my race in the first place???

    This is part of the reason why the 1964 Civil Rights Act needs to be revisited, and possibly overturned. It allows for double standards.

    Your lack of an education is showing agaiin, Gane. But please: tell us what part of the legislation you disagreed with:
    The part that outlawed unequal application of voting laws, based on race?
    The part that outlawed racial segregation?
    Which part, specifically?

  341. Robert, I don’t care WHAT your race is. You’re
    nothing but a damn hypocrite. Imagine a video of a
    guy in a Ku Klux Klan uniform standing in front a
    polling place and intimidating black voters, saying
    “The white man rules.” Further imagine that George
    Bush was Preident at the time, and that he refused
    to prosecute such a case. I hardly imagine your
    reaction would be the same.
    This is part of the reason why the 1964 Civil
    Rights Act needs to be revisited, and possibly
    overturned. It allows for double standards.
    But as for your hypocrisy, I guess I shouldn’t
    expect much more from a person who sincerely
    believes the current “president” is hiding nothing
    about his alleged birth in the USA.

  342. I have no idea if BHO is a “black racist” or not, but everyone certainly knew that ANYTIME he or his administration made a decision that was in any way connected to race (e.g. the Black Panther case) the racist accusation would come out- it is just to easy.
    I think the entire Rev. Wright debacle is much more troubling in this discussion.
    Still, trying to theorize that these relatively minor events are leading to increased racism in our nation makes little sense to me…

  343. Sorry, but BHO isn’t black

    I think you are attempting to step into something you know nothing about… racism that you talk about is about one thing: skin color, pure and simple.
    And by that measure, Obama is undeniably “black.”
    As far as your logic on Obama being responsible for increased racism in america- I would LOVE to hear your logic on this one…

  344. Robert –
    You said

    Interesting, WB.
    Do you think the current black panther episode holds a candle to the Rodney King riots and the racial hatred then?
    Do you really believe that Obama has anything to do with your belief that race relations may be deteriorating in this country?

    Yes, I do. Sorry, but BHO isn’t black. He is half white and the rest is questionalbe. Particularly the black part. And half white is the largest part.
    Disagree with me on the fact?

  345. Robert, look at the stuff going on. You claim on this blog to be black. Fine with me. I have had, and still do, many friends of color, not just black.

    Interesting, WB.
    Do you think the current black panther episode holds a candle to the Rodney King riots and the racial hatred then?
    Do you really believe that Obama has anything to do with your belief that race relations may be deteriorating in this country?
    (And you may not blame Obama, and you may not believe that- but that is what I inferred)

  346. “ I know you’re upset because time is running
    out for your hero, but that does not excuse anything..

    LOL. Irrelevance seems to be a fallback position for you, Gene.
    I’ll repeat what I have said numerous times: it has nothing to do with BHO’s job performance- he is not “my hero,” he is not your hero.
    He is, however, OUR president. I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings, but facts are facts.

    I cannot say for sure why much of the alternative media
    (eg, FOX, Drudge, talk radio) does not want to latch onto it yet,
    but my guess is they are a little wary that it is a trap being laid
    by the liberals, and they do not want to take a chance on hurting
    their image at this point. They will wait until more comes
    out. That’s my theory, anyway.

    Or. Here is another theory. Reputable news sources looked at the COLB, looked at the statements of HI state officials (including the governor) and dismissed the entire “issue” as ridiculous, and now limit themselves to the occassional talking head jeering at some poor uneducated birther during prime time (did you SEE the Anderson Cooper piece? Hilarious!).
    Just a theory!
    Anywho, I will see if I can get updates on any pending birther lawsuits to see where things hang…

  347. Gene –
    I was having problems with speed some time back and Robert gave me this tip – which solved the problem:

    WB, regarding your computer problems: If you have a newer computer, try running the page in “Compatability View.” If it is Windows 7, it is the button immediately to the right of the web adress window.

  348. IMHO, BHO will never see a second term. Nor do I think that
    Eric Holder will last for the next election cycle. And I doubt that a
    lot of others will last.
    I very much agree. In fact, I have a lot of doubts that this guy will
    even finish THIS term, especially if the GOP manages to get the Congress.
    Between the Philly story and Holder’s refusal to prosecute this Black
    Panther for voter intimidation; the incredible mismanagement of the
    oil disaster, the economy, and immigration; outrage over the details of
    the Obamacare that are sure to emerge in the Fall (including death panels);
    the curious pattern emerging from the Blagojevich, Sestak, and Romanoff
    scandals; and, of course, this birth issue, which WILL come to light sooner or
    later, this guy will not stand a chance when the GOP controls things. Also, he’s
    got the Clintonistas circling around him like sharks, just waiting to
    pounce at the right time.
    God forbid war breaks out in the Middle East or Korea – this
    sham of a “president” could never handle it.
    NOTE: This web site is now RIDICULOUSLY slow. Something must be
    done speed it up, PLEASE!!!!

  349. “Twinkie?” Watch the name-calling, Robert, or I’ll come
    up with a few choice labels for YOU. And trust me, pal, you won’t
    like them. I know you’re upset because time is running
    out for your hero, but that does not excuse anything.
    The reason why the story is appearing only in the tabloids
    – for now, anyway – is quite obvious. The old media (e.g., CBS,
    NBC, ABC, CNN, PBS, NY Times, LA Times, Washington
    Post, Time, Newsweek) is obviously biased, and does not
    WANT to run anything negative about Obama. Even a total
    idiot can see that.
    I cannot say for sure why much of the alternative media
    (eg, FOX, Drudge, talk radio) does not want to latch onto it yet,
    but my guess is they are a little wary that it is a trap being laid
    by the liberals, and they do not want to take a chance on hurting
    their image at this point. They will wait until more comes
    out. That’s my theory, anyway.
    What part of the Edwards story reported by the tabloids was
    false, Robert?

  350. I would like to ask that we keep the conversation civil.
    IMHO, BHO will never see a second term. Nor do I think that Eric Holder will last for the next election cycle. And I doubt that a lot of others will last.
    Robert, look at the stuff going on. You claim on this blog to be black. Fine with me. I have had, and still do, many friends of color, not just black.
    But look at the things that have happened by the New Black Panthers in Philly. OMG! Who wants to start that stuff again? Not me. I went to the Personnel Office on the day of the Rodney King riots and held a great friend who is black and female, in my arms and we realized that race relations had been set back a whole late of years. She and her husband I and were pretty close in those days, and I’m sure we would still be if I hadn’t retired and come back to the west coast.
    There is something wrong with what is going on… and I wish it wasn’t.

  351. Now before Robert starts jumping and down again and having
    conniptions, let me hasten to add that it was the tabloids who first broke
    the John Edwards story

    “Conniptions?” Stop embarassing yourself, twinkie.
    Anywho- congratulations that the story was taken up by a tabloid. If that’s what defines “progress” in Birther Land, I think that’s great.

    Less than four months to go to election day, folks, when it will be
    PAYBACK TIME. And EVERYTHING is going to change after then.
    Trust me.

    EVERYTHING except ANYTHING to do with BHO’s eligibility.
    Meanwhile, in the real world: “Justice Kagan” nears confirmation with ZERO word from either side regarding the 14th Amendment and/or BHO eligibility.

  352. Well, the Hawaii clerk Tim Adams story has now reached the
    tabloids – specifically, The Globe:
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=175013
    Now before Robert starts jumping and down again and having
    conniptions, let me hasten to add that it was the tabloids who first broke
    the John Edwards story.
    Less than four months to go to election day, folks, when it will be
    PAYBACK TIME. And EVERYTHING is going to change after then.
    Trust me.

    “No lie can live forever.” – Martin Luther King
    “And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” – John 8:32

  353. Why SHOULD we see it? Why NOT?????? He’s our “president”, and it’s not legal. THAT’S the reason.

    Gene, allow me to pause and sincerely thank you for the entertainment and note what GREAT FUN it has been to watch your position on this issue deteriorate so completely…
    Once again, we’ve established that the COLB has all the legal information required to determine eligibility. So- your “Why not?” aside, no further information is needed.

    Robert. See you after November, and you’ll understand what I
    mean then.

    True enough, Gene- and here is what will happen: Zero. Not one hearing, not one subpoena, nothing. I am sure some some backwater rep from the “solid south” will try to bring it up, but let’s watch with glee when he or she gets slapped down by HOR leadership (Speaker Hoyer?) with a “Stop making us look like idiots” admonition…

  354. Thanks for the link, WB. A former “senior clerk” who did not have access to health department records claims that the governor of the state and other senior officials are lying.
    You’ll pardon me if I fail to give it credence…

  355. Why SHOULD we see it? Why NOT??????
    He’s our “president”, and it’s not
    legal. THAT’S the reason.
    LOL! You think the party is just going to
    ignore the demands of millions of constituents?
    Guess again.
    But again, it’s all academic, Robert. See you
    after November, and you’ll understand what I
    mean then. Enjoy your summer.

  356. OK.
    Youtube video time. This video does NOT prove anything and does NOT answer any factual questions.
    That said, it gives a 100% EXCELLENT REASON why BHO should not bother to release the long form birth certificate- as the video says, he shoud “save his $10.00.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNjRthxvSFg

  357. That assumes, of course, that the redacted DailyKos posted
    COLB is authentic. But I don’t believe that any more than I believe in the Tooth Fairy

    Of course you don’t believe it. The HI Department of Health and GOP Governor of the state must be lying.

    The issue goes beyond the Constitution. It goes to the promises of
    “transparency” that this “president” made numerous times, and which he has broken numerous times

    .
    That’s only “the issue” when you become desperate and try to change the subject, Gene. Look back through the entire thread and read the discussion points… the ISSUE is whether or not BHO is eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.
    No matter how often you try to obfuscate and back track- that’s “the issue.”

    Why can’t we see the long version?

    Why SHOULD you see the long version?

    Obviously, you can’t answer it.

    Would not even dream of TRYING to answer every little tin foil hat conspiracy you can gin out, Gene.
    Birthplace: Hawaii. Birthdate: provided. End of story- BHO is eligible.

    And us “birthers”, as you like to call us, are bound to demand that this issue be dealt with

    Demand away. The GOP will ignore your demands just as certainly as the Dems have ignored them.

  358. Wrong again, Gene. Don’t you understand the Constitution
    and what is says about eligibility?? Birthplace and birth
    date does it Gene. That is ALL that is relevant for
    eligibility.

    That assumes, of course, that the redacted DailyKos posted
    COLB is authentic. But I don’t believe that any more than
    I believe in the Tooth Fairy.
    But I KNEW your were going to say something about relevance.
    You people are so damn predictable! What did I say before?
    The issue goes beyond the Constitution. It goes to the promises of
    “transparency” that this “president” made numerous times, and
    which he has broken numerous times.

    Why can’t we see the long version? What is he hiding? A 7-year
    old mind can tell he’s obviously evading SOMETHING (now I realize I’m
    going beyond you there, but maybe even YOU can see it).

    I see… so you are back to your old theory that the HI state
    officials (including the Republican Governor!) are lying.
    Quite a conspiracy, Gene.

    I asked you a question, and I will ask it again: How do you explain
    the discrepancy? Obviously, you can’t answer it.
    But all this is academic, Robert. This issue is going to be
    resolved after November, along with many others. I read yesterday
    that after the Fall elections, the GOP, contrary to what they
    used to do in the past (ie. forgive and forget), will be handing
    out subpeonas left and right – no more Mr. Nice Guy. And us “birthers”,
    as you like to call us, are bound to demand that this issue be
    dealt with along with health care, immigration, Cap and Trade,
    etc. A lot is going to happen in the next few years, and it will
    ALL be for the better. You’ll see.
    See you in November.

  359. the answer is, ANY information about the president is relevant, especially when it is with regard to the “most transparent administration in
    history”.

    Wrong again, Gene. Don’t you understand the Constitution and what is says about eligibility?? Birthplace and birth date does it Gene. That is ALL that is relevant for eligibility.
    I’m surprised you didn’t now that.

    Now how do you explain THAT one, Robert?

    I see… so you are back to your old theory that the HI state officials (including the Republican Governor!) are lying.
    Quite a conspiracy, Gene.
    But, hey! At least you FINALLY gave in that the COLB contains 100% of the relevant information needed to establish presidential eligibility, your dancing about “any information is relevant” (sure!! LOL) notwithstanding.
    Got my popcorn to see what happens to Our Hero Lakin in the next couple of weeks! How about you, Gene??

  360. (Sigh!) Why don’t you look for yourself?
    OK, here’s a link to an actual long form birth certificate:
    http://nocompromisemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/090728birthcert.gif
    Unlike that redacted COLB posted by the DailyKos (that highly
    reputable organization) this REAL birth certificate contains
    the name of the hospital, the name of the attending physician,
    the addresses of the parents, the ages of the parents, the
    occupation of the parents, as well as other information. Now
    before you start jumping up and down saying “Is that relevant
    to the presidency? Is that relevant to the presidency?,” the answer
    is, ANY information about the president is relevant, especially when
    it is with regard to the “most transparent administration in
    history”.
    This particular birth certificate is of a twin girl born at Kapi’olani
    Maternity and Gynecological Hospital on Aug. 5, 1961, which is
    just one day after “president” Obama was allegedly born at the same
    facility. And since you insisted that I open this can of worms, Robert,
    HERE is an interesting tidbit that creates more problems for you
    Obama-loving ostriches:

    Obama was born a day BEFORE than these twins, and his alleged birth
    certificate was supposedly filed THREE DAYS BEFORE these twins. Yet
    the registration number given by Obama on that redacted COLB comes
    AFTER the numbers for these twins!

    Yes, you read that RIGHT! One of these twins was born at 2:12 p.m.
    and was given No. 151-61-10637. The second twin was born at 2:17 p.m.
    and was given No. 151-61-10638. Both of these were filed with the Hawaii
    registrar on Aug. 11, 1961. But according to the redacted COLB, Osama,
    who purportedly was born at the same hospital one day earlier on
    August 4th, was given No. 151-1961-10641. Furthermore, Obama’s alleged
    birth was supposedly registered there on Aug. 8, 1961, THREE DAYS BEFORE
    the twins were registered.
    Now how do you explain THAT one, Robert?
    And to further complicate this question for you, the middle figure in
    the redacted COLB registration number is 1961, indicating the year, while
    the Nordykes’ is merely 61. Again, WHY IS THAT?
    Seems pretty obvious to me now why they blotted out that number (What
    other rational reason could there be? To protect his identity? Makes no sense.).

  361. I needn’t list them

    Yeah, Gene- you do. List the “RELEVANT” pieces of information from the Long Form that are not on the COLB.
    I apologize, Gene, but you made a statement, now you need to back it up. I know that hurts but sometimes you just have to gut it out.
    List the relevant information, Gene.

  362. It’s quite obvious what the differences in the
    two documents are; I needn’t list them. Your
    continued evasiveness just further demonstrates
    the weakness of your position. The issue here isn’t
    whether or not “president” Obama and his minions
    provided the minimum amount of necessary information
    on that redacted COLB to show that he is eligible
    to serve. Rather, the issue here is full disclosure
    by the “most transparent administration ever”, and
    by every measure, he has failed that test miserably.
    Robert, keep sticking your head in the sand; I could
    not care less. Eventually, though, when you do come
    up for air, you are going to have to face the reality
    with regard to this “president”, just like we ultimately
    learned the truth about FDR, JFK, and Clinton. No
    lie can live forever, Robert. You’ll see.

  363. Congratulations, Gene! SEVEN paragraphs and not one word do defend your idiotic assertion that a long form birth certificate would have information not found on the released COLB relevant to presidential eligibility.
    Instead, you tell us: he is from Chicago.
    Wow. Thanks, Gene.
    LMAO.

  364. Poor little Robert suffers from a certain derangement.
    He thinks that Obama MUST have been born in the USA,
    mainy because that’s what he wants to believe.
    But the evidence, as well as the Obamanites’ obvious
    efforts to stonewall any further investigation into the matter,
    strongly suggest the opposite. Robert also thinks that
    others cannot be in on any conspiracy. Again, he is
    very naive.
    Suppression of the truth in politics is nothing new.
    Franklin Delano Roosevelt was crippled by polio,
    but his handlers carefully kept that fact hidden
    throughout his presidency. The truth emerged
    after his death (see the film “Sunrise at Campobello”
    for an account of what lengths they went to hide
    his disease).
    John F. Kennedy suffered from Addison’s disease.
    He also was a notorious womanizer, the most famous
    target, of course, being Marilyn Monroe. The media
    well knew about these things but turned a blind eye
    to them until after his death.
    Impeached president Bill Clinton had (and maybe
    still has) a drug abuse problem, hence his medical
    records are never released. Again, the media
    turns a blind eye. On the other hand, they couldn’t
    keep his womanizing suppressed because it was
    just too rampant.
    Given this pattern, is it at all hard to fathom
    that a few key individuals could be pressured
    to keep hidden the truth about Barry Soetoro’s
    birthplace? I think not.
    You’ll notice, BTW, that all the persons I’ve cited
    are liberal Democrats. Case closed.
    One more hard truth: Just because he’s black, that
    doesn’t mean he’s automatically honest. He is, after
    all, from Chicago. That alone speaks volumes.

  365. See how it feels?

    I’m sorry, Gene… did I hurt your feelings?

    So why in the heck should you care so much about hiding his birth certificate from us (which, BTW, obviously DOES contain relevant information)? Doesn’t make an ounce of sense.

    It makes perfect sense Gene. Let me be clear: I am – at least, I consider myself to be- a middle of the road person. Obama, to my mind, is making a disaster of our economy.
    That said, that fact has NOTHING to do with his eligibility. He may not be a good president, but he is eligible for the office, according to the Constitution. That is the ONLY thing I argue here.
    So… Gene. Back up your statement that the complete birth certificate contains “relevant information” that the COLB does not regarding constitutional eligibility to be president.

  366. So who cares what you want?

    Gee, nice comment. But on second thought, maybe you have a
    point, in that who the hell cares what YOU want, either?
    See how it feels?
    But I have to say that you are an enigma, Robert. In a response
    to an earlier comment made by Bill about the Obama administration
    going down, you said:

    For crimes and corruption? Hope you are correct! And this November
    is looking like a huge electoral turn to the right.

    Huh????? Those are definitely NOT the words of an Obamanite! Clearly,
    you are no more of an Obama fan than I am. So why in the heck should
    you care so much about hiding his birth certificate from us (which,
    BTW, obviously DOES contain relevant information)? Doesn’t make an
    ounce of sense.

  367. My obvious point about the actual birth certificate
    and the DailyKos COLB, whether the latter is real or not,
    is that the details we all want to see are missing from
    the COLB. I think even YOU can figure that much
    out, Robert.

    Good, Gene. For a minute I thought I had another Crazy Greek (past poster) on my hands, blithering about the paper of the COLB not even being invented when Obama was born. My mistake, and I apologize.

    My obvious point about the actual birth certificate
    and the DailyKos COLB, whether the latter is real or not,
    is that the details we all want to see are missing from
    the COLB. I think even YOU can figure that much
    out, Robert.

    Never doubted that fact, Gene. NONE of the details are relevant to the question of eligibility, though. So who cares what you want?
    More later… have a good night.

  368. Gene –
    The link is inactive, but I read the same thing elsewhere.
    BTW, have you seen the Gallup tracking today? The prez is at a -4% gap between approve and disapprove. Wow!

  369. Hey Robert, you don’t like the story? Don’t like the
    quotes? Sorry, I’m just reporting what they said verbatim.
    Complain to them and not me, will you please?
    My obvious point about the actual birth certificate
    and the DailyKos COLB, whether the latter is real or not,
    is that the details we all want to see are missing from
    the COLB. I think even YOU can figure that much
    out, Robert.
    But I thank you, Robert, for making my expectations
    come true even sooner than I expected (I was ready to
    give you at least until Monday). Your reactions are
    so predictable and so reliable, I could set my watch
    by them.
    Between his sinking poll numbers, an incredibly incompetent
    response to the Gulf oil disaster, 10% unemployment,
    $19 Trillion in deficits, a recession with no end in sight,
    a public outraged over socialized medicine being rammed down
    their throats, his support for illegal immigration, three acts
    of terror on our own soil, liberal outrage over GITMO, war in
    Afghanistan, problems in the Middle East, escalating conflicts
    in Pakistan, potential war in Korea, the Sestak scandal, the
    Romanoff scandal, the Blagojevich trial, the coming Tea Party
    tsunami in November, and even a biased Media that is FINALLY
    waking up to this sham of a “president”, Barry Soetoro’s Kenyan
    birth and birth certificate are the very least of this guy’s
    troubles. The enormous damage that this guy has done to this
    country in not even 18 months – economically, militarily,
    morally, and even physically – will be felt for years to come.
    Without a doubt, he is by far the worst president this country
    has ever seen, and I pray to God ever WILL see again.
    After November, the chances are pretty good he will not even
    finish his term, and I hope that is the case. See the following:
    http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/02/the-coming-resignation

  370. Thanks for the howlers, Gene- especially the last one.
    1. So your Bowling Green College Professor says that “Everyone in the government knows” that there is no birth certificate. My my, Gene– QUITE the conspiracy that must be occurring for a cover up like that to last. I wonder (again) why the Republican Governor of Hawaii would want to be a part of such a thing?
    LOL, and Wild Bill says there is no Grand Conspiracy!
    2. Priceless, Gene, priceless:

    See how different it looks from the fake posted on the DailyKos, Robert?

    Put on your thinking cap, Gene, and YOU tell me why you think they look “different.” Hint: it has nothing to do with WHEN a person was born…
    Think it through, Gene!!! Let me know, buddy, cuz I’m rooting for you!
    WHY would the two documents look so different?

  371. More interesting news. Now watch Robert jump up and down like a
    madman again.

    Hawaii elections clerk: Obama not born here
    Official who oversaw ballots in 2008 race says hospital birth certificate non-existent
    Posted: June 10, 2010
    3:39 am Eastern
    By Joe Kovacs
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily
    A college instructor who worked as a senior elections clerk for the city and county of Honolulu in 2008 is making the stunning claim Barack Obama was definitely not born in Hawaii as the White House maintains, and that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Obama does not even exist in the Aloha State.
    Tim Adams, a former senior elections clerk for Honolulu, now teaches English at Western Kentucky University.
    “There is no birth certificate,” said Tim Adams, a graduate assistant who teaches English at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Ky. “It’s like an open secret. There isn’t one. Everyone in the government there knows this.”
    Adams, who says he’s a Hillary Clinton supporter who ended up voting for John McCain when Clinton lost the Democratic nomination to Obama, told WND, “I managed the absentee-ballot office. It was my job to verify the voters’ identity.”

    As Martin Luther King said, “No lie can live forever.” Sooner or
    later (probably after the election, or Obama’s trials for corruption),
    the truth will emerge.
    BTW, here is a REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE from Hawaii, for a
    person who was born there one day after our alleged “president”
    was allegedly born there:
    http://www.wnd.com/images/090802bc9.jpg
    See how different it looks from the fake posted on the DailyKos, Robert?

  372. Well, maybe we watch some of the administration go down, too.

    For crimes and corruption? Hope you are correct! And this November is looking like a huge electoral turn to the right.
    Of course, all of that has ZERO to do with the “question” of eligibility…

  373. Bad news for Our Hero LTC. Lakin today: the US Army Court Martial judge has denied his request for the birth certificate and other records of Barack Obama, saying that Lakin’s argument for the record shows “no basis in law.”
    Boy… it sure has gotten quiet in this room, hasn’t it?
    No worries! I will keep you all posted as Our Hero marches off towards hard time!

  374. Zoinks! More from CNN and Anderson Cooper. Check out the guy from “redstate.com” (a conservative!) who seems to relish dissing the birther argument.
    Another high point: when Anderson Cooper uses the word “honorable” to refer to Dr. Lakin, the CNN Legal Analyst corrects Anderson in no uncertain terms.
    Anywho, enjoy!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-MDP43Vy4c

  375. Warren: I clearly and unambiguously predicted that Lakin would be on his way to Afghanistan within a week.
    I was “clearly and unambiguously” wrong.
    Suits me, though- I am looking forward to the Court Martial.

  376. It isn’t just the new Arizona immigration law (which, as I understand it, is now being considered by the Great State of Texas- OORAH!), but a fresh book now out that claims to have done a great deal of research in BHO’s background.

    I have no idea what the immigration law has to do with our discussion, but OK.
    On the book front, it depends… if someone who is easily gutted (ala Jerome Corsi) trots something out, expect much sturm and drang from the far right and… and nothing.

    And then you have Glenn Beck exposing a lot of VERY funny connections. Too many, in fact.

    Huh?

    And also with Arizona, why not demand proof of eligibility? The Constitution has requirements for the office of President.

    How about the US Constitution? That is the document that sets qualifications for federal office, not the states… look up what the AZ Secretary of State (GOP) said.
    In any case, though, that is a dead issue: the bill is in the trash can. Turns out Arizona was afraid of being a laughingstock…

  377. Too many things going on at the same time – and I think that something WILL break.
    It isn’t just the new Arizona immigration law (which, as I understand it, is now being considered by the Great State of Texas- OORAH!), but a fresh book now out that claims to have done a great deal of research in BHO’s background. And then you have Glenn Beck exposing a lot of VERY funny connections. Too many, in fact.
    I’m betting on things getting very warm again – and NOT just because it’s Spring.
    If we don’t get BHO out before he comes up for re-election, I really don’t think he will get a second term. Needless to say, he won’t get my vote.
    And also with Arizona, why not demand proof of eligibility? The Constitution has requirements for the office of President.

  378. Good news: I understand that formal court martial charges have been filed against Col. Lakin.
    What is the over/under on how long it takes him to cave?
    My guess: within a week, he declares Fantasy Victory (e.g. “I only wanted to make people aware of this issue…”) and high tails it to Afghanistan, where he belongs!

  379. Well, Robert, I’ll say this: The Chicago-style,
    ACORN gathered, illegal alien votes are NOT valid,
    and it is NOT “THEIR COUNTRY”. Thank God, in spite
    of the protests of our law and order “president”,
    Arizona, and now I hear Georgia, is taking steps
    to remove the illegals from OUR country. Long
    overdue.
    But once again, Robert makes a ridiculous statement.
    World Net Daily is “100% OPINION”?!? Come ON!!!
    While I’m not saying WND is devoid of opinion, it
    does very much include factual news items, and
    probably no less so than the liberal rag known as
    the NY Times. BTW, Robert still has yet to
    show us where WND has made a mistatement of fact.
    But speaking of opinions, World Net is now posting
    a survey on what should be done with (probably)
    illegal “president” Obama, once it is established
    that he indeed was not born in the USA:
    https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_survey_obama_wnd/?a=4074
    They’ll get to the bottom of all this after the GOP
    takes over the Congress in the Fall, and they WILL
    take over. Indeed, I just learned yesterday an incredible
    bit of information: In 1994, when the GOP took over
    more than 50 House seats, the Democratic-led Congress
    was still seen favorably by 53% of the people, and yet they
    got creamed. But TODAY, the Democratic Congress’
    approval rating is just 25%!!! I cannot even imagine
    the blow-out we are going to see in November.
    A little more than six short months to go, folks.
    To put that time in perspective, it was about
    six months ago that the GOP won in New Jersey
    and Virginia.
    Tick, tick, tick, tick…

  380. IMHO, the Democrat Party is losing the battle, if not the war

    .
    DEFINITELY losing the battle. but I have no idea what you mean by “the war.” Certainly, you aren’t suggesting that the Dems are in danger of losing national credibility…

    The Tea Party, of which I consider myself a member, is not violent, is not racist,

    Wholeheartedly agree.

    You have been critical of WorldNetDaily. Why? It isn’t a sham.

    As a source of news it is absolutely a sham… as a source of opinion it is fine, but it is 100% opinion, and 0% balanced news.

    …just wants OUR COOUTRY to adhere to the principles of the Founders and follow the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America – and amendments thereto.

    Well, to be fair, you “just want” it to be YOUR interpretation of what the Founding Fathers wanted and you want YOUR particular interpretation of the Constitution followed…
    By the by, the “OUR COUNTRY” thing is kind of bothersome- close to Gene’s “REAL AMERICANS” shouting… so what are you saying, WB? The people who voted for Obama- it isn’t “THEIR COUNTRY???” Does the country belong to LIBERALS as much as CONSERVATIVES? And, for the record, it is the same thing the far left fringe said when Bush was in office. And it was just as wrong then.

  381. Robert –
    Sorry to weigh in so late at night, becasue I should be asleep. Lots of work to to tomorrow.
    IMHO, the Democrat Party is losing the battle, if not the war. The Tea Party, of which I consider myself a member, is not violent, is not racist, just wants OUR COOUTRY to adhere to the principles of the Founders and follow the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America – and amendments thereto.
    You have been critical of WorldNetDaily. Why? It isn’t a sham. And it doesn’t, as far as I can tell, lie. Perhaps, once in a while, the “facts” might be disputed, but as Gene put it, how about the MSM with outright fraud that never gets questioned?
    I think, THINK, there is some bias here. And I think a lot of the left wants to portray the right as bigots. BS. I have a lot of friends of non-white background. And they stand with me.

  382. Why would you mock an american citizen, an elected official of the state of Arizona, voicing his beliefs regarding the citizenship of our duly elected president??
    Doesn’t sound very patriotic to me, Gene.
    In any case: let me know when 2012 comes and Obama is not allowed on the AZ ballot because he only produces the COLB, because here is what we both know will happen: it will end up like your prediction that the new GOP majority in the US House will do anything serious about the issue- it will end up GARBAGE.
    Thanks, Gene.

  383. See, what did I tell you? Robert is once again blowing a gasket.
    Yes, Robert, I KNOW (far better that you Constitution ignorers) that
    there are two sides to a legislature. If you read my post closely, you
    will notice that I said that the “Arizona legislature is GOING to require”
    that candidates provide birth certificate. Don’t start telling me about
    how government works, Robert, because you people know NOTHING
    about. If you people respected the Constitution, we wouldn’t be having this whole
    conversation in the first place; the alleged “president” would just provide
    proof positive to the many doubters that he was born in the USA (rather
    than provide a COLB, which at the time could also be issued for people
    born outside Hawaii), and that would end it all. It is HE who insists on
    keeping us away from the truth, paying three laws firms $1.7 Million
    to do so.
    As for the Arizona Secretary of State’s comment (assuming that is true),
    I think I will use the very words you used with me:
    “I have no idea why he would say that, nor do I care. And neither do you.
    And YES, I not only ignore your posting of the Arizona Secretary of State,
    I mock him.”. Touche, pal.

  384. And, for the record, Gene got it wrong. Apparently, the word “legislature” confused him?
    The bill won preliminary approval from the HOUSE (1/2 of the state legislature) and still needs final approval from the House. After that FINAL approval from the House, it would go to the SENATE (the other 1/2 of the state legislature).
    “Bicameral” anyone.
    Sad to see that Arizona Republican Ken Bennett, AZ Secretary of State, opposes the bill. I guess he must not be a “Real American?”
    Way to, Gene. But keep us posted on what REALLY happens, now that you have the whole “legislature” down pat!

  385. The Arizona legislature is going to require that, starting in 2012, all candidates on the state’s ballot for President will have to PROVE that they are CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE for that office – a simple and yet reasonable request.

    Obama did that this time.

    What that means is, “president” Obama, if he wants to be on the Arizona ballot and be reelected in 2012 (which I’m not so sure is the case), will have to produce his LONG HIDDEN, SUPER MYSTERIOUS, BIRTH CERTIFICATE in order to do so.

    Interesting. Have a link?

    Now watch Robert jump up and down like a lunatic, simply because REAL Americans demand that everyone, including the President, follow the law – nothing more and nothing less. Go figure.

    You know, Gene, one thing I have noticed: you sped A LOT of time trying to predict what I think or what I will do, or (worse) simply declaring what I think.
    A piece of free advice: Stop it. You can barely parse out your own thoughts and put them into words, don’t try to do it with mine.

  386. Great news!
    The Arizona legislature is going to require that, starting in 2012, all candidates on the state’s ballot for President will have to PROVE that they are CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE for that office – a simple and yet reasonable request. What that means is, “president” Obama, if he wants to be on the Arizona ballot and be reelected in 2012 (which I’m not so sure is the case), will have to produce his LONG HIDDEN, SUPER MYSTERIOUS, BIRTH CERTIFICATE in order to do so.
    Bravo, Arizona! Because of his unrelenting efforts to hide his birth records from the general public, it is clear that “president” Osama is hiding something, especially when we consider that Kenyan officials have affirmed – publicly, in their legislature – that he was actually born in Kenya. It is therefore refreshing to see Arizona’s demand that the TRUTH be revealed.
    Now watch Robert jump up and down like a lunatic, simply because REAL Americans demand that everyone, including the President, follow the law – nothing more and nothing less. Go figure.

  387. The second statement:
    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”
    Nothing ambiguous there.

  388. Not wanting to load up this thread with a long message, you can find the information that Gene is referencing at the following (and it includes references to the exact statutes):

    Thanks, WB.
    Did you note that the posting (at least as it would support BHO being ineligble) uses the “ambiguous” statement of Dr. Furkino ? In other words, the post is either made before her second statement (that BHO was born in HI) or simply ignores it…?

  389. While his supporters cite an online version of a
    “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his
    birth verification, critics point out such documents
    actually were issued for children not born in the state.

    That’s an interesting post, Gene. Indeed, many people would define it as “plaigarism” as you cite no source and give no link… and OBVIOUSLY did not write it…
    You might want to cite a source before you anger Warren!

  390. There is a long list of prominent people who
    now question Barry Soetoro’s eligibility for
    the presidency:
    The mayor of Champaign, Ill. was asked about Obama and responds
    that he doesn’t think he’s “American.” “If you are not willing
    to produce an original birth certificate, then you’ve got
    something to hide,” he said. “If he doesn’t have something to
    hide, produce it.”
    The mayor joins Tennessee state Senate speaker Ron Ramsey,
    said, “I don’t know whether President Obama is a citizen
    of the United States or not. I don’t know what the whole
    deal is there.”
    Hawaii state Sen. Will Espero, a Democrat, has suggested that
    legislation could be adopted to release Obama’s birth records
    and satisfy critics.While Espero said he believes Obama was born
    in Hawaii, he explained, “My decision to file the legislation
    was primarily a result of the fuss over President Obama’s birth
    records and the lingering questions,” Espero said.
    Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Ritze sponsored a proposal to demand
    eligibility documentation from candidates for political office,
    including the president. Ritze, who says he regularly gets
    questions from his constituents about Obama’s eligibility,
    said an “ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” on the
    issues of candidate qualifications and eligibility.
    In March 2009, Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., proposed H.R. 1503,
    known as the Presidential Eligibility Act. It is still pending
    in a House committee and has nearly a dozen co-sponsors, including
    Reps. Dan Burton, R-Ind.; Ted Poe, R-Texas; Marsha Blackburn,
    R-Tenn.; John Campbell, R-Calif.; John R. Carter, R-Texas;
    John Culberson, R-Texas; Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; and Randy
    Neugebauer, R-Texas; Trent Franks, R-Ariz.; Louie Gohmert,
    R-Texas; and Kenny Marchant, R-Texas.
    The measure seeks to “amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of
    1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate
    for election to the office of President to include with the
    committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s
    birth certificate to establish that the candidate meets the
    qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under
    the Constitution.”
    Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said the controversy
    over Obama and his birth certificate has raised questions.
    “It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future
    to just show you are a natural born citizen,” she told the
    Arizona Capitol Times.
    Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, has been getting
    questions from other states about H2442, a proposal she sponsored
    to require future presidential candidates to reveal show they
    are qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s demand for a “natural
    born citizen.” The bill is co-sponsored by some three dozen
    lawmakers who also want state officials to independently verify
    the accuracy of documentation.
    Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., sent a Dec. 10 letter to the White House
    formally requesting that President Obama address questions about
    his place of birth and thus, whether he is qualified to be president.
    Deal, who is running for governor, said several months ago he would
    ask Obama to prove his eligibility.
    “I have looked at the documentation that is publicly available,
    and it leaves many things to be desired,” Deal said in November.
    Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin affirmed that questions about Barack
    Obama’s eligibility for office are legitimate. “I think it’s a
    fair question, just like I think past association and past
    voting records all of that is fair game,” Palin said. “The
    McCain-Palin campaign didn’t do a good enough job in that
    area.”
    In October, former House majority leader Tom DeLay offered his
    views on Obama’s birth, saying, “Why wouldn’t the president of
    the United States show the American people his birth certificate?
    You have to show a birth certificate to play Little League baseball.
    It’s a question that should be answered. It’s in the Constitution
    that you have to be a natural born citizen of the United States
    to be president.”
    Asked whether he believes Obama is eligible to be president,
    U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said, “What I don’t know is why
    the president cannot produce a birth certificate. I don’t know
    anyone else who can’t produce one. I think that’s a legitimate
    question.”
    U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said he believes Obama was
    born in the U.S., but he also said he thinks the president is
    trying to hide something:
    “I believe he’s a natural born citizen of the United States.
    Therefore, even if he acts un-American and seems to go against
    American interests, he’s still an American-born citizen,” he
    said. “All that being said, probably Barack Obama could solve
    this problem and make the birthers back off by simply showing
    … his long form birth certificate.”
    Because that isn’t happening, “There’s some other issue there.”
    “I don’t know what it is that he doesn’t want people to see
    the birth certificate. I don’t think it has to do with his
    natural-born citizenship,” Franks continued. “He’s spent an
    awful lot of money to keep people from seeing the birth
    certificate. … I think it has to do with something else.”
    Even feminist icon Camille Paglia, a Salon.com columnist who
    earlier wrote about the ambiguities of President Barack Obama’s
    birth certificate, told a National Public Radio audience that
    those who have questions about his eligibility actually have
    a point. “Yes, there were ambiguities about Obama’s birth
    certificate that have never been satisfactorily resolved.
    And the embargo on Obama’s educational records remains
    troubling,” she wrote.
    In September, New Hampshire State Rep. Laurence Rappaport,
    R-Colebrook, said he was tired of telling his constituents
    that he’s not sure of Obama’s eligibility to serve as
    president. He met with New Hampshire’s secretary of state,
    William Gardner, who oversees the state’s elections, to
    demand answers.
    “Regardless of where he was born, is he a natural born
    citizen as required by the Constitution? I don’t know the
    answer to that,” Rappaport said. “My understanding is that
    a natural born citizen had to be someone with two American
    parents. If that’s true, his father was a Kenyan and
    therefore a British subject at the time. Then there’s the
    issue: If he was born out of the country, was his mother
    old enough at the time to confer citizenship?
    “I expect somebody to come up with the legal answers to
    this,” Rappaport told WND, “and so far that hasn’t happened.”
    In his Jan. 26 appearance on “Hardball,” former Rep. J.D.
    Hayworth was asked by Chris Matthews, “Are you as far right
    as the birthers? Are you one of those who believes that the
    president should have to prove that he’s a citizen of the
    United States and not an illegal immigrant? Are you that
    far right?”
    Hayworth replied, “Well, gosh, we all had to bring our
    birth certificates to show we were who we said we were,
    and we were the age we said we were, to play football in
    youth sports. Shouldn’t we know exactly that anyone who
    wants to run for public office is a natural-born citizen
    of the United States, and is who they say they are?”
    “Should the governor of Hawaii produce evidence that the
    president is one of us, an American?” Matthews asked. “Do
    you think that’s a worthy pastime for the governor of
    Hawaii right now?”
    “No, I … Look, I’m just saying the president should
    come forward with the information, that’s all,” said
    Hayworth. “Why should we depend on the governor of
    Hawaii?”
    A prominent array of commentators, including Rush Limbaugh,
    Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Lou Dobbs,
    Peter Boyles, Chuck Norris and Pat Boone have
    all said unequivocally and publicly that the Obama
    eligibility issue is legitimate and worthy.
    Longtime New York liberal radio talker Lynn Samuels did the
    same. “We don’t even know where he was born,” she said.
    “I absolutely believe he was not born in this country.”
    The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person
    except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
    States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
    shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
    Some lawsuits question whether Obama was actually
    born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of
    the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend,
    was too young at the time of his birth to confer American
    citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
    Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship
    through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction
    of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus
    making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers
    of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying
    as natural born.
    Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of
    his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood
    and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan
    three decades ago.
    Adding fuel to the fire is Obama’s persistent refusal
    to release documents that could provide answers and
    the appointment and payments to one of his eligibility
    lawyers at a cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million
    of numerous lawyers to defend against all requests for
    his documentation. That’s in addition to the work done
    by U.S. attorneys defending Obama’s eligibility, as
    in this case.
    While his supporters cite an online version of a
    “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii as his
    birth verification, critics point out such documents
    actually were issued for children not born in the state.

  391. Folks, from his last post, I can see what Robert’s problem is.
    He does not want anyone to challenge BARRY SOETORO’S assertion
    that he was born in the USA – though even a total idiot can
    see he’s hiding something – simply because BARRY SOETORO is
    BLACK. That is the ENTIRE issue in a nutshell. You see, Robert
    suffers from that White Guilt disease that I’m afraid a lot
    of people have, particularly the loser anti-war protesting
    hippie types from the 60s who never grew up (and never will).
    They have this peculiar attitude when it comes to black people
    that can be summed up as saying “Yes, punch me in the
    face! I deserve it!”. That extends, of course, to people
    like Barry Soetoro ruining their country, which Robert’s type
    also thinks “deserves it”. Really screwed up.

  392. I’m not a lawyer, but there is a place you might want to look at.

    Thank you, and that is the exact Executive Order that I saw, and it is the first Executive Order that Obama signed when he became POTUS.
    And it does ZERO to “seal” any of the records we have been discussing (e.g. birth records, and others have mentioned college transcripts).
    I thought Gene had claimed that BHO signed an Executive Order sealing those records, but I may be wrong.
    Did my tip work?

  393. Call me Web Incompetent, but try as I might I can’t find any Executive Order that would impact Obama’s records from before he took office (i.e. college transcripts, birth records, etc.) …

  394. My wife and I were talking about this just a few minutes ago: How big will BHO’s presidential library be? After all, there are only two books. And he has a hold on everything else. A closet at Oxidental?

    LOL- I see… is this a reference to the infamous “First Executive Oder” issued by BHO, the one that SEALED HIS RECORDS??
    Is THAT the one WB?? Do you have an Executive Order Number?

  395. You like to ignore things. You ignore the fact that Obama refuses
    to release his (long form) birth certificate

    .
    When have I ignored it, Gene? I acknowledge it completely… let me do it this way to make it more clear for you:
    OBAMA HAS NOT RELEASED HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
    Clear enough for you? I think you are beginning to just make stuff up out of thin air, Gene.

    You ignore the fact that he hired three law firms
    at over $1 million to block it.

    You are misusing the word “fact” Gene- it is the CONTENTION of your nutter websites that Obama has spent bundles of money on this. If you had done your homework, you would know that a GOVERNMENT ENTITY was the defendant in most of the suits, so the govermment picked up the tab.

    You ignore the fact that the Obamanites redacted the COLB
    (assuming it is real in the first place), and do not even want to speculate as to why it was done

    I showed you the unredacted COLB, Gene. Why do YOU “ignore” that?

    The word “ignore” is part of another word: Ignorance.
    From everything I see about you, you appear to yearn for it. I don’t. Sorry.

    Gene, you “yearn” for one thing, and that has led you to this fantasy world: I’m sorry that the GOP lost the election, and that a liberal was elected president. I’m sorry, but there it is… it’s a fact, Gene. I know you don’t like it, and you desperately wish for a silver bullet to make it all go away. But the silver bullet does not exist, no matter how much your little heart yearns for it.
    November 2012 and hard work will make it go away, but not this.
    And YES. I not only ignore your postings of the Kenyan officials, I mock them.

  396. Redacted? Hey, Robert, do you realize that there are several variations of certificate numbers and that adds to the confusion. BHO has a certificate number that is in question. Go look. I have and I’m not going to do the research for you

    .
    What “confusion” is that WB? Outside of a very few web bloggers, I know of no one who is “confused.”
    And I googled the cerrificate numbers. The sites that came up were “theObamaPassport,” “TheObamaFiles,” etc., etc. Nothing the least bit credible, in other words.
    You owe me five minutes of my life, WB.

    And, while I’m at it, as a US Navy veteran of Nam, in fact the very beginning of the war, and knowing that you have NOT served, leave your opinions of the military to those of us who have actually served (and been shot at)

    No.
    I will say it again: Lakin is a dishonorable coward for leaving his fellow soldiers in the lurch.

    I’m not saying that this is a right thing or a wrong one, but it looks to me like there are some more serious folks out there trying to get to the bottom of this issue

    .
    What in the world makes you think that they are “serious folks??”

  397. WB, regarding your computer problems: If you have a newer computer, try running the page in “Compatability View.” If it is Windows 7, it is the button immediately to the right of the web adress window.
    That solved my problems.

  398. Gene –
    I’ve been watching this for a long time, obviously, and in spite of the “conspiracy” theories advanced by the left, I still wonder why BHO is still holding information from WE THE PEOPLE.
    I’ll answer the question for Robert: Because he has already proved his eligibility by posting his birth certificate. Horse hockey.
    My wife and I were talking about this just a few minutes ago: How big will BHO’s presidential library be? After all, there are only two books. And he has a hold on everything else. A closet at Oxidental?
    BTW, Gene, did Warren ever send you my eMail address?

  399. Bill –
    Good article. I particularly like the following
    quote, which sums all this up nicely:

    One of the first executive orders Obama signed was the
    sealing of all his personal information. He has spent
    as much as $1.5 million to stop anyone from viewing
    his records, which include his high school and college
    records from such schools as Occidental College,
    Columbia University, and Harvard Law School. He also
    had files sealed for his passport, his Harvard Law
    Review articles, his State Bar files from Illinois,
    his medical records, and his baptismal and adoption
    papers. He’s also worked diligently to suppress his
    long-form birth certificate, as mentioned previously.

  400. BTW, Robert. You say we spin “complicated” theories.
    What’s complicated about it? The Democruds ran a guy
    who they thought would, and indeed did, win the
    presidency for them, but who also was ineligible
    for the job due to where he was born. And rather
    than admit it, they are stonewalling the issue
    and belittling anyone who dares question his
    eligibility. That’s complicated? Seems pretty
    cut and dried to me!

  401. Robert, I notice something about you: You like to
    ignore things. You ignore the fact that Obama refuses
    to release his (long form) birth certificate. You
    ignore the fact that he hired three law firms
    at over $1 million to block it. You ignore the
    fact that the Obamanites redacted the COLB
    (assuming it is real in the first place), and do
    not even want to speculate as to why it was done. You
    ignore the statements of the Kenyan officials
    I posted, and the transcript of their legislature.
    You ignore the fact that Lou Dobbs raised
    the same questions we all are raising.
    You ignore everything you don’t want to see, and
    tell the rest of us to do the same, and even
    worse, make a lot of nasty, disparaging comments
    at us for not doing so.
    The word “ignore” is part of another word: Ignorance.
    From everything I see about you, you appear to yearn
    for it. I don’t. Sorry.

  402. Until Warren gets this thing into two pieces, I am doing my stuff in a word processor so that I can think and read while I type (WARREN! PLEASE HELP!!).
    Redacted? Hey, Robert, do you realize that there are several variations of certificate numbers and that adds to the confusion. BHO has a certificate number that is in question. Go look. I have and I’m not going to do the research for you.
    And, while I’m at it, as a US Navy veteran of Nam, in fact the very beginning of the war, and knowing that you have NOT served, leave your opinions of the military to those of us who have actually served (and been shot at). You’ve been asked that before by me and Crazy Greek. I came back from my military service and was spit at. Want to talk about a pissed off sailor? Yeah, I was. And not ONE veteran made any moves against the punks. Guess who would have lost? And guess what it reminds me of? The same crap that is going on today with the Tea Party movement. But I digress.
    This may or may not be of great import, but it seems that the pastor of the Atlah World Ministry, Dr. James David Manning, PhD, is now in the hunt for the truth about BHO. Read about it here:
    http://www.miatoday.com/ObamaOnTrial.asp
    I’m not saying that this is a right thing or a wrong one, but it looks to me like there are some more serious folks out there trying to get to the bottom of this issue.

  403. Just so I understand, I take it that you actually believe
    the Obamanites’ story as to why that COLB was redacted,
    am I correct? I’m curious as to how much bait you will
    swallow.

    I have no idea why they would redact it, nor do I care. And neither do you…
    Understand this Gene: You have now seen an unredacted COLB.
    End of story. That line of conspiracy thinking is dead for you.

  404. Rather, the issue here is why our alleged “president”
    is so cagey about his background, and what he is hiding. All the
    rest of the many things you cite are side issues, AT BEST.

    Actually, the issue here is why a certain segment of the population has such a psychosis that they keep spinning endless complicated theories and stories to explain that the obvious isn’t true: BHO was born in HI as evidenced by the COLB that has been verified as authentic and accurate.

    A judge dismissing a case for one legal reason or another
    is by no means an endorsement or attestation of a particular
    legal document.

    That holds up until you read their opinions and the things they have to say about Orly and some of the would be deserters.

    And what about Lou Dobbs, Robert? Is he a “birther” too?
    Again, I just want to understand.

    What do you want to understand, Gene?? I am trying to help you, but I’m not sure how… do you want to know what I think of Lou Dobbs?? I can’t help you with that, son… I’ve never seen his show.

  405. Robert –
    Lakin shirked his duty, eh? My, my. I’ll bet he beats his wife, too.
    Well, that proves it – Obama MUST have been born in Hawaii.
    The issue here is not Lt. Col. Lakin, whether or not he ‘shirked’
    his duty, Code Pink, Vietnam anti-war protesters and amnesty
    for the draft (How in the hell is THAT relevant? You really are
    drifting now.), the biased media, 62-0 judges’ decisions, or even
    the “birthers” . Rather, the issue here is why our alleged “president”
    is so cagey about his background, and what he is hiding. All the
    rest of the many things you cite are side issues, AT BEST.
    A judge dismissing a case for one legal reason or another
    is by no means an endorsement or attestation of a particular
    legal document. I think you are intelligent enough to recognize
    that much.
    Just so I understand, I take it that you actually believe
    the Obamanites’ story as to why that COLB was redacted,
    am I correct? I’m curious as to how much bait you will
    swallow.
    And what about Lou Dobbs, Robert? Is he a “birther” too?
    Again, I just want to understand.

  406. Conclusion: Anyone who supports the dishonorable “soldier” Col. Lakin must by counted in that low class of unpatriotic people such as Code Pink and those who spit on returning Vietnam veterans, calling them “baby killers.”
    Today, Col. Lakin shirks his duty to report to a combat zone while accepting the relatively cush assignment to the friendly confines of the state of Kentucky. Perhaps Our Hero will avail himself of the fine BBQ restaurants or take a tour of an interesting horse farm while he lets others face the enemy for him.
    Meanwhile, in Afghanistan… some surgeon who likely hasn’t seen his family in a year, who has been doing his duty day in and day out to treat wounded REAL soldiers is being told “Sorry, your rotation home is canceled. Tell your family, who miss you so much, that the POS slated to replace you is refusing orders and will instead be downing some ribs while you stay here at further risk of life. To bad.”
    I was against amnesty for draft dodgers in Vietnam, and I am against letting this guy off the hook.

  407. When was I presented with an “unredacted certificate”?
    You’re not even making any sense now.

    The link I provided shows a COLB without any numbers or information “redacted”- ergo the COLB in the certificate in the link is an “unredacted certificate.” Get it???
    (I’m getting the hang of Gene now!)

    Reporters keeping a secret? You BET. Particularly
    from the NY Times, CBS, NBC, and so forth. I
    addressed that one before.

    Right-o! They are “obvious liars” just like the Hawaii state officials, right Gene?
    lol

    But refresh my memory: Exactly which federal judges
    specifically attested to the fact that this COLB is
    “authentic”?

    They have- time and again- said that the case of the birthers is not worth hearin.

  408. When was I presented with an “unredacted certificate”?
    You’re not even making any sense now.
    Reporters keeping a secret? You BET. Particularly
    from the NY Times, CBS, NBC, and so forth. I
    addressed that one before.
    But refresh my memory: Exactly which federal judges
    specifically attested to the fact that this COLB is
    “authentic”?

  409. Now I will admit that by their cagey behavior, they certainly seem
    to regard the long form birth certificate as “secret” (My God, and
    how!), but the certificate number on a COLB? What would
    have given them even the SLIGHTEST suggestion that such
    information was “secret”? (Interesting how these very same people have no problem revealing secret defense information to terrorists.)

    Ah, yes. Fallback as usual, Gene. You are presented with an unredacted certificate, so the people verifying it MUST be part of the conspiracy.

    On second thought, maybe I WILL thank you, Robert.
    That ridiculous explanation you linked me to as to why
    the certifcate number was redacted gives us yet another
    reason to believe these people are hiding something.

    Yep, gene! You caught them. They are in league with the federal judges, state officials, reporters, etc. etc., who are ALL trying to keep this a secret!
    The BEST CONSPIRACY EVER!!!!
    Got ya.

  410. Don’t worry, Robert, I WON’T thank you. With regard
    to the certificate number, the post you gave me says
    the following:

    We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number…The campaign didn’t release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama’s citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: “[We] couldn’t get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we’ve found out it’s pretty irrelevant for the outside world.”

    The “rush” is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number?!?!?
    A national campaign for Presidency of the United States was so “rushed”
    to get this information (Why the “rush”, BTW?) they couldn’t find ONE
    person in the entire state government to give them two minutes to
    tell them the obvious? So they decided to “err” on the side of “secrecy”?
    With all the lawyers and other brilliant minds on the Obama
    team, who in the world would have ever come to the conclusion that
    a certificate number on a Certificate of Live Birth was possibly “secret”?
    Now I will admit that by their cagey behavior, they certainly seem
    to regard the long form birth certificate as “secret” (My God, and
    how!), but the certificate number on a COLB? What would
    have given them even the SLIGHTEST suggestion that such
    information was “secret”? (Interesting how these very same people have no problem revealing secret defense information to terrorists.)
    But once again, Robert swallows it all, hook, line and sinker, and
    expects us REAL Americans to do the same. Go figure.
    On second thought, maybe I WILL thank you, Robert.
    That ridiculous explanation you linked me to as to why
    the certifcate number was redacted gives us yet another
    reason to believe these people are hiding something.

  411. [sigh]
    That’s what you get when you slurp up the pablum from bizarre right (or left, i.e dailykos) wing websites.
    About midway down this page, you will see the certificate number:
    http://factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
    No need to thank me, Gene. But learn a lesson please- I am sick of doing your fact check for you, in matters that are so so so SIMPLE.
    Understand?

  412. Robert,
    Oh, I know very much what the word redacted means. It sounds to me
    like YOU are the one confused by it. So please, let me help you.
    Click on the following for an explanation:
    http://aconservativeedge.com/2009/06/18/worldnetdaily-long-form-birth-certificate-vs-colb-certificate-of-live-birth/
    As this site shows, the Obama COLB (this is the document that the
    liars at DailyKos posted) appearing on the bottom half of the page has been
    redacted. Specifically, the certificate number has been blotted out.
    WHY??? For what purpose? To protect his identity? That
    makes absolutely NO SENSE!!!
    As this web site points out, the COLB is not proof of Obama’s
    birth in Hawaii, because (at least at the time of his birth), it was
    possible to have been born outside of Hawaii and still obtain
    a COLB.
    The item on the top half of the page is an actual long form birth certificate from
    Hawaii, from a person born in that state about the same time our alleged
    “president” was allegedly born there (BTW, in this case, because the person
    is an average citizen, the editing makes sense!). THIS is the precious,
    mysterious document that we all want to see from Obama, including courageous
    soldiers like Lt. Col. Lakin. And THIS is the document that Obama, his minions,
    and his thugs are fighting so HARD to prevent us from seeing. Again, WHY??
    If it truly exists, as you and he insist, then WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL in letting us
    all see it?? Are you people afraid we’ll get fingerprints on it? Don’t worry,
    we won’t touch it. We just want to see it – that’s all. Promise.
    Well, I’m glad you stated that CNN is reputable. So that includes
    (now former) anchor Lou Dobbs, right? Lou was pressured to
    resign by the Obamanites for having the audacity to raise the very same
    questions that I am raising now. Lou asked: WHY DOESN’T OBAMA SIMPLY
    CLEAR UP ALL THIS CONTROVERSY ONCE AND FOR ALL,
    AND SHOW US THE (LONG FORM) BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
    But we don’t get that from Obama. Instead, we get redacted COLB’s, old
    newspaper ads, assertions from Hawaii officials (while at the same time,
    dismissals of assertions by Kenyan officials), legal actions, pressure on
    journalists like Dobbs, stories, excuses, explanations, evasions, put-downs,
    ridicule, and outright threats. As a fellow member of the human race, I’m sure
    you can be just a LITTLE understanding, and imagine why some of us are
    ever so slightly suspicious that our wonderful “president” is trying to hide
    something.
    No lie can live forever, Robert. The truth WILL emerge, sooner or later.

  413. That COLB has been discredited. Some say it’s
    a fake. If nothing else, it is questionable because
    the DailyKos are disreputable liars (you admitted
    as much to me) ….

    Except the dailykos was not the only site that posted it.

    and because it was redacted

    Wrong. Again. I have no idea what was posted on dailykos (never been to the site), but the COLB that was released was not “redacted.” You are either misinformed or don’t know what the word “redacted” means.
    Which is it?

    Why can’t we just be allowed to see the long form
    birth certificate, as this honorable soldier and I
    have been asking for over and over again?

    Because the COLB has 100% of the information needed to prove BHO’s eligibility.
    And the soldier is not “honrable.” Indeed, as he is more than willing accept orders to serve in non combat theatres, the evidence is that he may well be a coward.

    Oh, and for the third time now, Robert: Is CNN
    reputable, or not?

    As reputable as Fox News, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. Certainly more accurate than Worldnutdaily/

  414. That COLB has been discredited. Some say it’s
    a fake. If nothing else, it is questionable because
    the DailyKos are disreputable liars (you admitted
    as much to me) and because it was redacted.
    Why can’t we just be allowed to see the long form
    birth certificate, as this honorable soldier and I
    have been asking for over and over again? So simple a
    request, and yet so impossible for Osama to comply
    with. WHY??? This is “transparency”? My ass.
    Oh, and for the third time now, Robert: Is CNN
    reputable, or not?
    (Folks, I hope you are all noticing that Robert
    avoids answering my question about CNN. There’s
    a very good reason for that.)

  415. Just convict him without allowing a reasonable defense? Only
    kangaroo courts work like that.

    They would “allow a defense” Gene, but it wouldnt include asking the POTUS- already vetted by the civil authority- to re establish his credentials to a military tribunal. Sorry Gene- in America, the military works for the civilians and not the other way around.
    “Real Americans” know that…

  416. That was a close one, eh Robert? Well, you
    can breath a little easier now, as the truth
    will continue to remain hidden.

    The truth has been out for some time, Gene. Your refusal to accept it and instead spin complicated and weird conspiracy theories doesn’t change that.

    World Net Daily is now
    reporting that the soldier may just be reassigned
    (like the others) and just placed “under investigation”.

    Which “others,” Gene? Rhodes is now where she was told to go: Afghanistan.
    And why isn’t Our Hero Col Lakin simply refusing the reassignment orders??? What- was all of this simply Col. Lakin trying to keep out of a combat area?

  417. And what’s your reaction to the Kenyan
    Parliament transcript I posted, Robert.
    Are they wacked out “birthers” there
    as well?

    No idea what to make of it, Gene. But I do know that compared to the COLB that has been verified as authentic by the State of Hawaii, it is utterly meaningless.

  418. Uh, oh! Looks like the Obamanites have suppressed
    the evidence once again! World Net Daily is now
    reporting that the soldier may just be reassigned
    (like the others) and just placed “under investigation”.
    Whew! That was a close one, eh Robert? Well, you
    can breath a little easier now, as the truth
    will continue to remain hidden.
    I wonder how many times this same pattern of
    soldiers defying orders and then being reassigned
    rather than face charges will be repeated, before
    someone in the Pentagon decides that this is not
    good for morale.

  419. And what’s your reaction to the Kenyan
    Parliament transcript I posted, Robert.
    Are they wacked out “birthers” there
    as well?

  420. Laugh in his face? I seriously
    doubt THAT. You’re speaking totally
    out of your own wishful thinking now,
    Robert. If the US Supreme Court could
    order President Richard Nixon to
    hand over tapes of his private
    presidential conversations to
    a special prosecutor, I don’t find it
    too hard to imagine a military court
    demanding our alleged “president’s”
    harmless little old birth certificate,
    especially since we all KNOWWWWWWWWW
    it exists, right Robert? (LOL!)
    Why would they NOT demand it? It’s a
    reasonable request, and certainly relevant.
    What would be Barry’s excuse THIS time
    to not hand it over? And what would be the
    court martial’s alternative if it was
    NOT produced? Just convict him without
    allowing a reasonable defense? Only
    kangaroo courts work like that.
    The fact that they are pursuing the
    case this time, rather than just dropping
    the charges like they did the other
    times, is a good sign. It suggests
    to me that the military brass thinks
    there IS something there.
    I predict it’s all going to come crashing
    down on you soon, Robert. You will be
    making 1000 apologies to me and Bill
    before you know it. I LOVE it!
    BTW, you never answered my question
    before. Is CNN also a reputable news
    source?

  421. It is good to see a Medal of Honor recipient such as Lakin’s commanding officer get good press, though…

  422. Rather, I
    expected the beginning of the end of
    the Obama Nightmare to emerge from
    the military. It’s too early tell yet,
    but if this trial gains any traction
    (Drudge and MSNBC posted this),
    it may in fact turn out that way.

    Wrong.
    One of two things will happen:
    1. If Lakin is eligible for retirement or resignation of his commission, that is what he will do; or
    2. Look for Lakin to decamp for Afghanistan, there to join fellow Would Be Deserter Connie Rhodes.

  423. So that means Obama’s birth certificate is BOUND to be called for as evidence in a military trial.

    I’m sure that Lakin, if it reaches that point, will attempt to call it as evidence. Watch then, as the military court laughs in his face. Shortly afterwards, you and the rest will tell us that the members of the Court Martial are not “Real Americans.”
    Bank on it, Gene. No military court is going to order the POTUS to produce anything. Sorry about that, but this is America.
    UNLESS my prediction comes true- see below.

  424. I always thought Obama’s real downfall
    would come not in the political arena
    (although there is bound to be a major
    upset at the polls this November),
    certainly not from the media, and
    not even the courts, which are too
    infultrated by liberals. Rather, I
    expected the beginning of the end of
    the Obama Nightmare to emerge from
    the military. It’s too early tell yet,
    but if this trial gains any traction
    (Drudge and MSNBC posted this),
    it may in fact turn out that way.

  425. Bill-
    The timing of this court martial is interesting –
    right on the heels of Obama’s nuclear appeasement.
    It’s almost like the military is sending him a
    message: Give up the nukes, and you will
    lose your office. That would explain Obama’s
    “like it or not” comment yesterday on nukes –
    was he telling his lefty pals his hands were tied?

  426. More good news.
    MSNBC now reports that the Army will proceed to Court Martial Lt.
    Col. Terry Lakin over his refusal to follow orders due to Obama
    not being eligible to be president. So that means Obama’s birth
    certificate is BOUND to be called for as evidence in a military
    trial. At long last, I believe we are on the verge of getting a
    definitive answer to this question.
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/13/2267021.aspx
    As Martin Luther King once said: “No lie can live forever”.
    I believe that the name of this courageous Lt. Col. Terry
    Lakin will be lauded in history books next to that of
    Nathan Hale, Paul Revere and Patrick Henry.

  427. More blogs posting the Kenyan official’s statement, all basically
    saying the same thing:
    http://jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com/2010/04/james-orengo-kenyan-minister-of-lands.html
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2491078/posts
    http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/04/12/kenyan-lawmaker-obama-born-in-kenya/
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread560493/pg1
    HOWEVER…..Here also is a link to the Kenyan government’s
    official March 25th hansard, which is the transcript of their
    parliamentary debates:
    http://www.bunge.go.ke/parliament/downloads/tenth_forth_sess/Hansard/RDRAFT25.03P.pdf
    Search for the term “born”, and you will find the following statement:

    “If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and
    did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young
    man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become
    the President of America?”

    So now we get it straight from the source. It really looks like it is true –
    he probably WAS born in Kenya!

  428. So WND is disreputable? How about the far Left DailyKos,
    who posted that alleged “COLB”. Are you going to tell us
    they are ‘reputable’? Rots ‘ o ruck.

    OF COURSE dailykos is disreputable, Gene. No argument there. But the information they posted regarding the COLB was verified by the state that issued it.

  429. That’s great, Warren, but I’m not sure how
    Sarah Palin figures into this discussion.
    What I’m talking about is your attitude
    toward ‘conservative’ sources like WND
    versus that toward the Old Media.
    But actually, your ‘Palin’ comment demonstrates
    to some extent what I’m saying. What did you
    feel you needed to “defend” Sarah Palin from?
    From attacks from the Old Media? Why were
    they attacking her? Because they were unfair to
    her? Because they were applying standards to
    her that they failed to apply to the ‘Community
    Organizer’? Because they were biased?
    See my point?

  430. Warren –
    So WND is disreputable? How about the far Left DailyKos,
    who posted that alleged “COLB”. Are you going to tell us
    they are ‘reputable’? Rots ‘ o ruck.
    Warren, if you are taking the role of an impartial
    moderator, which it appears to me you are trying to do, then
    please be truly objective. While I am not refuting
    that you have discovered errors in WND’s reporting (though I
    would like to know what they are), I think you are being close-minded
    and are applying a double standard. I pointed out several posts
    above some of the better-known distortions and out-and-out fabrications
    reported by CBS, the NY Times, Newsweek, and USA Today.
    And the list I posted is BY NO MEANS exhaustive. There are
    many, many examples of distortions in the so-called “Main
    Stream Media” – most of them done for political purposes.
    Check out Accuracy in Media (www.aim.org) for a whole litany
    of them. And these are just the distortions that we know about –
    I shudder to think of how many have NOT been discovered. A half
    truth is as good as a lie, and just because the Old Media fails
    to pursue and report certain stories, that does not mean they are
    unbiased. In this case, they are merely sticking their heads
    in the sand, ignoring what they don’t want to see.
    Poll after poll has shown journalists to be, on the whole, far to the
    Left of the general public. The Old Media in general has long ago
    proven itself to be a biased, and no longer interested in journalism,
    but rather its own political agenda – in this case, the presidency
    of Obama. Why do you think so many people are now walking
    away from the old Media? Why do you think Fox News, Drudge,
    Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Breitbart, and yes, WND exist and
    are thriving? Do you think Clear Channel is paying Rush Limbaugh
    $400 Million because of his looks? Guess again.
    I would also add when the Old Media is caught red-handed
    in their liberal lies, they dismiss, overlook, and excuse them.
    For instance, consider Dan Rather, whom I still see pop up
    on talk shows and other venues from time to time. A lot
    of his old lefty friends in the media stand by him, even
    though what he did (fabricating a memo) was out-and-out
    criminal. Please just imagine a conservative talk radio type
    caught red-handed creating a fake Kenyan birth certificate
    on Obama – how would you people react to that? Would you
    think it would be appropriate for the conservative media to
    still stand by him, and for that person to appear on talk shows
    and other programs? I seriously doubt it. A far more likely
    scenario is that you would be calling for investigations and
    criminal prosecutions of the perpetrators, and anyone even
    remotely connected to them.
    So please Warren, before you tell us how ‘disreputable’
    WND is, apply the same standards you’ve established for
    them to the Old Media. I daresay that if the NY Times
    is YOUR main source, then I think YOUR case is
    weakened substantially.
    BTW, I will also point out how neither you nor Robert
    have still told us exactly how the WND story I posted
    inaccurate.

    1. You may not read the other posts, but I have aimed in all directions when stuff doesn’t add up. I was one of Sarah Palin’s biggest defenders during the campaign. Put her name in my search engine and you will see. So I have applied the same standards to the Old media before I told you how disreputable WND is.

    1. RE: WND – I would not believe anything I read on their site unless I personally verified it. They print claims that suit their ideology without independently doing the fact checking. I have fact checked a couple of pieces on topics I know a lot about and there were errors which would have been discovered if they had checked. I do not trust them on this or most topics. In general, if WND is your main source, then I would say your case is weakened substantially.
      On an aside, I may start another post because it is very slow to post to this thread due to the number of comments (2400+). I thought about shutting it down but this has become an interesting window into how ideas persist. If I do start another thread, it will be a copy of this post with a new comment field.

  431. And, BTW, do you really think that the MSM is more credible than WND?

    Undoubtably. Any news source has its bias, but the credibility of a New York Times or Fox News or Wall Street Journal over a Huffington Post or Worldnetdaily is leaps and bounds.

  432. Gene –
    Sorry about this, but as I said, the article in the Post was quite a while ago and I didn’t save the link,
    Robert –
    Which 62? Please provide a list since it is quite apparent that you keep a scorecard.
    And, BTW, do you really think that the MSM is more credible than WND?
    RSVP

  433. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of prior Supreme Court Decisions that both parents do not have to be US citizens in order for a person to be “natural born”.

    Well… if you disagree with the Court’s decision, I understand that. But kind of hard to attempt to say that the Court has not held that “jus soli” (spelling?) – that citizenship is based on geography rather than parentage- is not the current interpretation of the Court.
    Kind of like trying to argue that abortion is illegal- it’s not, but you can certainly disagree with the logic of Roe v. Wade.

  434. Every time they think they’ve surpressed all the evidence, something new emerges

    I see, Gene. Who is this mysterious “they?”
    And why are “they” 62 – 0 in Court?
    How many federal judges in “they?”
    How many HI officials in “they?”
    I know you won’t have exact numbers, but estimates will do just fine!

  435. Thanks, Bill.
    You’ll notice that with at least four posts,
    Robert has STILL failed to address the Kenyan
    official’s statement I posted, or for that matter,
    Michelle’s comment. I think there is clearly something
    there with those two items.
    BTW, Robert,I did not “gin up” anything. I’m just reporting
    what the WND has said. Bring your complaint to them.
    Poor Robert really is in a fit. Every time they
    think they’ve surpressed all the evidence, something
    new emerges. And it’s so predictable in terms of how
    they react.
    Bill, do you have a link to that Washington Post story
    you cited?

  436. You know what, Gene?
    WND does represent a whole bunch of us. And I don’t think that their reporting is worse than, and is, in fact, better than, most of the MSM.

  437. It just demonstrates what we’ve all
    known for many years: That it is absolutely
    impossible for liberals to engage in any sort
    of reasonable discussion without resorting to
    name-calling, put downs, distortions of the
    truth, outright lies, and childishness.

    Is every thought from you a sweeping generalization?
    And if you are going to whine about name calling, you might want to look back at your own posts, Gene. Look for words like “drivel” and “Real Americans” once you started childishly attacking people who feel differently than you do.

  438. Prove to us, Robert, exactly how the story I just posted is false.

    Don’t be silly, Gene. Certainly you aren’t expecting me to run down every conspiracy theory you can gin up! LOL- look up “Occam’s Razor” and you will have an idea of why I believe Hawaii State Officials over Kenya’s apparently unofficial…. what?

    I guess Robert thinks I should rely on
    more reputable news outlets like CBS (with
    Dan Rather’s fake memoes), the NY Times
    (aka The Gay Gazette, with its fabricated
    stories by Jason Blair and Judith Miller),
    Newsweek (with its false story about
    Korans being flushed down the toilet), or
    USA Today (with is doctored pictures of
    Condi Rice and the Israeli attack in
    Lebanon). Journalism in action!

    Gene, you are having enough trouble parsing out your own thoughts- don’t try to tell me what “I think.”
    Here is a little challenge you will avoid Gene: give us a post from me where I quote or cite the New York Times… CBS News… Dan Rather… USA Today… or whatever other left leaning new outlet your little heart can dream up.
    I’ll wait here, Gene.

  439. Robert’s put down does not perturb me in the
    slightest. It just demonstrates what we’ve all
    known for many years: That it is absolutely
    impossible for liberals to engage in any sort
    of reasonable discussion without resorting to
    name-calling, put downs, distortions of the
    truth, outright lies, and childishness. As
    you will notice, Robert never once addressed
    the comment by the African official I cited.
    Instead, he just attacked the source (WorldNetDaily)
    and he attacked me.
    Need I say more?

  440. It is my sincere hope that this discussion can continue without “pity” and other nonsense being part of the equation.

    Incredible that your “sincere hope” only extends to my belittling of Gene, and not to his likewise belittling of my posts.
    Shocker, Larry! LOL.

  441. Robert said

    But you said that they had started asking questions about Obama’s birth, as if they thought it was a serious issue?

    That occurred some time back, maybe a month or more, but I thought it interesting that the Post was finding a bit of conservatism in its journalistic efforts.
    While I’m here, I might as well report that I did see the report stating that Obama was born in Kenya, but as of now, even going to the Kenyan Parliament website and pulling up the document, there is no mention of Obama any longer. But, the other interesting fact is that the link that was posted is exactly the link on the Parliament’s website.
    Apparently the document has been altered.

  442. Robert:
    I am sure that Gene is eternally grateful to you for your “pity”. How arrogant! You obviously have an opinion and it is supported by some evidence. Those who do not agree with you also have opinions and they are supported by some evidence.
    As you know, I think the issue of whether Obama was born in Hawaii or Kenya is irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is “natural born”. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of prior Supreme Court Decisions that both parents do not have to be US citizens in order for a person to be “natural born”. Obama’s father was not a US citizen at the time of his son’s birth and so Obama, if born in Hawaii is a US citizen but not natural born. Obviously if he was not born in the US then he is not even a US citizen.
    It is my sincere hope that this discussion can continue without “pity” and other nonsense being part of the equation.
    Ok!
    Larry

  443. See folks? Instead of attacking the African
    official, Robert simply dismisses the while
    story by attacking me, and the World Net Daily.
    Don’t challenge the message – just kill the
    messenger. Prove to us, Robert, exactly how
    the story I just posted is false.
    I guess Robert thinks I should rely on
    more reputable news outlets like CBS (with
    Dan Rather’s fake memoes), the NY Times
    (aka The Gay Gazette, with its fabricated
    stories by Jason Blair and Judith Miller),
    Newsweek (with its false story about
    Korans being flushed down the toilet), or
    USA Today (with is doctored pictures of
    Condi Rice and the Israeli attack in
    Lebanon). Journalism in action!

  444. I was going to comment on the fact that the article is the usual worldnutdaily.com drivel, but I think there is something deeper. I am actually beginning to feel sorry for Gene.
    How awful it must be to crow that you are a “Real American,” and then turn around and discount the opinions/ ruilings/ statements of EVERY SINGLE AUTHORITATIVE American official who has spoken on or investigated the subject. How sad it must be to feel that you live in a nation where the three entire branches of government think so little of what you fervently believe… and so Gene resolves it by claiming that a Kenyan must be telling the truth, above all our fellow americans.
    You have my pity, Gene, and not in the condescending way that that may sound.

  445. More evidence from Kenya that “president” Osama is
    in fact ineligible:
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139481
    Statements from Kenyan officials present special problems
    for the Obamanites. To challenge them, they have only two
    options: To call the Africans stupid (like they like to
    do with us), or to call them liars. Neither course of action
    is desirable for the Obamanites.

  446. Specific link? Nope, sorry. But if you’ll simply go to the Washington Post website and look around, you will find that some of their opinion and political writers are quite conservative.

    No doubt.
    But you said that they had started asking questions about Obama’s birth, as if they thought it was a serious issue?

  447. Robert –
    Specific link? Nope, sorry. But if you’ll simply go to the Washington Post website and look around, you will find that some of their opinion and political writers are quite conservative.

  448. But don’t you find it interesting that NPR would put up verbiage about BHO being Kenyan born, and as soon as WND put up an article about it, NPR changed the posting?

    I find it unprofessional of NPR.
    Do you have a link from the Washington Post?

  449. Evidently, Robert, you aren’t familiar with those of us as retirees on a fixed income. We don’t waste our money. But we do support conservative candidates.
    I do still think that something isn’t right, but I also believe that this country is too great to let this question not be answered – one way or the other.
    But don’t you find it interesting that NPR would put up verbiage about BHO being Kenyan born, and as soon as WND put up an article about it, NPR changed the posting? I do. Why would they if they were right in the first place? Or are they spreading lies? Oh, yeah. That would be it. Their reporting isn’t factual?
    WND may not be your favorite, but if you have noticed, even the Washington Post, arguably which was the most liberal of the WDC papers, have started asking questions. I took the Post for all of my 19 years of living in Northern VA. Not particularly for their Op-Ed pages, but for local news and the comics and crossword puzzles.

  450. Yeah Gene, I’m just really upset and confused by an article on “worldnutdaily.com” and a posting on “youtube.” I bet the lights burned late at the White House last night, up late desperately worrying how they will deflect this latest strike towards The Truth!
    Okay, sarcasm aside: it you think the evidence is solid, why don’t you bring it to Court? Seriously here… if you think that Michelle Obama’s statement stands as evidence, DO SOMETHING about it.
    I’ll wait here. 0 – 62.
    Say, Bill: did you fork over the $100.00 for a view of Obama’s REAL Birth Certificate??? I can’t tell you how hard I laughed at that link…

  451. Bill –
    The link is still there in the World Net Daily
    web site – they just moved it.
    Gee, I guess was wrong. It’s been over 6 hours
    now, and still not a peep from Robert. He must be
    racking his brain trying to come up with new
    excuses and distortions.

  452. Isn’t it amazing how these things get posted and then immediately de-posted. There must be something to it.

  453. Surprise, surprise! Now even NPR admits that Obama
    was born in Kenya!
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=13829
    Not to be outdone, this article includes a nice clip of Michelle
    Obama (probably from 2008) calling Kenya Barrack’s “home
    country”. How many people call a country that they were not born in,
    regardless of where their parents were born, their “home
    country”? How many US-born citizens whose fathers
    were born in Italy call Italy their “home country”, or whose
    mother were born in Ireland call Ireland their “home country”?
    One may ask, “Why would Michelle ever admit that Barry was
    foreign-born in public like that?”. The obvious answer is the
    Affirmative Action Miracle is probably so naive about the
    US Constitution (as are all liberals), she didn’t even know the
    Consequences of what she was saying. Don’t forget – her husband
    had visited all 57 states.
    So now we have NPR and the First ‘Ho herself admitting Barry
    was born in Kenya. Need we say more?
    Let’s see. I estimate that in no more than 6 hours, poor little Robert
    will be jumping up and down, making excuses, calling us names,
    and in general throwing a huge hissy-fit. Give it up, Robert.
    The truth WILL emerge next year. Get set for the trials.

  454. Just to reiterate, Black Helicopter/ Elvis Is Still Alive Conspiracy Theories aside, there are three impeccable reasons that this is a non issue, no matter what the birthers so fervently wish:
    1. The fact that geography of birth is the sole determining factor to define a “Natural Born Citizen” is settled case law… see the court rulings that were affirmed by the USSC in Perkins V. Elg, that discussed the issue at length.
    2. The previously released COLB proves beyond reasonable doubt that Barack Obama is eligible to be POTUS. It gives the only two facts of birth that are relevant to our discussion: date of birth and place of birth. And, those facts have been verified by the State of Hawaii.
    All of the silliness about doctors and hospitals is irrelevant to the question of eligibility and merely shows the desperation of the birthers.
    3. The birthers have had as much access to the court system as they are entitled to. They are, I believe, 0 – 62 in court.
    Onward and upward.

  455. What do we have? Their ACTIONS, which speak louder than
    words. If George Bush had treated a soldier who was
    disobeying orders in the same manner, you would NEVER
    in a THOUSAND YEARS conclude that he had nothing to hide,
    and you damn well know that.

    Again with the conjecture?? Anywho, imagine the unbridled rage on the far right if some soldier had refused orders to invade Iraq on the “basis” that the orders were illegal.

    Our “side” consists of decent, honest, taxpaying,
    hardworking Americans, who are here LEGALLY. What is
    YOUR “side” composed of?

    Um… well, for starters I would guess (estimate here) about a dozen federal judges, several USSC justices (at the very least), numerous state court judges, etc., etc.
    Versus the barely coherent Orly Taitz? Yikes!

    It will all change after November

    Wrong again, Gene. In November, the GOP will take back the House of Representatives and possibly even the Senate. You will see them work on the economy, on health care, on any number of issues.
    One issue you WON’T see them bring to debate? The eligibility of BHO. You know why?
    Not even the GOP thinks the birthers and their “issue” or worth the moment’s thought… “you watch,” Gene!

  456. Robert drivels:

    Beyond that grain, what do you have but empty conjecture
    (i.e. they are afraid of discovery at trial), Gene??

    What do we have? Their ACTIONS, which speak louder than
    words. If George Bush had treated a soldier who was
    disobeying orders in the same manner, you would NEVER
    in a THOUSAND YEARS conclude that he had nothing to hide,
    and you damn well know that.
    Robert also says:

    The law has been settled, big guy. Your side is 0-62 in
    Courts of Law. Wow.

    Our “side” consists of decent, honest, taxpaying,
    hardworking Americans, who are here LEGALLY. What is
    YOUR “side” composed of?
    So you want to revel in your victories, eh? You consider the
    ability to suppress information and truth a ‘victory’? You’re
    just as much a victim of that suppression as our “side” is;
    ever think of that?
    Sounds to me like you’re relieved that you won’t find out
    anything more than you’ve been told by your handlers. And
    they call liberals progressive and “open-minded”. Go figure.
    But again, Robert, none of this matters. It will all change
    after November. Remember the old saying: “What goes around,
    comes around”. The Obama Myth is rapidly dying, and you are
    going to see a tremendous backlash from We The People, who
    as I said before are outraged beyond words. You’ll see.

  457. Go to HELL now, Robert. Those “far right” people as you call them
    are hard working, honest, tax-paying, non-freeloading (and I might
    add LEGAL) Americans, who have a RIGHT to expect their President to
    be just what the Constitution says he should be. We The People
    must follow the law – SO MUST OBAMA!!!

    The law has been settled, big guy.
    Your side is 0 – 62 in Courts of Law.
    Wow.

  458. So answer this or put a sock in it.

    You are getting frustrated again, WB, and your frustration is making you confused… don’t conflate a soldier’s duty to obey illegal orders (e.g. kill civilians) with a soldier’s duty to obey legal orders
    Been answered before, WB- you tell me: what order of the President’s was illegal? Deploy? Not hardly.
    Pure and simple, the military does not question the civilian authority’s ability to give orders.

  459. Gene –
    Thanks for joining in. I’m still in for the rest of the fight.
    Robert –
    You have been told, more than once, that any military person has the right to question orders that might be unlawful or illegal.
    Have you EVER looked to see what the Uniformed Code Of Military Justice has to say on this?
    ANY serviceman or servicewoman has the RESPONSILBILIY to question orders that they do not believe to be lawful.
    Want to know how to figure that out? Read the UCMJ.
    Start here.
    http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm
    So answer this or put a sock in it.

  460. It appears that the US Army is trying to make the case that Lakin is weak in the head. OK- I agree.
    Beyond that grain, what do you have but empty conjecture (i.e. they are afraid of discovery at trial), Gene??
    Nothing? Thought so…
    (By the by, you might want to provide a link to whatever ludicruous right wing website that you are quoting from…)

  461. Here’s the latest on the military case regarding illegal
    “president” Osama:

    The U.S. Army is – unofficially – suggesting a brain scan
    and medical evaluation for an officer who announced he would
    refuse to follow further orders until and unless President
    Obama documents his constitutional eligibility to be commander
    in chief…A spokeswoman for the developing case of Lt. Col.
    Terry Lakin, a flight surgeon with 18 years in the service,
    said the recommendation came to Lakin today from an officer
    whose name was not being used who implied that those higher
    up the chain of command thought it was a good idea.

    In my brilliance, I was just telling Robert the following
    yesterday: “They don’t want it to go to trial, because the
    don’t want the alleged birth certificate called as evidence.”
    Once again, I was amazingly close to predicting the future!

    Officially, the U.S. Army says it has no plans for formal
    action at this point against the officer. But the controversy
    also raises the prospect that the government may be unwilling
    to pursue a prosecution because of the possible ramifications
    – including a defense demand for a court-ordered discovery
    process that would target Obama’s historical documentation.

    Need I say more? Jees, how I hate being right all the time!
    BTW, Robert, the other soldier I was discussing was Stefan
    Cook. His orders were simply revoked and the case was
    dismissed. Nice and quiet.
    Earlier, Robert spewed the following drivel on why Osama
    doesn’t have to release his birth certificate:

    …the COLB released has sufficient information to prove his
    eligibility…”

    Come ON, Robert! You’re going in circles now! We’ve told
    you before that that redacted COLB is NOT a birth certificate,
    that there are charges that it is a fake, and that the DailyKos
    is NOT a reliable official body and certainly is not
    unbiased! Get off that COLB already, will you?

    “…What would he gain from releasing the certificate?
    Absolutely nothing….”

    Hmmm, how about an ounce (and just one!) of credibility
    on the “transparency” that he promised over and over?
    REAL President George W. Bush, even during war time,
    was FAR MORE transparent than this lying illegitimate
    piece of human garbage.

    “…what does he care what a bunch of far right people think?…”

    Go to HELL now, Robert. Those “far right” people as you call them
    are hard working, honest, tax-paying, non-freeloading (and I might
    add LEGAL) Americans, who have a RIGHT to expect their President to
    be just what the Constitution says he should be. We The People
    must follow the law – SO MUST OBAMA!!!

    “…it would be released by the State of Hawaii, and according to
    you they are “obviously liars.”

    Nice try, Robert. But I did not call the “state” liars. I was
    referring to individual bureaucrats. Once again, you are
    distorting my words deliberately.

    “…it suits him well politically to have this out there on
    the fringes…”

    Well, this time I AGREE with you Robert, as that is EXACTLY
    what he is doing. Unfortunately, that is not ‘transparecy’,
    it is not truthful, and it is certainly not ‘uniting us’.
    But apparently, such behavior is OK for liberals like you.
    Once again, we get name calling, we get put downs, we get excuses,
    we get EVERYTHING, except the lousy $25 birth certificate.
    Well, it is now April. We are now just seven short months away
    from the November elections. Besides repealing this terrible
    socialized medicine legislation, the new Congress is sure to bring
    the issue of eligibility to the front burner. You see, Robert,
    the American People are outraged beyond measure (I have not seen
    such anger in decades), and that outrage is soon going to be
    manifested as policy. Sooner or later, “King Shit” as I like
    to call him, is going to have to pay the piper on this
    issue.
    BTW, Robert, I report, and will continue to report to the
    INS every ILLEGAL ALIEN I see. Take that, “left-winger”.

  462. Barry will threaten, and the soldier will stand firm. When it
    is clear that he will refuse to yield on the matter, the
    case will be dropped, and the soldier will simply be
    reassigned.

    Um…. you don’t understand the way the military works, do you Gene?
    If the soldier is anything more than the spineless milquetoast that he appears to be, he would simply refuse the “reassignment” orders as illegal.
    By the by- what happened to the last jughead that tried this little game, simply to avoid putting herself in harm’s way overseas? Yep! She is overseas!
    Game over, Gene.

  463. His “duty”? Gee, and I thought that “dissent is the
    highest form of patriotism”. I guess that only applies
    to liberals who undermine Bush in the War on Terror.

    Stop being silly… soldiers follow orders. Plain and simple. If a soldier had refused orders to invade Iraq with the claim it was illegal, court martial him.
    Same with this clod.

    I will just point out that, for the
    7th time now, you still refuse to answer my question of why
    Barrack will not let us see his birth certificate. We’re
    all keeping score, Robert.

    Transparent dishonesty only makes you look foolish, Gene. Well, that and…. it does give me another belly laugh at your bellicose claim to be a “Real American.”
    And you wonder and cry big tears that no one pays attention to the birthers… LOL.

  464. Robert says:

    I’ve got to admit, it is hilarious to watch someone who
    styles himself as a “real American” (Gene) supports a
    soldier refusing to do his duty.

    His “duty”? Gee, and I thought that “dissent is the
    highest form of patriotism”. I guess that only applies
    to liberals who undermine Bush in the War on Terror.
    I will tell you EXACTLY what will happen, Robert. Barry
    will threaten, and the soldier will stand firm. When it
    is clear that he will refuse to yield on the matter, the
    case will be dropped, and the soldier will simply be
    reassigned. Why? Simple. They don’t want it to go to trial,
    because the don’t want the alleged birth certificate called
    as evidence. This already happened in another case.
    No, I won’t whine. I will just point out that, for the
    7th time now, you still refuse to answer my question of why
    Barrack will not let us see his birth certificate. We’re
    all keeping score, Robert.

  465. Like Obama’s failure to cooperate with the real
    (and normal) American People, you STILL refuse to answer that question,
    even though I’ve now posted it here about six (6) times. It should be
    no problem at all for him to produce it, and end all this “wild” controversy
    in one simple act. WHY THE RESISTANCE?

    How many times do I have to answer this same silly question, Gene?
    A couple of reasons to not release the certificate:
    1. He doesnt need to, plain and simple- the COLB released has sufficient information to prove his eligibility (age and place of birth) and that accuracy has been verified by the State of Hawaii.
    2. What would he gain from releasing the certificate? Absolutely nothing. I’m not sure how many times I can say this before it sinks in, but what you think DOES NOT MATTER. And that is certainly true of Obama- what does he care what a bunch of far right people think?
    3. You are being disingenuous if you claim it would solve anything- after all, it would be released by the State of Hawaii, and according to you they are “obviously liars.”
    Finally, it suits him well politically to have this out there on the fringes. Let GOP candidates either separate themselves from the birthers (alienating possible voters) or look like idiots to those in the middle.
    Got it now, Gene?

  466. A top-ranking, highly decorated officer in the U.S. Army says he’s now refusing all orders until President Barack Obama finally releases his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate to prove his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.

    I’ve got to admit, it is hilarious to watch someone who styles himself as a “real American” (Gene) supports a soldier refusing to do his duty.
    Here’s what will happen, Gene…
    1. The soldier will end up treating fellow inmates in Leavenworth; or
    2. He will soon be reporting for duty with a lame “It wasn’t my idea” excuse, like the last dunce who let herself be led by Orly Taitz.
    And NO WHININ when that happens, OK Gene??

  467. Robert says:

    Anywho- this WILL be a fun one to wach, post November- my
    prediction is that when the GOP does retake the House and then
    takes ZERO action on the Obama birth cert “issue,” Gene and the
    rest will concoct another wild conspiracy theory…
    Take it to the bank.

    If the idea of Obama not having been born in the USA is so “wild”,
    then why have we still not be given access to his birth certificate? WHAT
    IS THE BIG DEAL? Like Obama’s failure to cooperate with the real
    (and normal) American People, you STILL refuse to answer that question,
    even though I’ve now posted it here about six (6) times. It should be
    no problem at all for him to produce it, and end all this “wild” controversy
    in one simple act. WHY THE RESISTANCE?
    I hope everyone here notices that ROBERT WILL NEVER ANSWER
    THAT QUESTION. Unfortunately for Robert – and Obama – so long as
    we get no birth certificate, the issue will remain alive, as we can all see for
    ourselves. Take THAT to the bank.

  468. More good news:
    A top-ranking, highly decorated officer in the U.S. Army says he’s now refusing all orders until President Barack Obama finally releases his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate to prove his eligibility to serve as commander in chief.
    “I feel I have no choice but the distasteful one of inviting my own court martial,” said Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, an active-duty flight surgeon charged with caring for Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey’s pilots and air crew. “The Constitution matters. The truth matters.”
    “For the first time in all my years of service to our great nation, and at great peril to my career and future, I am choosing to disobey what I believe are illegal orders, including an order to deploy to Afghanistan for my second tour of duty there. I will disobey my orders to deploy because I – and I believe all servicemen and women and the American people – deserve the truth about President Obama’s constitutional eligibility to the office of the presidency and the commander in chief.
    “If he is ineligible, then my orders – and indeed all orders – are illegal because all orders have their origin with the commander in chief as handed down through the chain of command.”
    After the GOP takes over in the fall, the question of eligibility is
    bound to become a front a center issue. I wonder: Would a socliazed
    medicine bill signed by an illegal “president” be valid? I would think
    not.
    I also wonder how Obama will look for the cameras in his orange
    jumpsuit. Mwaaaaaahahaha!!!!!

  469. I’m not sure what that cryptic comment means, WB, but I read someplace that the Birthers are now something like 0 – 62 in court cases.
    Kind of amusing no matter what side of the fence you are on…

  470. So, Robert –
    Enlighten me. You believe there is fraud? Or not?
    I didn’t make any particular determination after my reading, but it seems you might have.
    Interesting.

  471. Sorry, but I don’t believe that ANYTHING in the article would indicate that Selective Service was or is doing anything to hide any facet of BHO’s registration or non-registration.

    Really??? How about this??
    The mistakes made by adding to and changing the fraudulently created record after Coffman’s FOIA request was fulfilled but before the Allen’s was received, provides an audit trail of the fraud.
    Or this?
    However, those covering up Obama’s tracks have done a sloppy job, which means there really is a conspiracy to defraud the American people, not just a theory.
    I think you missed some things in your reading, WB…

  472. Robert –
    Sorry, but I don’t believe that ANYTHING in the article would indicate that Selective Service was or is doing anything to hide any facet of BHO’s registration or non-registration.
    The article simply made the point that the law, when in effect, required registration and not registering had consequences. Being denied to serve as President would be one of those consequences.
    The article also brings up interesting dates concerning whether BHO’s statement about having to register is factual, since, if the article is correct, and I’m assuming that it is, he wasn’t required to register at the time he said he did.
    That being said, it raises more questions in some minds.
    Maybe he simply has selective memory. I know I registered as soon as I turned 18. But then, that was 1961.
    So to answer your question, yes, I read it.
    And the health care issue isn’t over until the fat lady sings. Hold onto hope. In this case, real hope.

  473. Meanwhile, back in the real world: take a moment from the foolishness to work on a real issue: contact your representative and senator and ask them to vote against the ridiculous health care reform
    I called mine- it will do no good (Lacey Clay, who will vote in favor), but it was right to register my opposition.

  474. WB!!! You just HAVE to read the “interesting” link you gave us from “conservative american news!”
    First Question: DID you bother to read it before you posted it?
    According to your link, the Selective Service is now “IN” on The Grand Conpiracy to hide the facts of Obama’s birth! The selective service records that were provided in response to a FOIA Request were- according to the link- falsified to hide the truth regarding Obama!
    Add another set of conspirators willing to mislead We The People!
    Various Federal judges
    USSC Justices
    State of HI officials; and, now…
    Selective Service Administration officials.
    This is nothing except screamingly funny!

  475. Perhaps a court was satisfied, but We The
    Normal People are not. GET IT NOW?

    I really wonder what your definition of “normal” is, Gene. I guarantee you this: until you get beyond “The Right Side of Life” and “Worldnetdaily,” your controversy does not exist among “normal people.”

    BTW, I have said all along that a court not hearing a case is not a finding. Just a statement that they feel that there are more pressing issues to consider.

    That is patently incorrect, WB. Civics 101- a court refusing to hear a case means they don’t see ANY issue. Nothing to do with prioritizing issues.
    Stop making stuff up.

    But don’t worry. As Ann points out in the
    passage I cite above, this issue will be
    resolved next year, after we take over the
    Congress. You’ll see.

    Wrong again, Gene. When the GOP retakes Congress, they will worry about alot more important things than Black Helicopter Conspiracy Theorists.
    Anywho- this WILL be a fun one to wach, post November- my prediction is that when the GOP does retake the House and then takes ZERO action on the Obama birth cert “issue,” Gene and the rest will concoct another wild conspiracy theory…
    Take it to the bank.

  476. Gene –
    BTW, I have said all along that a court not hearing a case is not a finding. Just a statement that they feel that there are more pressing issues to consider. That doesn’t mean that I agree with those decisions to not pursue the cases, because I don’t, but then, IMHO, this is a political bath of boiling water. Don’t go in unless you are fully prepared with an insulated suit of something, because it will stir up a hornets nest.
    That being said, if this thing in Hawai’i turns out to yield results, HOLY CRAP!!!
    Don’t know if you or anyone else reading this knows of Perry Stone, whose program is Manna-Fest , but Perry has been on a tear. Biblical, which may not be what some want to watch, but I do, and I do watch.

  477. But this can’t be true, Bill! According to
    Robert, Hawaiian state employees NEVER
    lie! LOL.
    Do you think I can persuade gullible Robert
    to buy a bridge that I’m selling that connects
    Brooklyn to Manhattan? Real cheap.

  478. Oh, no! Are you still at it? When are
    you going to give it up, Robert?
    So a court decision is now a birth certificate?
    I see. Gee, you could have fooled me!
    Perhaps a court was satisfied, but We The
    Normal People are not. GET IT NOW?
    Grand conspiracy? Not at all. Just like
    minded individuals working together for the
    same cause. We see it all the time.
    But don’t worry. As Ann points out in the
    passage I cite above, this issue will be
    resolved next year, after we take over the
    Congress. You’ll see.
    PS: Don’t congratulate me. I actually
    congratulate YOU, Robert. You’ve
    still managed to avoid my question!

  479. The court rulings are not a birth certificate – they are only legal justifications for NOT providing it.

    Incorrect. The rulings are statements that it HAS been proven.

    The COLB you cite is not “proper”, simply because it
    was redacted, and because the DailyKos is not a proper body – it is
    just a left-wing lie machine.

    LOL- I don’t defend or depend on the “Daily Kos,” but what nutter right wing sight are you depending on for your information that it was redacted?

    The “clear statements” by Hawaiian officials
    mean nothing, for as I’ve said 3 or 4 times now, Robert, we CAN’T prove they
    are lies,

    They “mean” that the COLB is real and valid, which means that BHO was born in HI. Sorry, Gene- this is America. You don’t get your wish of “guilty until proven innocent.”

    Like Osama, your incredible evasiveness on this issue just provides more and more reason to believe they ARE hiding

    What “evasiveness” is that, dolt? Read it again: The COLB satisfies the issue. Hands down. Done. No twisting turning or mumbling.
    So- mumble away gene on why no court in the land thinks the birthers have a case worth hearing?
    What was that you were saying?? Some sort of grand conspiracy???

  480. What a childish, immature, moron.

    Congratulations, Gene!!! About 9,000 posts from tin foil hatters regarding the Obama Birth Conspiracy, and YOU win the prize for most ridiculous post!
    You call him “Osama,” and then accuse someone else of being immature!
    That is hilarious!.

  481. Tell you what, Gene,
    It will happen when a court, any court, finally and fully says that there needs to be an open and honest discourse of what and where we are.
    PeeBO signed an Executive Order on his first day in office (unless I’m wrong) to seal ALL of his records. Why?
    Hell, I’d be glad to give up mine if I was running for office – and there is some mud in there.

  482. No, I mean to the point where it is the major
    headline of the day, and will likely do him in,
    similar to the way Clinton’s issues over
    Paula Jones and such (which later grew into
    the Lewinksy scandal) didn’t come to a head
    until well into his second term. My guess is
    that key Democrats will start to view Obama
    as more of a liability than an asset, and
    will not want to go down with the sinking
    ship. They will collude with the GOP to
    go after him, while all the while pretending
    that they are actually on Obama’s side.

  483. There’s an interesting comment today from Ann Coulter, whom the
    Obamanites believe has only contempt for those of us who
    question Obama’s eligibility (based on her “KKK” remark). Today,
    Ann says the following:
    “…The whole purpose of this public “summit” with the minority party
    is to muddy up the Republicans before the November elections.
    You know, the elections Democrats are going to lose
    because of this whole health-care thing. Right now, Americans
    are hopping mad, swinging a stick and hoping to hit anyone who
    so much as thinks about nationalizing health care. If they could,
    Americans would cut the power to the Capitol, throw everyone
    out and try to deport them. (Whereas I say: Anyone in
    Washington, D.C., who can produce an original copy of a
    valid U.S. birth certificate should be allowed to stay.)
    …”
    from “What part of ‘Party of No’ don’t you understand?”
    February 24, 2010
    Her remark suggests four things: 1) The birth certificate question
    is by no means dead, 2) Coulter herself questions Obama’s eligibility,
    3) She believes (as many do) that the GOP will trounce the
    Democrats in the Fall, and 4) Once the GOP does take over the
    Congress, the birth certificate issue will come roaring back to the
    forefront

  484. Gene –
    Simple work-around. Build your comments in your word processor, then simply copy and paste into Warren’s blog. It may take a few minutes (probably less), but you can be assured that your words are correctly spelled and your thoughts are in order.

  485. Robert says:

    On my side I have numerous court rulings, a proper COLB, and the clear statements
    of HI state officials… Stop bleating- start providing evidence.

    The court rulings are not a birth certificate – they are only legal justifications
    for NOT providing it. The COLB you cite is not “proper”, simply because it
    was redacted, and because the DailyKos is not a proper body – it is
    just a left-wing lie machine. The “clear statements” by Hawaiian officials
    mean nothing, for as I’ve said 3 or 4 times now, Robert, we CAN’T prove they
    are lies, simply because alleged “president” Osama WON’T LET US SEE
    THE PROOF! THAT is the whole issue!
    But I think even YOU are capable of comprehending that. Clearly, you are now
    just playing childish games with us. Like Osama, your incredible evasiveness
    on this issue just provides more and more reason to believe they ARE hiding
    something.
    Funny, we get everything under the sun in connection with this matter, except
    what we ask for. We get arguments from THREE law firms, we get a redacted
    COLB from the DailyKos (which is worthless), we get newspaper clippings from
    1961, we get statements from his sister who I believe mixed up hospitals, and
    we get unofficial remarks from some state bureaucrat. We get crying, we get
    anger, we get ridicule, and we even get threats. We get EVERYTHING, except
    a lousy $20 birth certificate. Please tell your teleprompter-reading hero Obama
    that I personally will pay for it.
    NOTE: This page is now way too big, and as a result, incredibly slow. Can it
    be broken up somehow?

  486. Robert says:

    Keep asking, if you wish. Your requests will have some
    modicum of credibility if you would make the same requests
    of others that you do of me.

    …instead of simply answering Bill’s question. He also
    refuses to answer my question, over and over again.
    What a childish, immature, moron.
    I never said a word about Obama’s ethnicity, Robert,
    but even if I did, that is irrelevant to my question.
    Robert is a great example of the types of people
    running our government today. November cannot come
    soon enough.

  487. Since the judge smacked Orly with a fine of $20,000 based solely on his opinion of the merits

    If you had bothered to read the judge’s order that accompanied the fine, you wouldn’t make such an inane statement.
    I know- you don’t need to read things- but in this case it would have saved you from such a boner.

  488. You’ll notice, BTW, how testy Robert is getting lately, and how
    he consistently avoids the question Hilllary first raised on why
    Osama is stonewalling this issue, and changes the subject by
    demanding proof about an obviously lying bureaucrat in Hawaii.
    The “proof” lies in the actual birth certificate, which Obama refuses
    to let us see. Get it now, Robert? Sheesh!

    I understand your frustration, Gene. You are a conservative, and a liberal man is president. What’s more, you don’t like his ethnicity.
    I get that- but stay on target: On my side I have numerous court rulings, a proper COLB, and the clear statements of HI state officials. On your side, you have internet conspiracy theories and your continued bleat that the state officials are lying.
    Stop bleating- start providing evidence.

    Sure will be an interesting year.

    Perhaps, but none of it will have to do with BHO’s eligibility.
    What did Ann Coulter say about you guys?? “The last vestiges of the KKK?”
    LOL- “Osama” indeed!

  489. I’ll ask again.

    Keep asking, if you wish. Your requests will have some modicum of credibility if you would make the same requests of others that you do of me.
    Thanks, WB.

  490. Robert –
    Since the judge smacked Orly with a fine of $20,000 based solely on his opinion of the merits – and he has passed his opinion on the the California Bar Association, I think she has a right to prove her point. And it could be the final answer.
    BTW, I have asked you before, so far to no avail, to drop the sarcasm. I’ll ask again. Thank you. We aren’t “kids.” And at almost 67, I’ll bet I’m old enough to be your father – maybe grandfather.

  491. Bill –
    Interesting article there about Orly Taitz. That’s a good tack, and
    hopefully it will work – at least until next January, when the new
    GOP Congress is sworn in, and the real investigation into this matter
    can begin. Eleven or more Senate seats previously thought to
    be safe for Democruds are now in play, plus as much as an
    astounding 150 seats in the House! My God, what a blow-out
    it will be in November.
    You’ll notice, BTW, how testy Robert is getting lately, and how
    he consistently avoids the question Hilllary first raised on why
    Osama is stonewalling this issue, and changes the subject by
    demanding proof about an obviously lying bureaucrat in Hawaii.
    The “proof” lies in the actual birth certificate, which Obama refuses
    to let us see. Get it now, Robert? Sheesh!
    But I guess I understand Robert’s anxiety. I suppose it’s not easy
    to see your teleprompter-reading hero on trial for treason (which
    is a capital offense during war time). Hey, what can anyone
    say? They shouldn’t have tried to take over the USA by
    deception, and worse yet, tried to destroy it with socialism like they
    did. I’m sorry that they have young kids, but these two HAVE to
    serve as an example to any other liars who would try to
    take over the United States by fraud. They wouldn’t be IN all
    that trouble if they had done the honest thing. Well, too late now.
    Sure will be an interesting year.

  492. oh one more thing… people seem to want to tie my support of BHO’s eligibility to support of his policies. If you have read what I have said, you know that that is incorrect.
    So let’s try to stay accurate on that mark, OK?
    Thanks, Kids.

  493. Osama refuses to do.

    Now I see your problem with “Osama” It’s not his birthplace, it’s his heritage.
    Best of luck to you while the world passes you by, Gene.

  494. It never fails to amaze me how people on the left, who absolutely
    abhor labels, because (Sniff!) “words HURT” (Boo-hoo!) are SO
    quick to apply labels to anyone who disagrees with them. And you
    people wonder why REAL Americans detest you so much. Ha!

    LOL= “REAL Americans?” YOU???? And the rest of the Birther crowd? Don’t make me laugh.
    When you are done whining and sniffing about me “labeling” you, don’t forget to give us the evidence of the lying.
    I’ll wait here while you fulminate and try to change the subject.

  495. This is PRECISELY what BOZO counts on happening….tell it often and the clouds will cover the real TRUTH he doesn’t want seen by anyone.

    LOL– tell us again Crazy Greek- the one about how the paper the COLB was printed on wasnt even around when BHO was born??
    Come on!!! LOL

  496. Robert spews:
    You accuse the state officials of lying: back up what you said. Provide evidence that they lied.
    Well, the only way it can be proven that this person’s either
    telling the truth or lying is by producing the actual birth
    certificate, which destined-to-be-one-term (or less) “president”
    Osama refuses to do. See?
    Slowly but surely, you seem to be catching on. There’s
    hope for you yet!
    And so it goes with a typical birther
    It never fails to amaze me how people on the left, who absolutely
    abhor labels, because (Sniff!) “words HURT” (Boo-hoo!) are SO
    quick to apply labels to anyone who disagrees with them. And you
    people wonder why REAL Americans detest you so much. Ha!

  497. Instead of answering that
    question like a mature adult, you act like a typical childish
    liberal and seek to besmirch MY character, as if it were I,
    rather than Osama, who was engaging in a cover-up.

    Paragraphs of drool, and no back up for what you said.
    You accuse the state officials of lying: back up what you said. Provide evidence that they lied.
    And so it goes with a typical birther…

  498. Interesting that Robert is STILL trying to defend the indefensible!
    “A LIE told often enough will be perceived as the truth”….anyone remember THAT little quote?
    This is PRECISELY what BOZO counts on happening….tell it often and the clouds will cover the real TRUTH he doesn’t want seen by anyone.
    However, BOZO has one problem. Those that seek that truth seem to be gaining in numbers rather than diminishing. Interesting.
    Maybe there aren’t as many fools in this country as there once were……or maybe folks are just waking up to the FACT that they have been LIED TO…….by one who is professional at the art of LYING!
    He’s already been called on it on the floor of Congress once by a Congressman (something I had never heard uttered openly before in this venue by ANYONE) and now recently in his State of the Union speech we see Justice Alito mouthing “That’s not true” to the swill BOZO constantly spews!
    I really do feel sorry, and have very little respect, for anyone who chooses to listen, know they are being LIED to on a regular basis and still want to defend the LIAR.
    They never seem to understand that if the LIAR chooses to LIE to one segment of society, they should not be surprised when the LIAR they support turns on them and spews his LIES in their direction……..something we are already seeing from this IDIOT who occupies the Oval Office of OUR White House.
    GET A ROPE!

  499. Robert whines:

    The people you are accusing of a crime work for the state of HI.

    So what? Do you think that matters? Again, such naiveté! Tell
    me, you work in higher education, right? You MUST! No one in the
    real world would ever make the kinds of assumptions you are
    making.
    Besides, I never used the word “crime”, and in fact, I tend to
    doubt that it WAS a crime. I cannot be sure, as I am not an
    attorney, but so far as I know, I don’t think the statement was
    made under oath, to law enforcement or other public officials,
    or in any official capacity. That being the case, could that person
    be charged with a crime? It seems unlikely. Is there a law
    that says you must tell the truth to a sleazy outfit like the
    DailyKos (as if the DailyKos actually cared about the truth
    in the first place!)?
    The only definite crime committed – besides Obama’s possible
    treason, of course – was against Lou Dobbs by some typically
    violent liberal who fired a bullet into his home. It will be a
    pleasure to see the liberal scum who did that apprehended and
    tried.
    Robert also drivels:

    Anything other than internet innuendo to back up your
    accusation, or has Obama so embittered you that character
    assassination is all you have left?

    Once again, you refuse to answer the question that Wild Bill
    (thanks, Bill), liberal attack victim Lou Dobbs, and I keep
    raising, and that is: Why does Osama keep playing this ‘cat and
    mouse’ game over his birth certificate? Why doesn’t he simply
    clear up the matter once and for all? Instead of answering that
    question like a mature adult, you act like a typical childish
    liberal and seek to besmirch MY character, as if it were I,
    rather than Osama, who was engaging in a cover-up.

  500. Hey, Robert –
    Can you answer this one?
    Why has Obama spent a ton of money to keep basic stuff hidden?
    And I don’t think the answer can be because he has the wealth to do so. He may have the wealth, but what end does that serve?
    How about this?
    Why have his legal beagles go to court and say that the place where the suit was brought is not the correct venue, ergo, dismiss?
    Something is being hidden from We The People, and I’d like to know why.
    IF he lasts for two terms or only one, and IF these questions aren’t answered, will you contribute to the establishment of his Presidential Library?

  501. Alot of foam, not much fact Gene.
    The people you are accusing of a crime work for the state of HI.
    Anything other than internet innuendo to back up your accusation, or has Obama so embittered you that character assasination is all you have left?

  502. Robert says:

    It’s a fake that has had its basic facts verified by officials
    of the state of HI. But they are in on the conspiracy, right?

    Golly gee, I never thought of it that way. I didn’t realize that
    every government official in the world is 100% honest, and
    that they never lie and are never pressured to lie. Sure is
    reassuring.
    Please don’t be so naive. I worked in government for a number
    of years, and you are kidding yourself if you believe all civil
    servants and bureaucrats always tell the truth.
    Robert, please look at your own words: “…its basic facts
    verified by officials of the state of HI…”, and be honest with
    me for just a moment. Suppose you worked for the DMV and told
    a 17-year old that he had to produce a birth certificate
    to get a driver’s license, and the youth responded by saying: “I will
    not produce my birth certificate, and here’s three lawyers who say
    I don’t have to, and here’s a signed letter from my mother stating that
    the birth certificate is in my home, and here’s a newspaper clipping from
    the day I was born, and I’m not going to show you my school
    records that contain my birth information either,” and so on. You’re
    going to tell me that you would not be the least bit suspicious of
    that kid?
    That is the basis of this whole issue: The ‘transparency’
    that this con artist promised us. Liberal attack victim Lou Dobbs said
    it best: Obama probably IS a citizen (Note that he cleverly said
    ‘citizen’, which is not in doubt, rather than ‘native-born’). Why
    doesn’t Obama just end all this confusion and speculation in one
    simple act? This is transparency? My ass!
    So I agree with you in this sense, in that I DON’T know about Osama’s
    eligibity to be POTUS. THAT’S PRECISELY WHAT WE ALL
    WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT!
    You missed my little joke about “foreclosed mortgages”. I wasn’t
    referring to you personally. I was commenting on the super mess
    this guy has us in just 12 months into his term, including a terrible
    economy, horrendous deficits, 10% unemployment AFTER he promised
    no more than 8% with his super-misguided ‘stimulus package’, and
    an insane socialized medicine proposal that people CLEARLY don’t
    want.
    But it by no means ends there. We are still in Afghanistan, with a troop
    surge to boot; we are still in Iraq; troops are still getting killed (I
    was at the funeral last week for one killed by an IED); and GITMO is still
    open. In spite of all Obama’s ridiculous bowing and ‘making nice’ with
    the bad guys, terrorists are still attacking us; the Patriot Act is still in effect;
    and now, he’s even backing off on the civilian trials, and will probably
    hold military tribunals at GITMO, exactly as Bush had originally planned.
    I would not be the least bit surprised if he resumes racial profiling and
    even waterboarding in the near future, especially if there is another attack
    like the one on Christmas.
    What a disaster, and liberals have got to be absolutely seething with anger
    by now (that’s the only good part).

  503. Um, sure Gene. It’s a “fake” that has had its basic facts verified by officials of the state of HI. But they are in on the conspiracy,right?
    LOL on my foreclosed mortgage, Gene. I think you know about as much of my financial situtation as you do BHO’s eligibilty to be POTUS. Zero.
    As far as the turnabout goes, I agree and think it is deserved. END the silly health care reform in its current state and reduce the outlandish deficit spending.

  504. Robert said:

    It doesn’t take any inside knowledge to know that the eligibility
    issue has been gone since release of proper documentation from
    the State of HI verifying the birth… like, uh, the documentation that
    was released long ago.

    Yes, except that no documentation was released. Nice try, Robert,
    but the issue is not dead; only asleep for a little while. That (redacted)
    ‘Certificate of Live Birth’ posted by the Left-Wing loony site DailyKos in
    2008 is probably a fake. Once again, like Lou Dobbs, who had his house
    fired upon by liberal criminals for raising this issue, we are asking a
    simple question: Why doesn’t “president” Obama simply end all of the
    confusion and produce the damned birth certificate? While we’re at it,
    why not also produce “president” Obama’s college records? Do the
    latter contain information on his international student status? Why the
    cat-and-mouse game? Why hire three law firms to prevent us all from
    seeing this information? What is he hiding?
    Hello again, everyone. It’s been a while since I visited this site, and much
    has happened in that time. We’ve taken New Jersey, we’ve taken Virginia,
    and to everyone’s amazement (including my own), we’ve even taken the
    bluest of blue Senate seats in the bluest of blue States – Massachusetts.
    My expectation is that The American People will take the Congress back in
    November (a very real possibility now, given the amazing outcome this
    week), and when that happens, this issue will once again come to the
    forefront. I’m willing to bet your foreclosed mortgage on that one.

  505. Robert –
    I believe it was last week that I saw a post that said Orly was asking Judge Carter to transfer the case to the District of Columbia since, apparently, the US attorney(s) indicated that only a court in DC could have say in the case since that is where the President lives/works.

  506. Now, assuming that you know more than I do, and, BTW, I don’t believe the issue of eligibility is done, what do you think will prevent something from going forward and continuing the controversy until it does, in fact, get resolved – like, uh, provide a real birth certificate?

    It doesn’t take any inside knowledge to know that the eligibility issue has been gone since release of proper documentation from the State of HI verifying the birth… like, uh, the documentation that was released long ago.
    Any word on what old Orly is up to these days?

  507. Well, Robert. Have a great 2010. Happy New Year!
    (Would have been nice if you had started the continuing coversation with a small pleasantry, but…)
    If you think there have been injustices by the courts over this, I suspect you ain’t yet seen nu’tin!!
    It is probable that a number of things that have been done, and more in the works, that are unconstitutional. The whole Chrysler mess immediately comes to mind. To say nothing about the health care debacle, as yet not law.
    Now, assuming that you know more than I do, and, BTW, I don’t believe the issue of eligibility is done, what do you think will prevent something from going forward and continuing the controversy until it does, in fact, get resolved – like, uh, provide a real birth certificate?
    Hope Santa left you some goodies in your stocking. I got goodies. No coal.

  508. Dead. As a doornail. Berg et. al. got all the court they deserved.
    If there was any justice, those sorts would have their wages garnished to pay back the taxpayers for the court costs incurred in their frivolous lawsuits.

  509. Is this eligibility issue DEAD, or what???

    I don’t think so. Hawai’i is still active and Berg has yet to have his day in court. And there is now an impeachment movement started.
    Dead? Not yet. Or what? Yeah.

  510. You’re damn skippy I would consider an order to “Deploy” an illegal order IF it was issued by an individual that was ILLEGALLY holding the office from which said order originated!
    Fair enough?

    Silly, but par for the course. But the Nuremberg reference was quite a hoot, if that makes you feel any better.
    And: “Tick Tock, Tick Tock.” Is this eligibility issue DEAD, or what???

  511. Oh..I’m sorry Robert…I didn’t answer you ‘well thought out’ question, now did I?

    So perhaps you consider “Deploy” an illegal order?

    Here’s MY ‘well thought out’ answer………….
    You’re damn skippy I would consider an order to “Deploy” an illegal order IF it was issued by an individual that was ILLEGALLY holding the office from which said order originated!
    Fair enough?

  512. I give up….you try and explain something concisely and end up with remarks like this!
    Robert………do you have muscle between the ears or are you really just trying to come across this ignorant?
    Sheesh….it really is hopeless to try and converse with you on any level, isn’t it?

  513. Just this last point regarding ‘lawful orders’ and the importance of ensuring that the person issuing orders is lawful to do so………I have only ONE WORD…….
    Nuremberg!

    I’m sure you see the irrelevance of your references, correct? After all, it is patently obvious that it was the orders given in your references that were illegal. Remember? “Kill noncombatants.” Illegal order.
    So perhaps you consider “Deploy” an illegal order?
    What’s next with this? Can Doctor Capt. Rhodes refuse the order of Doctor Colonel X if she doubts the veracity of his background? “I think that Colonel X lied about his medical school training, and until I see it verified, I am not following his orders…”

  514. Just to sweeten the pot a little…there is always Article 134!
    Article 134 encompasses offenses that are not specifically listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial, That is to say, “all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty,”. Article 134 is often considered to be a “catch-all” for various offenses that aren’t necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ.
    Cute little article…..if they can’t nail you with a “specific offense”, they can always charge you with Article 134!
    The UCMJ is, by and large, a very good manual and is followed religiously by the military. It is their bible when it comes to Courts Martial. It can be a service members friend, or their deadliest enemy.
    This is the one final reason why it is so important to know that the person issuing any order that could affect a service member in ANY way, is legally qualified to do so.

  515. Just this last point regarding ‘lawful orders’ and the importance of ensuring that the person issuing orders is lawful to do so………I have only ONE WORD…….
    Nuremberg!
    The old excuse “I was just following orders” didn’t have very long legs then…….it didn’t have very long legs at My Lai, Vietnam either!
    It is not asking too much to know that the person issuing orders which put you in harms way is eligible to do so.
    Simple really………….

  516. What the hell, guys. Check out the marine (not capitalized intentionally) who is the governor of Oregon. Yep. I didn’t capitalize governor on purpose.
    Go Navy!
    Have we got any JAG lawyers out there?

  517. Robert……
    I take it from your post that you never served…am I correct?
    The reason I say this is that it is a little known fact that there are TWO oaths taken when one joins the military….are you aware of this? Probably not…so here….read for yourself…………………….they are NOT the same……don’t feel bad, I’ve even had to point this out to officers who didn’t know there was a difference!
    Oath of Allegiance for Officers:
    I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
    Note that the last sentence is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection, as is true of all oaths administered by the United States government. Article Six of the United States Constitution requires that there be no religious test for public office. In addition, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are examples of government policies and agencies preventing discrimination on the basis of religion.
    Note also that this is not an oath to defend any specific territory or persons or property. This is an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.
    Note also that there is no duration defined in the Oath. Once taken, it is a lifetime affirmation.
    Oath of Allegiance for Enlisted:
    ”I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    So help me God!”
    Do you see the difference here? There is one BIG difference……ENLISTED personnel swear to obey the orders of the President of the United States while OFFICERS, in their oath, DO NOT!
    It holds true in both instances that this oath is taken TO THE CONSTITUTION….NOT ANY PERSON or TERRITORY, etc.
    Now……..you are in the military and you have taken your oath. This in essence means that you are now governed by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Please notice that contained within said UCMJ is the following article…..
    Article 92 – Obeying LAWFUL orders……
    Within this article is this little ditty of information:

    (c) A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.

    So, you can see, all military personnel are caught between a rock and a hard place IF the CIC (Commander In Chief) were holding his office ILLEGALLY in deference to the Constitutional requirement that he be a ‘natural born citizen’.
    THIS is why, if proven to be the case, ANY ORDER or ANY LAW signed by BOZO would be invalid……..and THIS is why it is so important to not just take his word (and we have all seen evidence of what happens if we do that), but rather REQUIRE supportive documentation of his citizen status.
    It’s really quite simple and STILL remains to be seen. The FACT that the courts keep interpreting it otherwise does not alter the FACTS!
    Judge Carter just threw his oath out the window and took a GIANT CR$P on every citizen he SWORE to defend!
    Most veterans take their oaths VERY SERIOUSLY……..every once in awhile, we run into one that doesn’t! CARTER fits THAT description to a T!
    Remember this?

    Note also that there is no duration defined in the Oath. Once taken, it is a lifetime affirmation.

    Carter just took a GIANT CR$P on his oath as well…………which tells me he is not better than Benedict Arnold!
    Today is one day in the Marine Corps. glorious history that they are probably hanging their head in SHAME!
    THEY SHOULD!
    So should every American.
    Justice denied is NOT justice SERVED!!
    Plain and simple.

  518. Just thought I would post this as we had a recent discussion regarding military personnel who refuse orders to deploy… from the ruling issued by Judge Carter, a United States Marine:
    This Court will not interfere in internal military affairs nor be used as a tool by military officers to avoid deployment. The Court has a word for such a refusal to follow the orders of the President of the United States, but it will leave the issue to the military to resolve.
    Any guesses as to the word? What would be the over/under on “desertion” or “treason?”

  519. The Fat Lady sung in November of last year, WB.
    As far as Obama “losing popularity,” that is a different issue altogether and I agree with you on that.

  520. However, the fat lady hasn’t sung just yet. And BHO is losing popularity in a lot of former support groups.
    There are still several active suits out there, by Apuzzo and Berg.
    And, frankly, I doubt that even if those are stopped that it will be the end.
    Just MHO.

  521. Looks like you were right after all Robert…….Carter caved!
    Oh well…no sense in fighting corruption this wide spread when a person can’t even get a case heard before a court and let a jury decide on the evidence presented.
    Wonder just how long it’s gonna take for Carter to get rid of that new clerk he just hired?
    It simply amazes me that America could have ever gotten to this stage…but, that’s the way it goes, I guess.
    See ya around when there isn’t an America to discuss any longer…and congratulations…you called it right after all.

  522. No apologies needed Robert. It does however, infuriate me that there are people living in this country and calling themselves Americans that believe this so trivial an issue as to try and make a joke of it and purposefully make up something they KNOW to be an untruth, simply for a laugh.
    As to the COLB being proven “insufficient and/or a forgery”, I think the State of Hawaii already, although unwittingly, proved the insufficiency part (prior to this being changed, of course *wink*) that a COLB of their own State did not contain enough information on it for it’s use of one of their own citizens to be granted homestead status without further investigation and their own statement that it would be better if the applicant of said homestead status would be better off filing an original long form of their birth certificate, which contains much more information on it than the CERTIFICATION OF LIVE BIRTH………which is the document BOZO would like everyone to accept as his proof of Hawaiian birth and therefore ‘natural born citizen’ status.
    Seems to me that it is a stretch to expect anyone to accept this document (COLB) as proof of anything when the very State which issued it did not want to accept it as proof positive for one of their own citizens to apply for homestead status.
    As far as the ‘forgery’ aspect of this document is concerned, I think that has been discussed at length and still has not been proven one way or the other conclusively. I would then think it advisable for anyone, supporter or non supporter, to place much credence in this document one way or the other. To do so, either way, could set one up for a really big disappointment.
    Herein lies the problem as far as I see it. One side presents documents and then the other side presents counter documents…and then NEITHER SIDE has the intestinal fortitude to have any kind of ‘credible investigation’ into the veracity of the documents they represent as fact.
    That’s just plain silly and borders on insanity for either side. One would think, for EITHER SIDE, the ‘proper and wise’ procedure would be to have ANY DOCUMENT they wanted to present as proof of anything be scrutinized by the most reputable of people (certainly NOT the internet crowd) BEFORE presenting as FACT, wouldn’t you agree? I mean, there ARE reputable organizations whose job it is to ascertain whether a document is indeed real or not……especially within our own government……it’s done all the time in crime labs throughout the nation. Should one not trust one of these organizations, there are indeed dozens of others throughout the world that would be more than willing to investigate that don’t have a “dog in the fight” one way or the other…agreed?
    There is only ONE document that I would like to see and that is the ORIGINAL LONG FORM birth certificate, which clearly states the doctor who delivered, witnesses and the name of the hospital where the child was born on it…and THAT document has yet to see the light of day simply because ONE MAN still REFUSES to let anyone take a look at it…….and we ALL know who that ONE MAN is, don’t we?
    It’s a fairly simple request that most do not have a problem complying with…like when a parent wants their child to play Little League baseball for instance and yet, BOZO seems to have a problem wanting to release ANY information…long form birth certificate, school transcripts……(which, by the way, has been released FREELY by every other person seeking the office of POTUS), or anything else which would in any way document his past life, in any shape, form or fashion.
    This ALONE tells me someone (guess who) has something to hide and is doing everything in his power to ensure that said information is never revealed.
    JMHO, of course………….

  523. I won’t “fold my tent” until someone proves that the COLB is insufficient and/or a forgery, CG.
    But now I am also suspicious. The link I saw “the story” on now appears to make clear that it was a joke on the Birthers, and when you connect to the back up link (which I should have done last night), it goes to a Youtube video, as that is a site so often cited by the birther crowd,
    So there are nitwits on both sides of the discussion.
    Apologies if it was a false alarmm

  524. So far, the only place I’ve seen a report of a ruling is coming from the AXJ message board, not a site I would place complete trust in.
    Robert, do you have it coming from some other source maybe?

  525. Let’s not celebrate just yet Robert……not sure that you were wrong just yet..don’t fold yer tent……could be nothing more than a HOAX since I have not seen it verified by a 2nd source just yet.
    I don’t like to drink all my booze before the party is “official”…know what I mean? LOL

  526. So… come on guys, where is the celebration?
    I was wrong in my prediction regarding Judge Carter- today, he DENIED the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss…

  527. There was language in the case about “native” born and “natural” born but that is not what the case was about. Understand?

    Of Swedish parents (as you say), born in the United States, and referred to by the Court as a “Natural Born Citizen,” by no other reason than by her birth. Quite frankly, I’m not sure what you don’t understand…
    You said yourself that she was a “citizen” but NOT a “Natural Born Citizen.” The Court disagreed with you. Clearly.

  528. And, Robert, just so you know, BHO II, IS, in fact, in my Harvard Alumni directory as a JD 91. I doubt that my alma mater would have that wrong. But isn’t it amazing about Columbia?

  529. OOPS…sorry….New York SUN……my error…Well, at least I didn’t call them a “BLOG”….He He He

  530. Robert:
    Perkins vs Elg had nothing to do with natural born citizen. The case was about a girl born in the US to Swedish parents who afterwards left the US and took their minor daughter with them to Sweden.
    The girl applied for a passport and was rejected on the basis that she lost her US citizenship as a result of her parents taking her out of the US and back to Sweden. The Court held that with no proof she intended to give up her citizenship and the fact that she returned to the US where she wished to reside as a citizen, that she remained an American Citizen. Period, that is what the case was about and that was the decision.
    There was language in the case about “native” born and “natural” born but that is not what the case was about. Understand?
    Frankly, in my opinion, you do not care what the Supreme Court thinks or what anyone other than you thinks. Please try to restrain yourself when “discussing” with others. Otherwise you will look so small nobody will notice you.
    Larry

  531. American, as I understood from my high school and college studies of the English language, starts with a capital A. Am I wrong?

    If my poor capitalization bothers you, Ignore it.

    I just read that not one of the class of his pre-law studies at Columbia remembers him.

    Can you provide a link to your source? I’m certain it is a source of the highest quality and veracity… no way it will be one of those far right blogs you frequent, right?

    Don’t you think that the White House would grab that and shake it to the ground with a great big answer, like “I have proof of my time there?”

    Done. See previously released COLB and statements of HI state officials.

  532. Robert, please, when you write, as you did

    I don’t care if he rots in hell either, now that he has been convicted. But holding an american citizen without showing cause is dangerous stuff for ALL of us.

    kindly use proper capitalzation.
    American, as I understood from my high school and college studies of the English language, starts with a capital A. Am I wrong?
    And we need to get back to the original topic. Which is the qualifications of BHO. And part of that should be his character. I just read that not one of the class of his pre-law studies at Columbia remembers him. And the class was about 400 students. Hells bells. I know more folks than that and I can find them at Costco in the cool room and recognize them – even after several years.
    Don’t you think that the White House would grab that and shake it to the ground with a great big answer, like “I have proof of my time there?”
    Hmmm….
    I’m waiting.
    Where’s the BC?
    Cops nose. Somthing don’t smell good here. Darn. I’ve said that before, haven’t I?

  533. Tell ya what Robert…let’s stop the jousting around on this and just agree to disagree. I don’t think you are ever gonna change your mind about BOZO’s eligibility and you are definitely not gonna change mine.
    I’ve seen enough ‘evidence’ (for me anyway) to believe that this case DESERVES to be heard in open court and BOZO judged by a jury of American citizens.
    If he has nothing to hide and can PROVE beyond all doubt that he is indeed eligible, then so be it. Let the chips fall where they may!
    What’s to fear if he is being honest, right?

  534. The warrantless searches (of American citizens) never sat well with me, but the warrantless eavesdropping ( when carried out with proof that it is warranted) is another matter entirely.

    That doesn’t make sense, CG.

    As for Padilla…..I really don’t care if he rots in h$ll. He was never convicted of plotting to blow up that dirty bomb, but was convicted on other federal charges. Anytime one goes federal, we ain’t talkin Ozzie & Harriet any longer!

    I don’t care if he rots in hell either, now that he has been convicted. But holding an american citizen without showing cause is dangerous stuff for ALL of us.

    Then again, as far as Padilla not providing any proof to the contrary, what’s the difference in him doing so and BOZO not willing to provide proof on this citizenship issue?

    You are doing what Orly tried, and got slapped by the Court on… in our system, it is not up to Padilla (the accused) to provide “any proof to the contrary.” YOU made the accusation, YOU provide the truth.

  535. Gotta agree with ya there Robert. The warrantless searches (of American citizens) never sat well with me, but the warrantless eavesdropping ( when carried out with proof that it is warranted) is another matter entirely.
    Had it not been for that warrantless eavesdropping being done by another country where it was allowed, we might well have had an aircraft blowing up over the United States spraying it’s dirty bomb material all over the place.
    As for Padilla…..I really don’t care if he rots in h$ll. He was never convicted of plotting to blow up that dirty bomb, but was convicted on other federal charges. Anytime one goes federal, we ain’t talkin Ozzie & Harriet any longer!
    Then again, as far as Padilla not providing any proof to the contrary, what’s the difference in him doing so and BOZO not willing to provide proof on this citizenship issue? As far as I am concerned, this is a way more serious matter (crime, if you will) since it effects EVERY American regardless of party affiliation.
    Sorry…just trying to ‘stay on topic’……LOL

  536. Padilla is the one that sprung to mind, CG.
    But the entire Patriot Act in general was a mistake, as far as I can see. Warrantless eavesdropping on american citizens? That’s constitutional?
    Gimme a break.

  537. How anyone can read this and come up with some excuse other than the obvious…which, in my opinion is the BOZO legal machine more or less telling Carter “See this ruling? Yours had better be the same!”, is beyond me…but I’m sure they will!
    What, the DoJ lawyers just filed this with Carter out of “respect”, thinking maybe he is too dumb to read for himself?
    Yeah….RIGHT!
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/21456083/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-87-REQUEST-FOR-JUDICIAL-NOTICE-filed-by-Defendants-Michelle-LR-Obama-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-Robert-M-Gates-Joseph-R-Biden
    Now, we wait and see which way Carter decides to jump……..

  538. Like I have said in the past in order to understand “Natural Born” you have to turn to the writings of the founders. Once you understand the rationale behind the requirement it is clear that Obama is not a natural born citizen.

    Thank you for your opinion, Larry. You will forgive me if I defer to the opinion of the Supreme Court over your opinion, however.
    Anywho- you told me earlier that Perkins had “nothing” to do with natural born citizenship- I will ask again- if that is the case, why did the Court refer to Perkins as a “Natural Born Citizen?”
    Just curious…

  539. This is the first ‘official assault” on the Constitution of the United States in case you hadn’t noticed. Just how much of YOUR liberties provided for by our Constitution are you going to be willing to give up for your Messiah?

    Sorry, that’s not true. While I agree that the Second Amendment should be held sacrosanct, I believe that holding American citizens without due process is also an “official assault” on the Constitution.
    Remember that happening under “your Messiah?”

  540. Robert:
    Like I have said in the past in order to understand “Natural Born” you have to turn to the writings of the founders. Once you understand the rationale behind the requirement it is clear that Obama is not a natural born citizen. Please refer to the following quotes from P.A. Madison and Rep. John A. Bingham’s (OH).
    P.A. Madison concludes that that there is no “better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father.” This is because, “Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”
    With confidence, P.A. Madison subscribes to the idea that a natural-born citizen of the United States can only mean, “those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.”
    In conclusion, P.A. Madison draws attention to Rep. John A. Bingham’s (OH) comments about Section 1992 of the Revised Statutes. Rep. Bingham is the author behind the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

  541. Robert wrote:

    Unfortunately for you and CG, it is irrelevant to what we are discussing today. Preemptive attacks on Judge Carter are nothing more than embittered screeds without base in the Judge’s job performance or character.

    Really Robert? If true, then how do you explain Carter’s bizarre behavior as I outlined above….which was, in case you missed it….

    READY TO RULE in September…then Kreep ask for more time. Next court date set for October 5. When October 5 rolls around, suddenly Carter is the one needing more time.
    What happened between Sept., when READY TO RULE and Oct., when NEEDING MORE TIME?
    Nothing new was brought up in the October 5 court date that had not been brought up in September.

    I do appreciate this posting of yours Robert…..

    After sleeping on it, I see what CG was saying, and to a certain extent I agree- I was wrong, and perhaps veterans do acquire some sort of “superrights” by dint of their service.

    I think the thing that gets most of us here (that think BOZO has no right to be in OUR White House) is that most of those who support him are still in denial (it would seem, given the FACTS) that he and his policies are NOT GOOD for America or any citizen thereof, which includes those that support him. When you are in a fight with a bear, you don’t go around yelling “Bring on more bears”, if you know what I mean.
    Maybe this will explain it for ya…….did you notice that the Governator in California has just signed a bill which in essence denies every gun owners right (as provided for in the Constitution) of the 2nd Amendment in California?
    Please notice if you do take the time to read it that it DOES NOT SAY that “if you are a Dem and a BOZO supporter it doesn’t apply to you!” Every American, INCLUDING the BOZO supporters, just lost BIG TIME in California.
    This is the first ‘official assault” on the Constitution of the United States in case you hadn’t noticed. Just how much of YOUR liberties provided for by our Constitution are you going to be willing to give up for your Messiah? I call this the first “official assault” because it affects us all……….unlike the “assault”, that only affects those of us who give a damn about the Constitution and have sworn an oath to that document, where the constitution was totally IGNORED by the DNC when they placed BOZO’s name in nomination for the office of President.
    I can state this with authority since the DNC, and Nancy Pelosi, is the ONLY party that felt the need to submit TWO different forms stating that BOZO was their candidate………one form to the State of Hawaii and one form to the OTHER 49 States……take a gander………….
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCIEnSFUNNo&feature=player_embedded

  542. Sorry, Robert, but Greek and I DO HAVE a greater right to criticize other military than you. We served, and that is part of a brotherhood. Join up and learn and then make remarks.

    After sleeping on it, I see what CG was saying, and to a certain extent I agree- I was wrong, and perhaps veterans do acquire some sort of “superrights” by dint of their service.
    Unfortunately for you and CG, it is irrelevant to what we are discussing today. Preemptive attacks on Judge Carter are nothing more than embittered screeds without base in the Judge’s job performance or character.

    But if you feel you have a greater right to criticize us… then tell me how and why?

    RIF, WB… I never said I had any “greater right” than you to do ANYTHING.

    You might just learn something about the NBC issue – since BHO isn’t one.

    LOL, sure! Information from BLOGS is just what we need!
    Sorry, WB: the Courts overrule the blogs in our form of government. But, hey: take solace: if we relied on blogs for our laws, you would be a winner on this one, hands down!!

  543. Sorry, Robert, but Greek and I DO HAVE a greater right to criticize other military than you. We served, and that is part of a brotherhood. Join up and learn and then make remarks.
    But if you feel you have a greater right to criticize us… then tell me how and why? And, BTW, your citation of another dismissal don’t mean crap!! Go check out Mario Appuzo.
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
    You might just learn something about the NBC issue – since BHO isn’t one.

  544. And, in case you missed it, more positive movement on this issue came today.
    Kerchner v. Obama, Case Dismissed.
    “Tick tock, tick tock…”

  545. Conversely, a non veteran does not inherit this right, simply because they have never walked in a vets shoes but would rather sit at home, suckin their thumb, letting those of that can, do.

    Wow. So veterans have more free speech rights than non vets? Do tell, CG, do tell…

    THAT will be a GLORIOUS DAY!

    I have a feeling that this line is going the same way as your “COLB paper” line went, CG. Soon, the other posters will accuse me of picking on little ld CG!
    LOL

  546. I do not see how Obama can skate this issue for much longer.

    Um, yeah. The pressure on this is just about unbearable…
    (falling out of my chair laughing)

  547. That case had absolutely nothing to do with natural born.

    Interesting take, Larry.
    Why did the Court use the term “Natural Born Citizen” to define Ms. Elg, then?

    Not a natural born citizen but definitely a citizen.

    I guess the Court made a mistake when they called her a “Natural Born Citizen?”

    I wonder what blogs you listen too man. Your “facts” seem to closely follow the pro-Obama side of the argument. Could it be that you do not approach this issue with an open mind, hmmmmm, maybe so.

    If you would take the time to read things, you would clearly see that it is WB and CG who quote the blogs.
    How could you have possibly missed the fact that my quote came directly from a court case?
    Could it be that you are reading ludicruous blogs as opposed to going to the source documents (case text) yourself?? Hmmmm…

  548. Actually, Greek, I believe that it is not only our right, but given our oath, it is our responsibility to oppose those who, for whatever reason, have forgotten the oath that they took. Maybe by pointing out to them the error of their way, they might just turn back to that sworn oath. And if they do, there can be forgiveness.

  549. Ask any veteran and you will find that we, as veterans, do have the right to criticize another veteran’s actions when we think they are incorrect. Conversely, a non veteran does not inherit this right, simply because they have never walked in a vets shoes but would rather sit at home, suckin their thumb, letting those of that can, do.
    Given this, it is also not surprising when one of these thumb suckers crawls out from under his bed to be the first to try and tell one of the CAN DO vets what they perceive is our right to do or say.
    These little thumb suckers (using that term here for obvious reasons…..I have way more disdain for them than that, believe me) are therefore, for the most part, held in the HIGHEST CONTEMPT by most veterans and consequently, their opinions are MEANINGLESS!
    When this is resolved and BOZO proven to be the LIAR that we all know him to be and thrown out of OUR White House, possibly into jail or better yet, sent packing out of the country will be the day that you will see these little thumb suckers scurrying away like the RATS they are, trying desperately to avoid any limelight at all cost.
    THAT will be a GLORIOUS DAY!

  550. Dear WB and CG:
    I have really enjoyed reading your posts and seeing the fencing with the great antagonist, Robert. I look forward to seeing this matter to its conclusion, whatever that may be. I hope it is resolved sooner rather than later although the pleasure of voting Obama and his flunkies out of office would be extremely pleasurable.
    I do not see how Obama can skate this issue for much longer. Something will give and then the truth will be open to all. When that happens Ms. Pelosi and company better turn and run as far and as fast as she and they can because justice will not look kindly on their illegal actions.

  551. Robert:
    With all due respect to your legal knowledge you have completely misrepresented the holding of the court in Perkins. That case had absolutely nothing to do with natural born. It had to do with citizenship. It is absolutely settled law that a person born in the United States, without looking to the citizenship of the parents, is a citizen of the United States. Not a natural born citizen but definitely a citizen. (Some exceptions such as being born to consular parents while in the United States).
    Please take some time to re-read the decisions and I think it is clear that Perkins does not apply to this argument and neither do the other cases you have cited. The reason for putting the natural born requirement in the constitution for the office of President was to prevent someone who might have less than full loyalty to the United States from holding that office. Clearly, if the immediate family, or part thereof, of a person born in the United States is a citizen of a foreign power then that person is not natural born. Barack Senior was British/Kenyan and therefore Barack Junior is not natural born.
    I wonder what blogs you listen too man. Your “facts” seem to closely follow the pro-Obama side of the argument. Could it be that you do not approach this issue with an open mind, hmmmmm, maybe so.

  552. I’m pretty sure that I have posted this before, and not to pile on, but this is the appeals court ruling upheld by the Supreme Court in Perkins that defined a “Natural Born Citizen” as simply a free person born in the US:
    The law of England, as of the time of the Declaration of Independence, was that a person born in that kingdom owed to the sovereign allegiance which could not be renounced. Many early American decisions applied that as the common law in this country. All agreed that every free person born within the limits and the allegiance of a State of the United States was a natural born citizen of the State and of the United States. And this was undoubtedly the view of Mr. Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott Case, 19 How. 393, 581, 15 L.Ed. 691,
    in which he said:
    “* * * we find that the Constitution has recognised the general
    principle of public law, that allegiance and citizenship depend
    on the place of birth.”
    This doctrine of citizenship by reason of place of birth is spoken of by the writers on the subject as the jus soli or common law doctrine. The Roman rule is different and is in effect in many of the continental European countries. This is called the jus sanguinis and depends upon the nationality of the parents and not upon the place of birth. Professor Bluntschild, in speaking of the latter doctrine, said:
    “The bond of the family lies at the foundation of national and political life, and attaches the child to the people among whom he is born. The opinion that fixes upon the locality of nativity,instead of the personal tie of the family, as the cause of nationality, abases the person to be a dependence of the
    soil.”[fn1]
    But this was not the common law.[fn2] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890. When the Constitution was adopted the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity
    the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became
    by birth citizens of the State and of the United States

  553. You’re PATHETIC!

    LOL. “Pathetic” for me to criticize a veteran, but OK for you to attack the honesty of a veteran.
    Why not? Makes about as much sense as the rest of your posts…

  554. You hit the nail on the head. BHO was a Brit when he was born, thus ineligible to be POTUS.

    The definition of a Natural Born Citizen- Who to believe, who to believe?? WB and Lawrence or the Supreme Court?
    Yeah. I think I’ll go with the Supreme Court’s definition, that place of birth is the deciding factor for Natural Born Citizen.

  555. There have been many court decisions, depending on your viewpoint, which have been absolutely wrong

    Agreed.

    If you are born to parents that are not US Citizens then that is not the case man.

    That opinion may be quite valid, but it is demonstrably not the law of the land.

    Obama Jr is NOT a natural born citizen and I dispute any case law to the opposite.

    OK. So what? Your dispute of the case law does not in any way reduce the authority of that case law.

    Being a US Citizen is one thing and there is case law on that but natural born is another and you sir, are wrong.

    Sorry, man. There is “case law” for Natural Born Citizen as well. The fact that you disagree with the Court’s findings is irrelevant to the discussion.
    Sorry, Lawrence.

  556. Robert wrote:

    No one said you didn’t have a right to your opinions. And I have every right to call you out on the paranoid and illogical nature of some of those opinions.

    Robert…….do you REALLY wanna make that mistake…”calling someone out”?

    You’re simply a hack who will attack the character of a marine who served honorably, simply because you disagree with his decision.

    WRONG AGAIN! I simply stated what looks to be the case. In September, Carter said he was READY TO RULE….telling the DoJ lawyers “You may win the battle but loose the war”.
    READY TO RULE in September…then Kreep ask for more time. Next court date set for October 5. When October 5 rolls around, suddenly Carter is the one needing more time.
    What happened between Sept., when READY TO RULE and Oct., when NEEDING MORE TIME?
    Nothing new was brought up in the October 5 court date that had not been brought up in September.
    As for your “calling someone out”, you had better check your hole card. I’ve done my time and got the scars and the records to prove it, therefore, I DO have the right to question anyone…especially a vet.
    Where were YOU…home suckin your thumb probably!
    You’re PATHETIC!

  557. Thanks, Larry.
    You hit the nail on the head. BHO was a Brit when he was born, thus ineligible to be POTUS.
    I really think that is the basis of the whole issue. Our elected officials and the DNC ignored the obvious and legal requirement of the Constution. Forget where he was born. That is really immaterial. He was not born a NBC, period.
    BTW, proud to have heritage from the UK, France and Switzerland, but I am Constitutionally qualified being born of two parents of families who immigrated to this country, and both of whom were born in the USA. BHO ain’t.

  558. Robert:
    Ok, maybe I gave you more credit than you deserve. There have been many court decisions, depending on your viewpoint, which have been absolutely wrong. Scotus in the case on the legal status of West Virginia, Scotus on the sale of a piece of real estate wholly within the state of Virginia as falling within the authority of the Interstate Commerce Clause, Scotus on Dread Scott, etc, etc and etc.
    The point is, as shown clearly in the Federalist papers, that the whole point of natural born citizen was to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, that a person has absolute loyalty to the United States and to no other power.
    If you are born to parents that are not US Citizens then that is not the case man. Open your eyes, open your mind. Obama’s father was a British subject when he was born. Same as with Chester Arthur. As a result, Obama Jr is NOT a natural born citizen and I dispute any case law to the opposite. Being a US Citizen is one thing and there is case law on that but natural born is another and you sir, are wrong.
    As to your comments about me personally, ho hum! I will not dignify them. Use your mind man, not your anger when you try to discuss an issue.

  559. Greek and I both served and have medals. Viet Nam. US Navy. Ergo, we have a full right to our opinions. And we served, and still will, to allow you the same right.

    No one said you didn’t have a right to your opinions. And I have every right to call you out on the paranoid and illogical nature of some of those opinions.
    “I think they got to Judge Carter!!!” What a hoot!

  560. Hey, Robert –
    Greek and I both served and have medals. Viet Nam. US Navy. Ergo, we have a full right to our opinions. And we served, and still will, to allow you the same right.
    Just so you know, in case you were not aware.

  561. I Think They Got To Judge Carter!

    OF COURSE you think that, CG!! LMAO.
    I was absolutely correct that you would go after Judge Carter.
    At least this puts one issue to rest: PLEASE cease all the chatter claiming that you are a “patriot,” etc. CG. You’re not.
    You’re simply a hack who will attack the character of a marine who served honorably, simply because you disagree with his decision.
    How about the rest of you? Ready to make any wild claims regarding Judge Carter yet?

  562. I have always thought that the issue was decided by the citizenship of BHO Senior but that it was interesting to see if Barry was even a US Citizen.

    If you think that, you haven’t bothered to read past court cases such as Perkins Elg. More than likely, you know only what you have gotten from right wing blogs, and, like WB, you “don’t need to read” the text.
    That part is just a guess, though. This part is not: according to the standing law of the land, born on US soil = Natural Born Citizen.

  563. I Think They Got To Judge Carter!
    Maybe this is the reason that the DoJ (BOZO Team) is being so quiet. Could it be they have a mole in the court?
    UNIMAGINABLE, UNBELIEVABLE, OUTRAGEOUS MOVE
    by John Charlton
    (Oct. 17, 2009) — In a stunning blow to the impartiality of the American Judicial system, Federal Judge David O. Carter, who is hearing the case Barnett vs. Obama, has just hired a lawyer who works for a law firm where Robert F. Bauer, one of Obama’s top lawyers is a partner. And that, just days before the Oct. 5, 2009 hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, in which his demeanor radically changed, according to Dr. Orly Taitz, esq., lead counsel for the Plaintiffs.
    Siddharth Velamoor is the lawyer chosen by Carter to serve as one of his two official clerks, from Oct. 1, 2009, till Sept. 30, 2010, according to Wikipedia. Velamoor is listed as an associate with Perkins Coie, LLP’s office in Seattle, Washington.
    Robert F. Bauer, is a partner of Perkins Coie, LLP’s office in Washington, D.C.. His bio at the company identifies him as holding the Chair of the Political Law group at the firm; general counsel to Obama’s Campaign for America and general counsel to the Democratic National Committee.
    Since Siddharth Velamoor could ostensibly loose his job or be blacklisted by Perkins Coie, if the case did not go Obama’s way; his presence in Judge Carter’s chambers clearly impugns the integrity of the court, and will be the cause of dismay among the general public.

  564. I know you’re right WB!
    For all those who haven’t seen THIS yet..take a gander. Looks like the BOZO ‘scrubbers’ are really startin to have to earn their paycheck (if they are gettin one that is!)
    For those of you not familiar, ‘scrubbing’ is a term used to identify when someone is intentionally trying to alter something that has been posted on the internet. It’s the INTENTIONAL FALSIFICATION of information designed to deceive. One does not ‘scrub’ something on the internet unless they are purposefully trying to HIDE OR ALTER a fact previously reported!
    Bill
    Honolulu Falsifier – Proof: Honolulu Advertiser page scrubbed from Chicago or D.C.?
    Posted on October 16th, 2009 by David-Crockett
    We The Betrayal Blog can, on the basis of screencaptures, confirm that the Honolulu Advertiser (Falsifier) indeed changed the text of the original article. I fully agree with Charlon’s conclusion that The Honolulu Advertiser attempted to hide what they ended up confirming.
    Can’t post the images here for some reason, but the link is below where you can go see for yourself.
    The Post & Email published
    Hours after The Post & Email highlighted the Games being played on the Internet by Google
    by John Charlton
    (Oct. 16, 2009) — Sometime before 2 AM Eastern Time, October 16th, someone changed the Honolulu Advertiser page, to which The Post & Email had linked, and through which link more than 400 visitors arrived at the newspapers’ site.
    That article, of January 8, 2008, as of yesterday had stated that Duckworth and Obama were both born overseas; now all reference to foreign birth, even for Duckworth, who publically admits being born in Thailand, has been scrubbed!
    You cannot hide a scrub, even if a scrub hides what you wanted to conceal from history. You always leave a trace. And this time The Post & Email will document it.
    The Honolulu Advertiser is Dishonest
    A reader of The Post & Email was “witness” to the crime against History; he posts his comment early this morning, of Oct. 16, 2009, at 2:10 AM:
    Ben:
    on October 16, 2009 at 2:10 AM
    Ace said:
    ———————————–
    Read the following article very carefully!
    http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Jan/08/ln/FP601080334.html”
    ———————————–
    There is a line of text that has been scrubbed from that article.
    It stated: ” Duckworth is happy to point out that she and Hawai’i-raised Punahou graduate Obama have “a kama’aina connection.”
    Both were born outside the country — Obama in Indonesia, Duckworth in Thailand — and graduated from high school in Honolulu — Punahou and McKinley, respectively.”
    You can read my response to Ben, in the comment cited. In short, the Blue text was not there yesterday when I wrote my articles; but the Green text and Blue text have both disappeared as of today. (Boldface and coloring in Ben’s comments were added for clarification)
    From the time stamp on Ben’s comment, it was before 2 AM Eastern Time, Oct. 16, 2009.
    The question is, who changed the page? The Advertiser, or someone working from Chicago or D.C.?
    Why the change was made is obvious: the information contained was proof that Obama has changed his birth story. No amount of obfuscation or scrubbing can now hide that fact.
    Obama supporters can decry that journalists make errors; but they should also decry when they hide inconvenient verbiage that they uttered in the past, when it does not suit their present political agenda. That’s 1984, not the U.S.A..
    However, the scrub does proves once again, what The Post & Email documented yesterday, that Obama’s birth story is in continual evolution, and that his supporters are actively rewritting history to catchup with is lies.
    For that, The Post & Email can publically thank The Honolulu Advertiser. You attempted to hide what you ended up confirming.

  565. Thanks, Larry.
    And if you haven’t done it, anyone, save a file of the article. We might need it later.

  566. Wild Bill and CG:
    I think this Hawaii issue is going to do the job. Hard to see where there is anywhere for them to hide. I have always thought that the issue was decided by the citizenship of BHO Senior but that it was interesting to see if Barry was even a US Citizen. Imagine an illegal alien living in the White House as our President.
    So, Robert, any inputs?
    Larry

  567. From the web site “The Right Side of Life” today comes this:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
    An article from 2004 in which this Kenyan newspaper stated that BHO is a Kenyan. Interestingly, as of today many of the links have disappeared, however, there are still archives that have the copy.
    It isn’t a court, but it was an article by the AP and so far BHO hasn’t disputed it – as far as I know anyway.

  568. that was my point, WB- IMO, Obama deserves the Nobel about as much as he deserves the Cy Young.
    So. No decision yet for Orly…

  569. Robert –
    You said:
    On an Off Topic note: If Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, why not the Cy Young award??

    Because, IMHO, he cain’t throw a ball 60 feet , six inches. And he, at this point, ain’t accomplished anything of significance and I will leave it leave it at that,

  570. Thanks, WB.
    I wish Orly would have clarified the fact that the order she quotes is basically a ringing “No Change” from the day before, but there you go- I certainly didn’t expect any better from her.
    Reread the link and see that the judge has not yet ruled on the Motion from the defense to dismiss: it is still clearly “Under Submission.”
    My guess- and I could well be wrong- is that Orly will attempt to say that this DOES represent a rejection of the defense motion, so that when the judge dismisses the case, Orly can incorrectly claim that he changed his mind and gin up a conspiracy theory that he was “gotten to.”
    On an Off Topic note: If Obama deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, why not the Cy Young award??

  571. That, and as of today, Judge Carter has said that the Kreep/Tates suit is a go.

    Link?

    Actually it will probably get messier, but there has definitely been positive movement.

    Not as of today, that I can tell.

  572. re: CG’s 4 Oct post about the difference between “Date Filed” and “Date Accepted”, it sounds like there could be a breakthrough any time.
    That, and as of today, Judge Carter has said that the Kreep/Tates suit is a go.
    Robert said

    Mark your calendar, lol! I say in a few weeks, zero progress for Birthers… lay your bets, gentlemen!

    Actually it will probably get messier, but there has definitely been positive movement.

  573. Oh my God Robert, how can you say that, oh, the COLB, yeah, that proves that people can print on paper man, that is all.

    Um… is this from Crazy Greek? Are you going to start chattering on that the COLB is forgery because “the paper” the COLB was printed on didn’t exist when BHO was born?

  574. What?

    You asked “why then?’ as far as the why the COLB was released when it was… I said that his birthplace must have been an inssue before it was released, and you yourself gave me the link to the issue.
    So that is why it was released “then.”

  575. Might be a slow movin clock, but it IS moving!
    Oh yeah…my “bet” is on JUSTICE!
    Question here….for “normal thinkin” people…………..IF given a choice, would a “normal person”, if asked for a birth certificate to prove idenity, spend $10 bucks and produce same or spend upward of $! MILLION Bucks tryin to hide it?
    Just a question…………………..
    Hey Lawrence De Mayo………WELCOME ABOARD!!

  576. Robert, you really kill me man. The President has proved his status!!!!!! Oh my God Robert, how can you say that, oh, the COLB, yeah, that proves that people can print on paper man, that is all. I am truly glad you are not a Judge because if you were, oh my God!

  577. Actually, Robert, the press were asking questions in February of 2007. Philip Berg’s site has extensive information.

    OK, thanks. I guess that is why “then.”

  578. Should get very interesting in the coming days.

    Mark your calendar, lol! I say in a few weeks, zero progress for Birthers… lay your bets, gentlemen!

    TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK

    Sure is one slow moving clock, CG.

  579. I was pretty sure that the Clinton campaign had brought it up in the primaries as an issue– that’s OK, I could be incorrect.

    Actually, Robert, the press were asking questions in February of 2007. Philip Berg’s site has extensive information.

  580. Information is starting to come out of Hawaii….finally.
    Seems like, unless you know EXACTLY how to ask the question or where to go to find what you are LEGALLY ENTITLED TO as a citizen, the DoH people that work for the State of Hawaii will not answer truthfully…they like to play the game of cat and mouse.
    They are now running up against their match and are finally admitting that there are indeed more records relating to BOZO that they are in possession of and BY STATE LAW are REQUIRED to release to ANY person who ask for said information!
    Also, there is this interesting bit of information coming out. The COLB that BOZO put on his ‘Fight The Smears’ website is NOT VALID due to one very important little bit of information contained on it.
    Looking at the bottom left of the document we see where it clearly states, just below the entry of Father’s Race this little statement…. “Date FILED by Registrar August 8, 1961”.
    “FILED” does not mean VERIFIED! Had it been accepted as PROOF by the State of Hawaii it would have read as follows:
    “Date ACCEPTED by Registrar”.
    In other words, the COLB that BOZO placed on his website is such that evidence submitted to them of the ‘proof of the facts stated within the COLB’ was insufficient to be ACCEPTED! It’s been FILED (if we can even believe that), but the State of Hawaii will not ACCEPT it as FACT! Had it been accepted by the State of Hawaii, it would so state on the COLB!
    BOZO’s COLB DOES NOT CONTAIN THIS PHRASE!!
    Now that folks are learning exactly what terminology is needed to be used in order to obtain information from Hawaii’s Dept. of Health personnel, they are backpedaling and starting to come forth with more information that before. Lawsuits are being filed against these people and they are starting to get the idea that BOZO just ain’t worth their scalps.
    Should get very interesting in the coming days.
    TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK

  581. I was pretty sure that the Clinton campaign had brought it up in the primaries as an issue– that’s OK, I could be incorrect.
    In any case, what is the relevance?

  582. And you, of course, have no evidence that the “record was amended years earlier,” so we can dismiss that, right?

    No, I don’t. Like I said, old cop’s nose.
    But you?

    Why NOT then? It had been brought up as an issue, and he got the COLB to put the issue to rest.

    It was brought up as an issue in June of 2007?
    Link to specifics, please, sir.

  583. Only in so far as this: Why then?

    Why NOT then? It had been brought up as an issue, and he got the COLB to put the issue to rest.

    Or was the record amended years earlier and the first COLB was lost and this was a replacement.

    And you, of course, have no evidence that the “record was amended years earlier,” so we can dismiss that, right?

  584. Only in so far as this: Why then? Or was the record amended years earlier and the first COLB was lost and this was a replacement.
    As I said, Robert, it just makes me wonder.

  585. Not necessarily, but if you will go back and read all of the who can get what, where, when and what you have to have as an interest, doesn’t it sort of beg a question?

    Well, if you don’t have to present in person to get a COLB, what do the dates that Obama was campaigning in Nashville matter??

  586. Not necessarily, but if you will go back and read all of the who can get what, where, when and what you have to have as an interest, doesn’t it sort of beg a question? Was it Grandma Dunham? Or his half-sister? And here again is the other part: COLB is issued when there is an amendment to the record.
    No, I don’t know. But, as I said earlier, my old cop nose doesn’t smell roses – or something like that. And as an old farmer, I smell… well, something that is sweet, but it ain’t roses.

  587. Well, on 5 June 2007 he was in Nashville, as in Tennessee. Campaigning. Maybe it’s just me, but my old cop nose says something is weird about the timing here. And he was in WDC the next day.
    How the heck did the COLB get issued on 6 Jun 2007? Who ordered it and under what authority?

    Are you attempting to say that HI makes you order such a document in person?

  588. I started down the road of 6 Jun 2007 with certain thoughts and then hit upon this one:
    Where was BHO on 6 June 2007?
    Well, on 5 June 2007 he was in Nashville, as in Tennessee. Campaigning. Maybe it’s just me, but my old cop nose says something is weird about the timing here. And he was in WDC the next day.
    How the heck did the COLB get issued on 6 Jun 2007? Who ordered it and under what authority?
    The following two links are germane.
    http://www.tnlegislativenews.com/custpage.cfm/frm/5717/sec_id/8038
    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/07/obama-graham/
    He wan’t in Hawaii.

  589. Lol, lol, lol is all I can say man. Whether or not the President is a natural born citizen most certainly is a constitutional issue!! How can you possibly deny that?

    “The” president, certainly. But “this” president has proven his status.

    By the way, your taunting of CG on the paper issue is getting really old, can you think of something new perhaps?

    I know, I know. But no doubt his “BOZO” stuff is fresh, right?
    Sure…

  590. Let him taunt Larry.
    As I said, Robert is nothing be a TROLL!
    Anyone that can say BOZO should not have to produce UNDENIABLE PROOF by claim “He don’t hafta” has got rocks in their head.
    He already unzipped his fly as to his true intentions with his statement “please point out where I have ever stated that I agree with policies or politics” with regards BOZO.
    It WOULD be LAUGHABLE if this weren’t so serious.
    Thankfully, we will all know one way or the other within a few days when Carter makes his ruling as to whether BOZO should come clean or if HE thinks BOZO “don’t hafta”.
    That’s the only opinion I am interested in at this point.

  591. Robert:
    Lol, lol, lol is all I can say man. Whether or not the President is a natural born citizen most certainly is a constitutional issue!! How can you possibly deny that?
    We can dispute with one another as to whether Obama is or is not eligible but there is no dispute that it is a constitutional issue. Remember, even in the short history of the United States there have been many times that the Supreme Court has been in error so the fact that they have refused, so far, to hear this matter is not meaningful as to the merits or non-merits of the case.
    By the way, your taunting of CG on the paper issue is getting really old, can you think of something new perhaps?

  592. I want my country to win and continue being the best nation on Planet Earth.

    As do I, Bill.

    And I don’t want to live in a socialist nation.

    Nor do I. And that is a GREAT reason to fight Obama’s policies.

    Thanks for being so… so, far above us.

    Don’t get your feelings hurt.
    So let’s see what happens with Judge Carter…

  593. Robert –
    Great!!
    Thanks for being so… so, far above us.
    What’s it worth if you lose?
    I want my country to win and continue being the best nation on Planet Earth.
    And I don’t want to live in a socialist nation.

  594. Monday, 5 Oct, could be interesting. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation will be in court in California on the issue of eligibility.

    Is this Judge Carter’s court?
    If so, my prediction is already on record!

  595. Why should anyone listen to you Robert? You are nothing but a TROLL!
    PERIOD….END OF DISCUSSION!

    LOL- You don’t like it when people quote you, do you CG?
    In any case- if you wish to discuss the eligibility of BHO (you know- how the COLB paper was wrong. LOL)- I will be glad to respond.
    Beyond that, I think we should leave all the “BOZO” and “Adolph Hitler” histrionics to a kindergarten class, don’t you think?
    Thanks in advance.

  596. All of the court “decisions” have been procedural, based on standing. That is not an adjudication on the merits Robert, and you know that. So tell me, who do the courts side with?

    Judge Land’s decision was “procedural?”
    Didn’t the USSC simply refuse to hear SEVERAL iterations of the case?

    Once a court, if one ever does, takes this case on the merits then we shall see the answer to your question but not before then my man and certainly not as of now.

    That’s incorrect. The clear bottom line: There is NO Constitutional issue here, and the Courts don’t see on either. I can claim that under the Constitution, a woman can’t be a senator representing Missouri. When the Courts refuse to hear my case without a hearing, that doesn’t mean my case has merit.

  597. Monday, 5 Oct, could be interesting. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation will be in court in California on the issue of eligibility.

  598. Why should anyone listen to you Robert? You are nothing but a TROLL!
    PERIOD….END OF DISCUSSION!

  599. Robert:
    Tch, tch, tch now, lets try to be honest in this discussion. You said: “Guess who the Courts side with?” From reading your posts for the last nine months it is clear that you have some understanding of our legal system. All of the court “decisions” have been procedural, based on standing. That is not an adjudication on the merits Robert, and you know that. So tell me, who do the courts side with?
    Once a court, if one ever does, takes this case on the merits then we shall see the answer to your question but not before then my man and certainly not as of now.

  600. WB: scratch post of Oct 1 7:38 am. I DID make the statement and I back it with my post of 7:40am.
    How about you? Can you provide a court case to suggest that BHO would be ineligible?

  601. Again Robert…you are WRONG! Please tell me exactly WHERE in this did I compare your BOZO to any “mass murderer”……..

    Unless you are trying to claim that Hitler was not a mass murderer, your next statements in your post gave some pretty good examples of comparing BHO to Hitler.
    And you conveniently “forgot” to add this one:

    This is EXACTLY what Hitler did when he took over Germany! Even the Jewish community didn’t see anything wrong with what he was doing at first……NO ONE QUESTIONED HIM! A few years later and with some six MILLION less, they understood what had happened!
    Think it can’t happen here? THINK AGAIN!

    Ouch.
    A hint for future reference, CG: If you stay consistent in your beliefs and convictions from post to post and day to day, you won’t have to struggle to remember what howler you typed out a week or two ago, and you won’t end up so embarrassed.
    But hey! Back on topic, right!
    Tell us again why the paper that the COLB was printed on is relevant again? I am still a little lost on it- you say it “wasn’t around when BHO was born” so that means what exactly??
    LOL

  602. As far as the “Courts agreeing with me,” Bill, please check out the long litany of dismissed cases. Truly, the Courts see no Constitutinal issue in this.

  603. Therefore, you can point to some court, somewhere, that has definitely ruled that BHO is a natural born citizen thus fully eligible to hold the office of POTUS. Is that correct? Please provide a site that we can all go to where that decision has been rendered because I can’t find it.

    Exactly the logic that is getting Orly fined. Sorry, WB, it doesn’t work that way… YOU made the accusation, YOU provide the evidence.

    Please amplify that so we can have an estimate of the number of those who disagree. I can’t find that either. Isa that from Rasmussen? Or Zogby?

    You might want to double check the quote you are attributing to me, Bill.

  604. Robert! Please!!
    You wrote

    I disagree.
    Guess who the Courts side with?

    Therefore, you can point to some court, somewhere, that has definitely ruled that BHO is a natural born citizen thus fully eligible to hold the office of POTUS. Is that correct? Please provide a site that we can all go to where that decision has been rendered because I can’t find it.
    Evidently you are very well informed. And we, that is those of us who still have questions, are waiting. So, please, you, as in the rest of the world, enlighten us few dummies.
    You wrote

    Explain that please, WB.
    By the way, who is “we?”
    I know that there are more than one of us on this side. You got support? If you do, tell them to weigh in.
    “We” is THE WORLD, Bill!

    Please amplify that so we can have an estimate of the number of those who disagree. I can’t find that either. Isa that from Rasmussen? Or Zogby?

  605. Robert wrote:

    Sure, Larry. Comparing a person to the greatest mass murderer in history is “civil.”

    Again Robert…you are WRONG! Please tell me exactly WHERE in this did I compare your BOZO to any “mass murderer”……..
    CG wrote:

    Secondly, if you would care to look at history, you might just find that Hitler took a little over 5 years (Obtainer power in 1933 and really didn’t start taking liberties from the citizens in mass until 1938)….BOZO hasn’t even been in office 8 MONTHS and take a look at what he has done thus far.

    Or here…please point out for all of us where I am comparing your BOZO to any “mass murderer”…….

    Now…..on to more interesting FACTS……..your condemnation of me for a comparison of your BOZO to Hitler. First of all, I was NOT comparing BOZO to Hitler. I was comparing their SIMILARITIES in how they have gone about getting where they are……..in other words, their LIES!

    Or here…again, point it out where I am comparing your BOZO personally with Hitler………

    As you watch this…and Robert, I truly hope you do, pay special attention at time 8:00 – 8:36 in this video. See and hear anything vaguely familiar with what is happening in this country right now?

    You seem to have a problem with the TRUTH! Classic symptoms of a TROLL!

  606. Anyway, perhaps we should all agree to stay on topic, as WB did at least say…
    So- on target- WB the ball is with you. Give us theory of why BHO needed a document other than the birth cert, and if your theory involves us being misled by BHO please give evidence of this contention…

  607. Let’s see…..someone does not support a persons politics or policies yet is on a constant tirade for them to remain in the White House!
    THAT is what I call INSANE, but good for a laugh, that’s for dang sure!!

    Thanks for proving the point I made to Larry about “civility” Crazy Greek!
    (I especially got a kick out of your use of the word “tirade.” LMAO)

  608. If we are to believe that he found his BC when he was 17, back in 1978, then why would it be necessary to get a COLB in 2007?

    Why is that relevant to where BHO was born?

    If he had his BC in hand in 1978, it should have been a certified copy of the original, photostat or something with a seal, doc’s signature, etc. So, in 2007, he could have gotten a copy of the vault copy rather than the COLB. Most curious.

    Similar to the records that the HI state officials verifed that they reviewed?

  609. Just because Robert goes over the edge is no reason for us to do the same

    .
    Sure, Larry. Comparing a person to the greatest mass murderer in history is “civil.”

    The facts will win in the end. Robert, if you are not a supporter of Obama then I would hate to meet someone who was because it would be an ugly moment. Full of groveling and the like, quite distasteful.

    Uh huh. If facing the inescapable fact that the man is Constitutionally qualified to be president, your logic means that just about every serious politician- right or left- is an “Obama supporter.”

    My only question about Obama is whether he is a citizen at all but as for his being a natural born citizen, he is not, because of his father.

    I disagree.
    Guess who the Courts side with?

  610. Larry wrote:

    Just because Robert goes over the edge is no reason for us to do the same.

    Larry, believe me, I do understand your point here. It’s just that Robert wants to try and accuse me of saying that BOZO is Hitler and I NEVER said anything of the sort. I was simply pointing out the FACTS of the similarities of their methods of stripping liberties from the citizenry, a FACT that Robert seems to want to deny.
    Simple really and not at all surprising. However, he DID unzip his fly when he suggested that no one could point to anything he had said which labeled him a supporter of either BOZO policies or politics!
    Let’s see…..someone does not support a persons politics or policies yet is on a constant tirade for them to remain in the White House!
    THAT is what I call INSANE, but good for a laugh, that’s for dang sure!!
    ROFLMFAO

  611. The ‘amended’ one they are referring to is something that anyone can get should they not be Hawaii born. I really don’t understand the Hawaiian laws all that much as it pertains however, there IS a law on their books that states that if an agency has access to an amended document then that document MUST BE MAD AVAILABLE to any person requesting same. They don’t have to be a relative or anything…anyone can request a copy and it should, by Hawaiian law, be made available.
    The first person requesting had her application for the document denied by Ms. Okumbo simply by placing an X in two of the four areas of the application.
    There is now another person requesting a copy of the BOZO BC citing the fact that they are a distant relative. Hawaiian law states that in order to get a copy of someone’s ORIGINAL BC, one must either be the person whom the BC pertains to or A RELATIVE.
    I think it’s funny in that the person requesting based on “relative status” clearly states that since the law in Hawaii DOES NOT state how distant that relative must be, they are requesting based on the fact that they have discovered that they are related to BOZO Mama by something that happened in their family history back in the 1600’s!
    Hey, if they don’t specify, a relative is a relative……right? 😉
    This could get very interesting. I’m really surprised that someone in the Cheney family has not requested based on relative status. If you remember, back in the campaign of ’08 it was reported that Vice President Cheney was related to BOZO in a round about way by someone on his wife’s side of the family I believe.
    This is about the best dog and pony show I have seen in a long, long time!
    TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK
    ROFLMFAO

  612. Thanks, Larry, and I’m very much in agreement with you on BHO’s eligiblity. And that’s where I’m headed on this track. If we are to believe that he found his BC when he was 17, back in 1978, then why would it be necessary to get a COLB in 2007? If he had his BC in hand in 1978, it should have been a certified copy of the original, photostat or something with a seal, doc’s signature, etc. So, in 2007, he could have gotten a copy of the vault copy rather than the COLB. Most curious.
    However, there is the question about an amended or corrected record which would, or could, result in a COLB being issued as a result of the amending. It just doesn’t sound right.

  613. Dear CG and WB:
    I really enjoy your posts and Robert does make for some good sport but lets remember to keep the discussion civil. Just because Robert goes over the edge is no reason for us to do the same.
    The facts will win in the end. Robert, if you are not a supporter of Obama then I would hate to meet someone who was because it would be an ugly moment. Full of groveling and the like, quite distasteful.
    My only question about Obama is whether he is a citizen at all but as for his being a natural born citizen, he is not, because of his father. Unless of course Barack Senior is not his father and frankly, with Obama’s track record, it would not surprise me if he was not.

  614. Yeah. Sometimes I goof. Thanks, Greek.
    1978, Robert. The year is sort of immaterial, but the question of truth or fiction isn’t.

  615. Actually WB, BOZO claimed to have found his BC while snooping around in a closet when he was 17..which would put the year at around 1978, IF we can believe BOZO when he states that he was born (wherever) in 1961 that is.
    If you take a look at his Myspace page, BOZO is claiming (I believe) 1957 as his birth year there. He did this immediately AFTER the report where he said he could remember sittin on his G’pa’s knee and watching the Apollo astronauts being lifted out of the ocean on their return to earth……which did NOT coincide with his supposed birth year of 1961.
    Gee………how convenient, huh?
    (Just another LIE to add to the long list….ROFLMFAO)
    Oh yeah…..btw….I just corrected you on the year of 1968 so’s I could do that before Robert started his BS on ya ole buddy!
    ROFLMFAO

  616. So, then, Robert –
    BHO stated that he found his BC in1968. Do you believe that to be correct? Or a fabrication?

  617. Robert wrote:

    I know you have only a passing interest in the facts, but can you show me evidence that I “support” BHO, as in his policies and politics?

    Now THIS is laughable! Let me see if I understand you Robert. You come on here, railing about those of us who question your MESSIAH, demeaning us with your words at each and every turn anytime anything is written against your guy BOZO (“have only a passing interest in the facts, etc.) and now you ask US to show YOU “evidence that you SUPPORT BOZO as in his policies and politics?
    ROFLMFAO
    Given this, I guess what you are telling the world now is that you don’t have a problem with the man holding the office illegally (WHEN PROVEN THAT HE HAS LIED TO OBTAIN SAID OFFICE), but that it is perfectly alright even though you DO NOT NOW support his policies and politics?
    What mental institution did you escape from Robert? You have just admitted that you DO NOT support the policies and politics of the person you are DEFENDING at every turn! THAT is the definition of INSANITY if I ever heard it!
    Robert wrote:

    I love it!! From an all caps “NEWS FLASH,” Crazy Greek now retreats to accuse me of making something of nothing.
    Hilarious stuff, CG, keep it up!

    I have “retreated” from nothing Robert! It is YOU, by your own admission here that is in retreat by admitting that you DO NOT support BOZO’s policies and politics. LAUGHABLE!
    Robert wrote:

    [Careful, Crazy Greek- your frustration and bitterness is leading you to lose control again]
    Why SHOULD he post that? No reason that I can think of…
    To please the so called “Birthers?” Gimme a break…

    Wrong AGAIN Robert! Have you ever really even taken a look at the Constitution of the United States? It’s called the Supreme LAW of the Land and it clearly states that one of the three qualifications for one to run for and hold the office of President of the United States is that that person MUST BE a natural born citizen! Your BOZO is NOT a natural born citizen, given that his father was NEVER a citizen, naturalized or otherwise, of the United States! I can however, understand that this would be “no reason” that YOU could think of.
    Robert wrote:

    Huh? By that sort of silly comparison George W. Bush was “Hitler.”

    Robert………YOUR bias is showing now! I don’t think I can remember Bush, OR any other President up to and including ANY Dem, appointing “Czar’s” (of questionable nature) to any post in any administration that were answerable ONLY TO THEM, thereby bypassing Congress! NEVER HAPPENED….but HITLER DID! It’s NOT a “silly comparison” as you would like it to be…it’s FACT!
    Try studying up on your history and get back with us when you get to around a 5th grade level of understand of the same.
    You just unzipped your fly Robert and it is truly HYSTERICAL! Nothing but a TROLL would come onto a sight like you have, proclaiming that those of us who are simply asking for the TRUTH (just for ONCE) outta this IDIOT, blasting us at every turn and then proclaim that THEY THEMSELVES DO NOT SUPPORT THIS MAN’S POLICIES OR POLITICS!
    UNBELIEVABLE!

  618. Try this. BHO found his BC in 1968. By his own book. Am I wrong? If I am, disprove me, please.

    By his own book, you are correct.
    As far as “ragging” on you goes, that is also correct. I understand being against Obama, but the Hitler sfuff is idiotic.
    Anyway, I answered. Continue.

  619. Robert –
    You have done enough ragging on me and the Greek that I have to say that you still haven’t come up with one good argument.
    Try this. BHO found his BC in 1968. By his own book. Am I wrong? If I am, disprove me, please.
    After you answer, I will continue.

  620. Robert, I think you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill here regarding me stating that the paper didn’t exist

    I love it!! From an all caps “NEWS FLASH,” Crazy Greek now retreats to accuse me of making something of nothing.
    Hilarious stuff, CG, keep it up!

    Now, IF BOZO did indeed find a copy of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE, why not post THAT as proof…

    [Careful, Crazy Greek- your frustration and bitterness is leading you to lose control again]
    Why SHOULD he post that? No reason that I can think of…
    To please the so called “Birthers?” Gimme a break…

    Secondly, if you would care to look at history, you might just find that Hitler took a little over 5 years (Obtainer power in 1933 and really didn’t start taking liberties from the citizens in mass until 1938)….BOZO hasn’t even been in office 8 MONTHS and take a look at what he has done thus far.

    Huh? By that sort of silly comparison George W. Bush was “Hitler.”
    Make sense, CG!! Concentrate!

    Yet, YOU and people like you support him.

    I know you have only a passing interest in the facts, but can you show me evidence that I “support” BHO, as in his policies and politics?
    One thing bears repeating: The way you and WB throw around the “Hitler” comparison shows just how little the two of you know of history and the Holocaust.
    Typical Birthers. When asked to deal in facts, the entire house of cards collapses.

  621. Robert, I think you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill here regarding me stating that the paper didn’t exist. If you will read in context, you will see that we were discussing the CERTIFICATION and the CERTIFICATE. BOZO clearly stated in his book (rather the book that AYERS wrote for BOZO) that he came across his BIRTH CERTIFICATE while snooping through a closet when he was 17, which puts the year he did this around 1978. Hawaii was still issuing actual copies of the original BIRTH CERTIFICATE at that time……since THE COLB DID NOT EXIST!
    Now, IF BOZO did indeed find a copy of his BIRTH CERTIFICATE, why not post THAT as proof, rather than a document that doesn’t list such things as THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN’S NAME, WITNESSES NAMES, NAME OF HOSPITAL…..you get the idea….ALL THE STUFF that most everyone has on their birth CERTIFICATE?
    Now…..on to more interesting FACTS……..your condemnation of me for a comparison of your BOZO to Hitler. First of all, I was NOT comparing BOZO to Hitler. I was comparing their SIMILARITIES in how they have gone about getting where they are……..in other words, their LIES!
    Secondly, if you would care to look at history, you might just find that Hitler took a little over 5 years (Obtainer power in 1933 and really didn’t start taking liberties from the citizens in mass until 1938)….BOZO hasn’t even been in office 8 MONTHS and take a look at what he has done thus far.
    Thirdly, Hitler appointed people around himself that were of dubious character. BOZO has done the same thing! (Take a look at his ‘Czar’s thus far)…..same scenario!
    Am I saying BOZO is comparable to Hitler? NO! I think Hitler was much smarter than BOZO. He hid his intentions from the public for YEARS…..BOZO couldn’t even last MONTHS before showing his true colors! Hitler had his people thinking they were the frogs swimming in that warm tepid water not realizing that they were gettin cooked alive until it was too late.
    Thankfully, BOZO ain’t that slick. He just jumped right in from day one, turning up the burners and selling this country and her citizens right out the window!
    Yet, YOU and people like you support him.
    AMAZING….BOGGLES THE MIND!

  622. Suppose, for a minute before answering, that the father might not actually be named on the BC.

    OK. Once again irrelevant to the topic, but there you go…

  623. Nope, I don’t remember the website that mentioned the date (or origin) of the paper. But there is this. BHO’s COLB is dated “JUN 6 2007.” If you don’t remember that, try going here:

    I know that the COLB was dated “June 6, 2007.”
    I just can’t figure out why you and CG think that that is the least bit relevant.

    If I’m not wrong on the dates, …

    You aren’t wrong on the dates.

    Did he, when he found the either original or copy of his BC, take it to the Hawai’an government office and ask that it be placed in the vault so that it wouldn’t be lost and would forever be safekept?

    There is certainly no evidence that he did such a thing.

    …then why would he have a COLB dated 2007

    Because that’s when the COLB was issued?
    I am getting the idea that you and Crazy Greek have no idea of the nature of the COLB.
    Speaking of the “date” of the COLB and the “paper” the COLB was printed on are completely 100% irrelevant to the discussion of eligibility and the validity of the COLB. Look at the factcheck.org website, the site that states that the COLB proves that BHO was “born in the USA.” It has a PICTURE of the signature block of the COLB, clearly dated “2007.”
    That’s why I about fell out of my chair laughing when CG spouted off the “NEWS FLASH” that the paper used for the COLB didn’t even exist when BHO was born. OF COURSE it didn’t exist when BHO was born- it was issued in 2007! That is the way it works.
    The COLB is secured from the state of HI, printed when it is issued, after the state verifies the record of your birth against the records they have in their file. If a COLB of someone born in 1950 was requested in 2020, the COLB would be dated “2020” and the paper would be whatever is being used in 2020.
    So- bottom line: questions regarding the “paper” and “date” of the COLB are duly blown out of the water.

  624. Okay, Robert, here goes.
    Nope, I don’t remember the website that mentioned the date (or origin) of the paper. But there is this. BHO’s COLB is dated “JUN 6 2007.” If you don’t remember that, try going here:
    http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/292/
    So, my question is this:
    If at age 17 he found his birth certificate (and vacination record), which would have been, what, 1968? If I’m not wrong on the dates, then why would he have a COLB dated 2007? Did he, when he found the either original or copy of his BC, take it to the Hawai’an government office and ask that it be placed in the vault so that it wouldn’t be lost and would forever be safekept?
    Beats the crap outta me, bra (Hawai’ian for brother. We have relatives who live over there and grow Kona coffee.).
    Suppose, for a minute before answering, that the father might not actually be named on the BC. I’ve had that happen in my life and it is no fun to have to tell a kid that, nope, sorry, but you are not mine – by DNA. Suppose that BHO was adopted by Obama, Sr, for whatever reason. From what I have seen, Barrak, Sr., and Stanley Ann didn’t co-habitate.
    Robert, I don’t have the answers, but I know this much. BHO is NOT being transparent about his past. How the hell will historians EVER be able to record this??
    I couldn’t.
    Respectfully,
    Wild Bill

  625. I think the comparison between PeeBo (President Barrack Obama) and Hitler has something to do with what both men did, or have done, to the peoples of their respective countries. Led with lies. Or, perhaps, you believe that Hitler was a great leader who only killed some six million Jews because it was necessary? And you believe that BHO is far above that?

    Yeah, WB, I do think he is “far above that.” Just as I think every major Am politician I could name would be “far above that.”
    I know what you mean about the “lies,” and I don’t put Obama above THAT. But then again, what politician do you put above that? Certainly not the last administration, or the one before that…
    I can summarize your comparison (and that of CG) of Obama to Hitler in a single declarative, and I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings: You are fools for making such an inane comparison.

    What I saw from Pittsburg today just turned my stomach. Good cops don’t march on citizens who are exercizing their rights

    Agreed, and you know well that such actions have taken place long before Obama was president.
    Back on topic:
    You agreed with CG on the COLB, so why the silence?
    Can’t YOU tell me about the problems with the paper the COLB was printed on, if CG can’t??

  626. Hey, Robert –
    Do you just sit online waiting?
    How the hell did your post precede mine by ten minutes?

    Robert ~ Sep 25, 2009 at 11:13 pm
    Thanks for the spell check, WB! Much appreciated. By the way, the word you were looking for in your last paragraph is spelled “eligible.”
    Please check yourself in the future>
    Hitler wooed the masses and gained power. Then ruined his country and was ultimately defeated – or, actually, committed suicide with his… whatever. Hitler was an unknown. He became a cheerleader (Gee-whiz!! Thank God that BHO ain’t doin’ nothin’ like that!).
    Gee whiz, WB!! Is that ALL Hitler did?? “Woo the masses and gain power?” I guess Obama has certainly done that.
    Or- did Hitler also kill millions of innocents?? Obama? No, not so much.
    Your comparison is meaningless. It’s exactly like the people who were running about during the last administration, calling W “Hitler.”
    Anywho, bottom line: COLB, verified by State of HI, gives birhtplace of BHO in the United States.
    Done.
    Wild Bill ~ Sep 25, 2009 at 11:23 pm
    Robert –
    I think the comparison between PeeBo (President Barrack Obama) and Hitler has something to do with what both men did, or have done, to the peoples of their respective countries. Led with lies. Or, perhaps, you believe that Hitler was a great leader who only killed some six million Jews because it was necessary? And you believe that BHO is far above that?
    Check out his czars and the stances they have taken in the past. And now they are changed?
    Listen to me. You either have beliefs that stay with you or you renounce them. Heard that from any of the czars? I haven’t. I’m not going into specifics here, but I could.
    BHO was going to surround himself with advisors. And he has. No one that I would want, but then, what the hell, I’m just a dopey, former Navy Viet Nam veteran who will still stand with my fellow military and police to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
    Nope. Ain’t got no parts of my uniform left except for medals, patches, and a dog tag. Got my commitment still. As I always will.
    What I saw from Pittsburg today just turned my stomach. Good cops don’t march on citizens who are exercizing their rights. And, as you know, I did spend time as a beat cop, and have many friends who have spent time on the steet as cops. We are not the bad guys, but I haven’t figured out Pittsburg yet. I’ll have to look into that.
    What coutry would you live in if you couldn’t live in the USA?

  627. Robert –
    I think the comparison between PeeBo (President Barrack Obama) and Hitler has something to do with what both men did, or have done, to the peoples of their respective countries. Led with lies. Or, perhaps, you believe that Hitler was a great leader who only killed some six million Jews because it was necessary? And you believe that BHO is far above that?
    Check out his czars and the stances they have taken in the past. And now they are changed?
    Listen to me. You either have beliefs that stay with you or you renounce them. Heard that from any of the czars? I haven’t. I’m not going into specifics here, but I could.
    BHO was going to surround himself with advisors. And he has. No one that I would want, but then, what the hell, I’m just a dopey, former Navy Viet Nam veteran who will still stand with my fellow military and police to defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
    Nope. Ain’t got no parts of my uniform left except for medals, patches, and a dog tag. Got my commitment still. As I always will.
    What I saw from Pittsburg today just turned my stomach. Good cops don’t march on citizens who are exercizing their rights. And, as you know, I did spend time as a beat cop, and have many friends who have spent time on the steet as cops. We are not the bad guys, but I haven’t figured out Pittsburg yet. I’ll have to look into that.
    What coutry would you live in if you couldn’t live in the USA?

  628. Thanks for the spell check, WB! Much appreciated. By the way, the word you were looking for in your last paragraph is spelled “eligible.”
    Please check yourself in the future>

    Hitler wooed the masses and gained power. Then ruined his country and was ultimately defeated – or, actually, committed suicide with his… whatever. Hitler was an unknown. He became a cheerleader (Gee-whiz!! Thank God that BHO ain’t doin’ nothin’ like that!).

    Gee whiz, WB!! Is that ALL Hitler did?? “Woo the masses and gain power?” I guess Obama has certainly done that.
    Or- did Hitler also kill millions of innocents?? Obama? No, not so much.
    Your comparison is meaningless. It’s exactly like the people who were running about during the last administration, calling W “Hitler.”
    Anywho, bottom line: COLB, verified by State of HI, gives birhtplace of BHO in the United States.
    Done.

  629. Robert –
    I do make mistakes in my use of the English language on occasion (and mother would smack the back of my head for so doing).
    Please check yourself in the future>
    Robert said:

    Alot of us disagree on alot of things, CG, but that was classless.

    Do you own a dictionary? Learn English, please. “Alot” is not found in the dictionary. Check on it.
    Hitler wooed the masses and gained power. Then ruined his country and was ultimately defeated – or, actually, committed suicide with his… whatever. Hitler was an unknown. He became a cheerleader (Gee-whiz!! Thank God that BHO ain’t doin’ nothin’ like that!).
    I’m still with BHO not being eligable. Ergo: Usurper.

  630. This is EXACTLY what Hitler did when he took over Germany! Even the Jewish community didn’t see anything wrong with what he was doing at first……NO ONE QUESTIONED HIM! A few years later and with some six MILLION less, they understood what had happened!
    Think it can’t happen here? THINK AGAIN!

    I was wondering how long it would take CG to compare Obama to Hitler.
    Kind of reminds me of those Code Pink people, with their ridiculous denunciations of W. It’s great to be against a person’s politics, but when you start comparing your political opponents to the guy who killed six million people, not only are you showing your own lack of education, you are showing disrespect to the six million innocent men, women, and children who were murdered by the Nazis.
    Alot of us disagree on alot of things, CG, but that was classless.

  631. Either way you look at it Robert your side has some serious problems based on the facts and that is why Obama and company are working so hard to sweep this under the rug. If they fail then the game will soon be over. Hope you like Biden!

    Yeah, Larry, it’s certainly looking like “Obama and company” are really sweating now…

  632. Concentrate, Crazy Greek.
    This is what you said:

    NEWS FLASH for ya Robert………………that COLB that BOZO so brazenly placed on his “Fight The Smears” website is printed on paper that wasn’t even IN EXISTENCE at the time BOZO was born!

    Back it up. Explain to us why your “NEWS FLASH” is relevant.
    For fun, here you are repeating the howler:

    However, in his own book and in his own words, BOZO states that sometime around the age of 17 he was rummaging around some closet and there, along with his vaccination records and other things he found his BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

    So, not only was it just the paper, the ENTIRE COLB form itself was not around at that time!

    Once again: tell us the relevance of your point that the “ENTIRE COLB form itself was not around at that time!”
    I’ll wait here while you get frustrated over your lost election, and resort to another screed of name calling and “BOZO” child’s play, because everyone here knows that that is exactly what will occur.
    Why can’t you support your very own words? LOL.

  633. THIS is the kind of CRAP that we can now expect because of one LYIN SCUMBAG who REFUSES to come clean.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akwjAjcQnqM&feature=player_embedded#t=15
    Are you paying attention NOW America?
    Bill Of Rights – Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  634. Yup……and everyone knew it well before the elections and yet not one person had the guts to do anything about it, thinking that us American voters are just too stupid to catch on!
    You know that’s why BOZO and friends were so eager to get that resolution passed regarding McCain, don’t ya WB?
    Difference here is, when McCain’s birth place was brought into question, McCain IMMEDIATELY produced his birth records just like he produced his medial records (all 1500+ pages of em). Thus far, 8 MONTHS after his election, BOZO has yet to produce even ONE PAGE of ANYTHING regarding his past!
    And this was the guy that was gonna have such a “transparent administration”! Yeah….RIGHT!
    “Just words”………..I think when BOZO was uttering this phrase during his campaign he was kinda lettin all America know that this was all they could ever expect out of his LYIN mouth………………..JUST WORDS!

  635. Oh yeah…one last thing……BOZO supporters keep saying that he was LEGALLY ELECTED! Indeed he was, however, just because someone is LEGALLY ELECTED it does not necessarily follow that THEY ARE LEGAL!
    BOZO has been untruthful from day one. Let’s have FULL DISCLOSURE so EVERYONE will know the WHOLE TRUTH!
    “He don’t hafta” just don’t cut it!

  636. If there is anyone that thinks it can’t happen here, they had better check their hole card FAST!
    As you watch this…and Robert, I truly hope you do, pay special attention at time 8:00 – 8:36 in this video. See and hear anything vaguely familiar with what is happening in this country right now?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXv8x_dnhy8&feature=player_embedded
    I spent 7 years active duty in the United States Navy with 4 tours in Vietnam totaling just over 3 years. When I enlisted in the Navy, I took an OATH to preserve, protect and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States against ALL enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. I intend to keep that oath (unlike some who have recently taken it) til the day I die!!
    I DID NOT take that oath to any President, Admiral, General or person regardless of their title. That oath is taken to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES and is something not to be taken lightly. It is the DUTY of every American to ask the tough questions of those who we choose to lead us. It is THEIR DUTY to answer those questions to the satisfaction of the American citizenry!
    Take a good look in your heart of hearts Robert at just how many ‘promises’ BOZO has broken already, not just to those of us who oppose him but even worse to those who support him. Take a look at how much of the Constitution (that little piece of paper he TOOK AN OATH to preserve, protect and defend) he has violated since he has been in office. NO WHERE in the Constitution is the President, or anyone else in government, given the power to take over the auto industry and call for the firing of the CEO’s of those companies. No where does it give him the right to take over the banking industry and NO WHERE does the Constitution give BOZO, or anyone else in government, ANY RIGHTS to have ANY SAY in our health care! NO WHERE!!
    This is EXACTLY what Hitler did when he took over Germany! Even the Jewish community didn’t see anything wrong with what he was doing at first……NO ONE QUESTIONED HIM! A few years later and with some six MILLION less, they understood what had happened!
    Think it can’t happen here? THINK AGAIN!

  637. Exactly right Larry….BOZO is the ONLY one who can end this. However, Robert’s contention is the BOZO ‘don’t gotta prove anything’….a VERY UNUSUAL position for anyone who claims to be an American and have a love of country and our LAWS!
    The FACT remains that the COLB proves absolutely NOTHING since it is not signed by any Doctor, attending nurse who would be a witness AND does not name the hospital where birth supposedly took place. For all the information it contains, that same information could have been written on the label of any can you desired to pick off a grocery store shelf!
    Try using it to get your kid registered for Little League Baseball……..won’t happen!
    Therefore, ANYONE who uses this excuse as a means of support for a LYIN SCUMBAG who won’t even spend the $15 or so it would require to have the copy of their long form examined needs to have their head examined….and questioned regarding their blind support of such a person.
    The Constitution of the United States is very clear on this issue. It CANNOT be just swept under the rug like the current administration and some in Congress are so vigorously attempting to do! BOZO could never be considered a natural born citizen simply due to the fact that his father was a citizen of Kenya, a British Subject at the time of BOZO’s birth (wherever that took place) therefore, as you have stated, making BOZO possibly a citizen but NEVER a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States as the Constitution of the United States requires!
    Simply because there are some in our judiciary that lack the backbone required to uphold the law DOES NOT in any shape, form or fashion CHANGE THAT LAW!

  638. I just want to give Robert credit for at least voicing his opinions. Unlike Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Obama and company who just keep sweeping it under the carpet.
    Besides, if it was not for Robert I think basically everyone else on this blog would be in agreement.
    As for the back and forth of you prove this or you prove that I continue to say that the only one who has to prove anything is OBAMA. I do not even think that the fact of being born in Hawaii or not in controlling on the issue of whether Obama is a natural born citizen. Clearly if he was born in Hawaii then he is a citizen while if he was born in Kenya or somewhere else then he would be neither a citizen nor a natural born citizen.
    Chester Arthur was born in the United States but his father was not and at the time of Chester’s birth his father was still a citizen of Great Britain. That made Chester a US citizen but not a natural born one. Same would be true for Obama if he was born in Hawaii.
    Either way you look at it Robert your side has some serious problems based on the facts and that is why Obama and company are working so hard to sweep this under the rug. If they fail then the game will soon be over. Hope you like Biden!

  639. Robert wrote:

    By the by CG, you still have not backed up your assertion that factcheck.org admitted what they posted was wrong.
    You disappoint me.

    Might I suggest Robert that you RE read the above post from me?
    Gee…….I’m sorry I ‘disappointed’ YOU of all people Robert.
    Why don’t you go to a website more to your liking? You know…..one where everyone on the site BELIEVES the LIES their MESSIAH shovels at them. Then you could all sit around, slapping each other on the back, huggin and kissin and singin KUMBAYA all day long! Then you wouldn’t be soooooo ‘disappointed’ because you would be with all the other people in this world that REFUSE (much like their Messiah) to produce and that “I don’t hafta”!
    I think you would be a much happier person. It really does get old trying to defend the indefensible I would imagine, especially when your Messiah KEEPS LYING so much that you are constantly having to do so!
    PATHETIC!!!!!
    ROFLMFAO

  640. Robert worte:

    Heck, CG even asks why some mythical document has not been filed BEYOND THE COLB, “signed by HI state officials!!!” stating that BHO was born in HI.

    Yeah Robert…it’s “mythical” alright! In FACT, it doesn’t exist. LOL
    YOU are the one that stated that the good Dr. in Hawaii stated that BOZO was born there and that he was a natural born citizen. To which I replied……..

    I will Robert..just as soon as YOU produce your LEGAL DOCUMENT which states that the official in Hawaii filed her “Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen” document.
    Oh….What’s that…you CAN’T do that, can you Robert!
    As I said before, you always want someone else to produce even though you refuse to! Never mind the fact that you CAN’T because what you cite simply does not exist…never has and never will!
    Produce Robert…let’s see YOUR evidence for once!
    Nice try…..NO CIGAR!

    Now, here you are, at it again! READ WHAT I WROTE………try to COMPREHEND, if that is possible in your world.

  641. By the by CG, you still have not backed up your assertion that factcheck.org admitted what they posted was wrong.
    You disappoint me.

  642. I’ve given you two links. I’m more interested in your response to the first, but take your best shot.

    What have you presented that I need to respond to? If what BHO wrote was true, then BHO had his birth certificate then, and likely has it now.
    So what? He could carry it in his hip pocket all day every day for all I care. As I have said any number of times, he has satisfied the obligation to prove his native birth by releasing the COLB, the validity of which has been verified by the state of HI.
    You and CG seem to be making up requirements as you go along. Now, it is not just required that you prove your US birth, it is required that you do so with an original document. Heck, CG even asks why some mythical document has not been filed BEYOND THE COLB, “signed by HI state officials!!!” stating that BHO was born in HI.

  643. Are you really this ‘naive’ (for lack of a better word) Robert? If the COLB itself didn’t exist when BOZO was born, how could the paper used exist?

    Thank you. So tell me what that proves about the COLB, CG. Tell me what that one fact (the paper did not exist at the time of BHO’s birth) says about the COLB.
    Once you do that, I would be glad to discuss the rest of your assertions.
    Thanks!

  644. Robert –
    Let me refer you to the following:

    Obama’s Admission
    From “Dreams…” — page 26, last paragraph:
    “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school. It’s a short piece, with a photograph of him. No mention is made of my mother or me, and I’m left to wonder whether the omission was intentional on my father’s part, in anticipation of his long departure. Perhaps the reporter failed to ask personal questions, intimidated by my father’s imperious manner; or perhaps it was an editorial decision, not part of the simple story that they were looking for. I wonder, too, whether the omission caused a fight between my parents.”

    If you want to disagree, please do so, but I don’t think you can in this instance. It is, at least supposed to be, in his own words.
    On the other hand, what is now coming to light is that Bill Ayers, whom BHO only knew as someone in the neighborhood, may have had a big hand in the writing of the book. See here:
    http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/07/03/did-bill-ayers-write-barack-obamas-dreams-from-my-father/
    So, we have a new problem. BHO wrote the book or not? BHO and Bill Ayers didn’t know each other except as casual neighbors or not? BHO found his birth certificate or not?
    I’ve given you two links. I’m more interested in your response to the first, but take your best shot.

  645. Robert wrote:

    So- back to your allegation that the “paper the COLB was printed on didn’t even exist at the time Obama was born.” Can you shed more light on this comment for us, CG??

    Are you really this ‘naive’ (for lack of a better word) Robert? If the COLB itself didn’t exist when BOZO was born, how could the paper used exist?
    Further, one CANNOT get a ‘certificate of live birth’ in Hawaii any longer. The State of Hawaii went “paperless” in 2001! All you can get now is a CERTIFICATION of live birth, which the State of Hawaii started issuing in 2001. Therefore, the ‘birth certificate’ BOZO ADMITS to having seen in that closet was NOT a CERTIFICATION of live birth, but rather a CERTIFICATE of live birth in PAPER FORM.
    Question for ya….since BOZO clearly states himself that he has seen his CERTIFICATE of live birth in paper form when he was 17…that would make the year around 1978……why not post that on the internet? The answer is OBVIOUS….it has to contain information on it that would damage him!
    Since NONE OF US on here are privy to anything PHYSICAL that we can hold as evidence, to come on here constantly demanding ‘proof’ is simply idiotic, especially when you make your statements like “this Hawaiian official has stated that BOZO was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen”, then are unwilling yourself to provide a link to a LEGAL DOCUMENT this Hawaiian official filed so stating. She has NOT made anything ‘official’ other than spouting her mouth off to some reporter who reported her statement. Again, saying so doesn’t make it so! You want to hang your hat on what that dingbat has said, I wish you all the luck in the world. Put her in a witness chair and have her swear under OATH and I think you will get a whole different story. Any lawyer worth their salt could blow her statement right out of the water and you know it.
    If you want to believe in your Messiah, go ahead..that’s your right. Please do not come on here and try to tell all of us who do not believe and consider BOZO nothing more than a pathological liar that we do not have a right to do so!

  646. Do you deny the claim of BHO, himself, in person, in his book he found his birth certificate? And shot record? Did he write truth? Or did he just have a lapse in memory? Or, is he, perhaps, now trying to hide the truth?

    Yes. Perhaps BHO is trying to hide the truth, with the clever participation of HI state officials, who are willing to lie for him.
    Oh. Sorry. On second thought that is senseless.
    I will repeat what I told you a number of times: there is no reason to release the birth certificate. None. The COLB is sufficient for proof of his birth, and why should Obama care about pleasing people on the far right, people who even get dissed by Ann Coulter?

  647. Also, if you will notice, he’s still being typical…DEMANDING proof from everyone but once again FAILING to prove his own allegations.

    See my post above, CG: the facts of Obama’s birth clearly documented and verified by the State of HI. That is all the proof I need.
    So- back to your allegation that the “paper the COLB was printed on didn’t even exist at the time Obama was born.” Can you shed more light on this comment for us, CG?? It seems to me that you have your “silver bullet,” and now you are strangely silent on it…
    Why is it that you would make such a statement, and then run like the wind when asked to back it up?
    Whatever the reason, I positively HOWL with laughter when I think about it…

  648. Greek is right about the COLB. If I recall correctly, the Hawai’ian government just passed legislation this year to accept it as fully legal – and if I remember correctly, it is still not good enough to be accepted to be counted as a full blooded native who can own land in Hawai’i. I could be wrong on that, so if you are so inclined, please PROVE me wrong.

    You have been on this Obama kick for to long, WB- the way this works is: if you make a statement YOU back it up. Let me give you an example:
    Barack Obama has released a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB), stating his birthplace as Honolulu, HI. Link to back up my statement:
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
    Further, the statements of HI state officials have verified Obama’s Honolulu birth on two separate occassions. Link to back up my statement:
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
    Understand now?
    So: EITHER OF YOU: Link me to your information about the COLB. Show me where factcheck.org has “admitted” their stance was wrong.
    (Obviously, we see now why your case is laughed out of every court in the land).
    Further: if HI did pass such a law, how does that help your case?

  649. Wild Bill…that’s Robert’s problem…he can’t PROVE a darrn thing! Just keeps spouting off what his Messiah tells him to say on these forums.
    Also, if you will notice, he’s still being typical…DEMANDING proof from everyone but once again FAILING to prove his own allegations.
    ROFLMFAO

  650. Um… Robert?
    Do you deny the claim of BHO, himself, in person, in his book he found his birth certificate? And shot record? Did he write truth? Or did he just have a lapse in memory? Or, is he, perhaps, now trying to hide the truth?
    Greek is right about the COLB. If I recall correctly, the Hawai’ian government just passed legislation this year to accept it as fully legal – and if I remember correctly, it is still not good enough to be accepted to be counted as a full blooded native who can own land in Hawai’i. I could be wrong on that, so if you are so inclined, please PROVE me wrong.
    Answer, please.

  651. Ah Yes Robert…….I will agree with you that a COLB is indeed a ‘legal document’. However, the one YOUR guy produced is NOT simply because it is a pretty poor effort at forgery at best …

    OK- so you admit that the COLB is a legal document, and I’m sure you will further agree that it is a SIGNED legal document. We have that out of the way.
    Now- of course- you claim that the COLB is invalid because it is a forgery.
    You say that the paper the COLB is printed on was not around at the time BHO was born, and yet when you are asked to provide the evidence of your claim, you run away from the very issue that you raise.
    You also claim that factcheck.org has “admitted” that the document they posted on their website is a forgery, and yet you refuse to back that up with a link or evidence.
    These are your own claims, Crazy Greek.
    Why can’t you back up what you are saying?

  652. Robert wrote:

    You obviously don’t understand what the COLB is… it is a “LEGAL DOCUMENT” (indeed, as it states on the COLB face it is “prima facie evidence) that clearly states that BHO was born in HI.

    Ah Yes Robert…….I will agree with you that a COLB is indeed a ‘legal document’. However, the one YOUR guy produced is NOT simply because it is a pretty poor effort at forgery at best AND no where on a COLB (legal OR forged) does it say ‘natural born citizen’ as the Hawaiian official babe suggest.
    THAT is what I am asking you to provide the proof of in your assertion. Show us the LEGAL DOCUMENT she has filed of her stating the same!
    You have a problem…you CAN’T…simply because she has never done so. All this gal has done is to go public to some reporter, who then put down, that SHE believes BOZO to be a natural born citizen, cleverly wording it to make it sound like there is some document from the State of Hawaii which says so. BULLSHIT!
    Now…..YOU come up with proof of her filing some legal document which verifies her stating that BOZO is a natural born citizen.
    Are you really this naive? Follow me here, you just might learn something…. BOZO suddenly comes up with a COLB which he post on his website ‘fight the smears’ stating he was born in Hawaii.
    However, in his own book and in his own words, BOZO states that sometime around the age of 17 he was rummaging around some closet and there, along with his vaccination records and other things he found his BIRTH CERTIFICATE.
    IF he did indeed find a BC, it would have had to have been a COPY of his original birth certificate which he purports to have come from Hawaii. Guess what Robert………COLB’s weren’t being issued at this time by the State of Hawaii! They would simply issue a person a COPY of their ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE at that time!
    So, not only was it just the paper, the ENTIRE COLB form itself was not around at that time!
    There is ONLY one reason why BOZO went to the lengths he has in this…….there is something on his original birth certificate that he does not want the world to see. I don’t care how much YOU, or anyone else, want to believe otherwise, there simply is no other reason. “I don’t hafta” don’t cut it!
    The problem here is that while there has indeed been another sitting President who has been proven to not have been a natural born citizen (Arthur), his birth was not known to the general public until AFTER his term had expired whereas, BOZO’s birth, among EVERYTHING ELSE in his prior life history, has been brought into question almost since day one, well BEFORE he was elected, and BOZO still REFUSES to release the information. You DO realize, don’t you Robert, that YOUR guy BOZO is the ONLY PRESIDENT IN HISTORY whose place of birth is still UNKNOWN, right?
    Why are you purposely being so blind to this issue? The ONLY defense you have mounted thus far is this “He don’t hafta” defense.
    Not good enough….NO CIGAR!
    Now, IF you would be so kind (and I do believe that I have answered you with civility here) PLEASE provide us with this LEGALLY FILED DOCUMENT that you purport this Hawaiian official has filed which states that BOZO is a natural born citizen.
    NEWS FLASH for ya……..saying something is so DOES NOT make it so.

  653. What was this??

    So you are suggesting that asking CG for evidence of what he clearly stated is a “personal attack?”
    Explain that please, WB.

    By the way, who is “we?”
    I know that there are more than one of us on this side. You got support? If you do, tell them to weigh in.

    “We” is THE WORLD, Bill!
    Certainly you aren’t suggesting that everyone from here to the moon would NOT be interested if CG has proof that the “paper was wrong for the COLB?”
    Perhaps you would take the time to explain to your fulminating cohort how ridiculous the assertion is… ?

  654. I will Robert..just as soon as YOU produce your LEGAL DOCUMENT which states that the official in Hawaii filed her “Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen” document.

    You obviously don’t understand what the COLB is… it is a “LEGAL DOCUMENT” (indeed, as it states on the COLB face it is “prima facie evidence) that clearly states that BHO was born in HI.
    But- you say that the paper is suspect.
    SO- if the paper is suspect, the COLB must be suspect to, right CG? So why won’t you explain that point to us?
    WE are still waiting!

  655. Robert –
    You have accued me of personal attacks. As in

    As per your usual Bill, you get frustrated and resort to a personal attack. Last time you wanted me to be a “defense attorney,” and now it’s an “investigative reporter.”
    If you don’t have the tools to debate the subject beyond posting other people’s ideas without your own thoughts and opinions beyond “seems like a cogent treatise to me,” why don’t you at least take the time to look into what you are attempting to debate?
    I bet you haven’t even bothered to read the judge’s decision that you are supposedly against, have you???

    What was this??

    I know, CG!! And color me amazed that you and your internet friends found it before anyone else!
    You said it has something to do with “the paper” used for the COLB not being around when BHO was born??
    Do tell, please! Explain it to us… about the paper, I mean.
    We are all excited to hear you tell us.
    (And after that, a link to “factcheck.org” admitting they were wrong will be good to see. I’ll wait here)

    By the way, who is “we?”
    I know that there are more than one of us on this side. You got support? If you do, tell them to weigh in.
    BTW, I am not being anything other than questioning – and occasionally sarcastic. So go for it. I’m tough enough. But I would like you to STICK TO TOPIC!!!

  656. I will Robert..just as soon as YOU produce your LEGAL DOCUMENT which states that the official in Hawaii filed her “Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen” document.
    Oh….What’s that…you CAN’T do that, can you Robert!
    As I said before, you always want someone else to produce even though you refuse to! Never mind the fact that you CAN’T because what you cite simply does not exist…never has and never will!
    Produce Robert…let’s see YOUR evidence for once!
    Nice try…..NO CIGAR!

  657. It is also a know FACT that the COLB that BOZO placed on his website, and which was touted as being true by FACT CHECK has now been taken off the internet and FACT CHECK has stated that they were WRONG!

    I know, CG!! And color me amazed that you and your internet friends found it before anyone else!
    You said it has something to do with “the paper” used for the COLB not being around when BHO was born??
    Do tell, please! Explain it to us… about the paper, I mean.
    We are all excited to hear you tell us.
    (And after that, a link to “factcheck.org” admitting they were wrong will be good to see. I’ll wait here)

  658. Robert wrote:

    Why? What reason would he have? Do you think he cares what the far right thinks?

    Reason? Try this…the Constitution of the United States REQUIRES that he be a natural born citizen! I guess you think that by “requires” it is meant that his ‘word’ be taken as gospel? Well, we’ve already seen where that has gotten us, now haven’t we? Your MESSIAH is a LIAR…plain and simple!
    Cares? Hell no he don’t care! It’s obvious that YOUR guy doesn’t ‘care’ about a damn thing…starting with the Constitution of the United States! He’s a pathological LIAR Robert…and you know it!
    You may now return to your Messiah and get your 30 pieces of whatever he promised you for being a good little sucker and defending him publicly!
    P.T. Barnum said it best…”There’s a fool born every second!”

  659. Robert……..have you EVER served even ONE SECOND in the military…..volunteer or not? NEWS FLASH for ya…….it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE whether the military is “volunteer” or not, the same UCMJ applies to ALL military personnel. We military are BOUND BY OATH (something your Messiah doesn’t place much substance in) to follow all LAWFUL orders. Now, if one decided NOT TO FOLLOW, they do so at their own peril but it IS brought out that said order should be LAWFUL!
    Given your views, there should have NEVER been a trial at Nuremberg, correct? All THOSE guys used the excuse “I was just following orders”….didn’t they Robert?
    It truly amazes me just how naive you really are. I hate to think I even have to supply a link for ya on this, but knowing you will bluster up and almost demand one (something you are prone to do from time to time, regardless of doing so yourself), here………….
    http://www.lifelines.usmc.mil/LifeLines/MilitaryLife/MilitaryCareers/FitnessReportsEvaluations/LL_002593
    May I suggest that it is really foolish of you to try and argue military law with those of us who have served while you have kept your butt safely at home? Like the old Chinese proverb says……..it is better to keep mouth shut and have everyone think you are stupid than to open mouth and remove all doubt.
    It’s the Law
    Article 90 of the UCMJ says all orders are presumed to be lawful, and disobedience is at your own risk: “An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful, and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.”
    In plain language, you should always assume an order is lawful unless it’s obviously illegal. Should you refuse to follow an order, then you must prove the order is unlawful to avoid punishment for disobedience. However, “obeying a clearly unlawful order could subject the service member to discipline for following that order,” says Carsten.
    Understanding the legal basis for lawfulness is crucial. The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) defines a “lawful order” as one that is given by an appropriate authority, does not violate constitutional rights, and relates to military duty. Military duty includes all activities related to mission, morale, discipline, usefulness, and good order. Unless it has a legitimate military purpose, an order can’t “interfere with private rights or personal affairs.”
    Regardless of ethical concerns, a lawful order always trumps individual beliefs. “The dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order,” says the MCM.
    Handling Doubts
    If given a questionable order, a Sailor must proceed carefully. Because some orders are issued with the expectation that they will be obeyed immediately, the act of questioning could be a violation. While no formal process exists, several possible approaches can be taken:
    • In a respectful tone and manner, request clarification of the order.
    • Request the officer reissue the order in the presence of a third party.
    • Request confirmation of the order by a superior officer. If still unsure, advise your superior that you believe the order is unlawful.
    • Request confirmation of the order by the commanding officer.
    • Refuse to obey the order if you still believe that it is unlawful. Remember that you are morally and legally obligated to obey all orders that are presumed to be lawful just as you are obligated to disobey any order that is “patently unlawful.”
    Before you act, think carefully about the consequences. Military courts have consistently held individuals responsible for their actions. They will hold you liable for disobeying lawful orders as well as for obeying orders that are obviously illegal.

  660. Robert wrote:

    Link please? Has the State of HI “admitted they were wrong??”
    That IS news, CG!!! Link us to it!

    Tell ya what Robert…….why don’t YOU try “linking us to it” to ANY LEGAL DOCUMENT that the State of Hawaii, or ANYONE WHO WORKS FOR THEM, has filed stating that it is FACT to BOZO was born there. YOU are basing ALL your ASSUMPTIONS on what a known and proven LIAR is telling you and have NOTHING legal to base your opinions on. Typical! It is also a know FACT that the COLB that BOZO placed on his website, and which was touted as being true by FACT CHECK has now been taken off the internet and FACT CHECK has stated that they were WRONG!
    Add THIS for your reading pleasure……………………………………..
    Important: Pending Litigation: Hawaii Confirms That Obama’s Vital Records Have Been Amended.
    Leo Donofrio published
    I will be assisting one of my readers in filing litigation in Hawaii state circuit court pursuant to her ongoing request for public information denied by Hawaii officials. (Readers of my blog will recognize her as MissTickly aka TerriK.)
    Correspondence sent to TerriK by Hawaii officials indicates that President Obama’s vital records have been amended and official records pertaining thereto are maintained by the state of Hawaii.
    I will issue a full statement and press release on behalf of TerriK via this blog in the days ahead. This statement will include a complete history of correspondence between TerriK and Hawaii state officials in the Office of Information Practices (OIP) and the Department of Health (DoH).
    Any legal assistance provided by me to TerriK will be pro bono. I will seek to be admitted pro hac vice in Hawaii for purposes of filing the case and conducting the trial. If such admission is not forthcoming, other counsel may be retained or TerriK may represent herself pro se. In any case, I will be drafting the pleadings. The only issue will be related to who files them and conducts the trial de novo.
    While correspondence sent to TerriK confirms that President Obama’s vital records have been amended, the DoH has refused to make the documents requested available. One count of the litigation will attempt to have those documents released. The other counts concern various information denied to her which – according to Hawaii law – she is entitled to.
    Before I get to the facts of the ongoing investigation in my follow up report, I will ask readers to study the UIPA manual and the UIPA statute.
    Hawaii has been caught blatantly circumventing their own laws; laws specifically created to foster open government practices.
    STANDING
    TerriK has standing to pursue this action under the statute. The UIPA manual states:
    “Any person” may make a request for government records under part II, the Freedom of Information section of the UIPA. “Person” is defined broadly to include an individual, government agencies, partnerships and any other legal entities.
    Under part II, a government agency generally may not limit access to public records based on who the requester is or the proposed use of the record.
    ISSUES
    Section 92F-12(15) states that the following must be released to the public:
    (15) Information collected and maintained for the purpose of making information available to the general public;
    On July 27, 2009 Hawaii Department of Health Director Fukino issued a press release which stated:
    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai?i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
    TerriK requested all information “collected and maintained” for the purposes of preparing the public statement made by Director Fukino as such information must be released according to the statute.
    TerriK was interested in knowing how Director Fukino came to the conclusion that the President was a natural born citizen. She was familiar with Section 92F-12(15) which demands that all information collected and maintained for the purposes of making such a public statement be made public. She was denied that information despite the clear wording in the statute. Furthermore, the case law from Hawaii clearly demands production of the records TerriK requested.
    I will provide legal research and relevant examples of official correspondence in my follow up report and press release at this blog. TerriK has previously provided details of her investigation and correspondence with the state of Hawaii in comments to this and other blogs. She has also authorized me to speak publicly about her case and to provide the public with all relevant correspondence.
    Furthermore, Hawaii officials – upon denying TerriK access to information requested – were required by statute to inform her of a right to appeal by trial de novo in Hawaii circuit court. They failed to provide such guidance to her. Section 92F-15.5(b) states:
    (b)… If the denial of access is upheld, in whole or in part, the office of information practices shall, in writing, notify the person of the decision, the reasons for the decision, and the right to bring a judicial action under section 92F-15(a). [L 1989, c 192, §1]
    The OIP failed to notify TerriK of her right to a judicial appeal. Instead, the OIP simply told her that the decision to deny access was correct and that they could not help her any further.
    We will bring this litigation according to the following statute provision:
    §92F-15 Judicial enforcement.
    (a) A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure.
    (b) In an action to compel disclosure the circuit court shall hear the matter de novo. Opinions and rulings of the office of information practices shall be admissible. The circuit court may examine the government record at issue, in camera, to assist in determining whether it, or any part of it, may be withheld.
    (c) The agency has the burden of proof to establish justification for nondisclosure.
    Please take note of subsection (c) above. The burden of proof is on the agency to establish justification for nondisclosure.
    With respect to information collected by Director Fukino for purposes of making her July 27, 2009 press release (and other public statements), the burden cannot be overcome since the statute demands that such information be made public.

  661. Robert –
    Yes, I do understand that about discovery in this case.
    And as a military person in boot camp I was taught to follow orders unless I felt they were wrong. Hmm… Do you suppose that any enlisted person EVER got an order that they questioned? Or an officer? Try Viet Nam or the Boer Was where several men who followed orders were Courts Martialed. AND in the Boer Wars were actually not given fair trials. And in the end of the Boer Wars, were shot. Read “Scapegoats of the Empire.”
    All may be fair in love and war, but in war there are VERY severe consequences.
    Now, please stick to point. Several cases are still outstanding and could very well result in a constitutional situation that I really don’t want to have happen because it might mean that I would have to take up arms (again) to protect and defend not only the constitution, but you. And I don’t like getting up early and I don’t want to stand watches again. But I would.
    Okay. Thanks for going off point again. Drop the line of the Captain. Obama’s qualifications are still in question. That is what this thread is about. Stick to it, please.

  662. Shirking orders!? It is still a volunteer military.

    And she volunteered. Certainly you aren’t suggesting that the “Captain” has a choice of which orders to follow, based on the fact that it is a volunteer army??
    You know and I know that her “choices” ended when she signed up and took taxpayer funds for her education.

    And I defend anyone who would volunteer to serve, until they prove to be traitors. The Captain hasn’t.

    And I think you are wrong to defend someone who signs up, takes the money, and then- when it is time to put on “the boots” you refer to, brazenly refuses to go. “Traitor?” No. But I think you need to adjust your standard for defending soldiers to not include the soldiers who don’t show up.

    So, back to point. Looks like discovery is going forward. I like that.

    You do understand that the “discovery” that is going forward is limited to that discovery necessary to decide the defendant’s motion to dismiss, right?

  663. When my Grand Father was alive he taught me a short lesson , I will never forget..
    Its quite simple and goes like this.
    You are in the middle of a large wharehouse ,oblivious to what is going on outside. Someone enters the building from outside and tells you that it is snowing , at that very instant you have two choices , you take his word for it , or you go outside and take a look for yourself.
    There are but a few people that I have learned to trust at their word.
    This is what bothers me most about the Obama story, I can’t go and take a look for myself , I have to take someones word for it.
    I don’t trust that anyone is telling the truth and I’d really like to take a look myself.
    I can vote , but I can’t look.
    This person swears Obama is legitimate and that person swears that he is not. You have to ask yourself , Have I seen that its snowing myself, or am I taking someones word for it?

  664. NEWS FLASH for ya Robert………………that COLB that BOZO so brazenly placed on his “Fight The Smears” website is printed on paper that wasn’t even IN EXISTENCE at the time BOZO was born!

    Um. OK, Crazy Greek. I am going to simply admit that you have thoroughly astounded me with this comment. No other word for it: astounded.
    And it explains so much of what you say here. Thank you for inadvertently clearing that up for me.
    So- rather than take the time to correct you, and thereby ignite another embittered screed of “BOZOS” and the like, I will simply step away.
    If you are nice, perhaps WildBill or Lil Lloyd will take you by the hand and explain how — astounding – your comment really is.
    Have a good night, CG. Go to bed early!

  665. Robert……since you are so prone to want legal verification on everything from everyone (except yourself, of course) I would like for you (if you would please) to point us in the direction we must go to find ANY LEGAL DOCUMENT, signed by any official of the State of Hawaii, which does indeed LEGALLY VERIFY what you have stated.

    No problem, CG! See the COLB with the proper (raised) seal of the State of HI. Duly signed by Alvin Onaka, Hawaii State Official.
    Asked and answered, CG.
    Now: It’s your turn to commence to whining that… what… ? Onaka is not a state official? His signature doesn’t count? The COLB doesn’t state Obama is born in HI?
    Dance, CG, dance!

    I swear I have NEVER seen anyone, other than these BOZO supporters, who are so willing to take someone like the IDIOT in OUR White House at their word, especially given the FACT that the COLB you hold so dear has been brought into question as to being factual time and time again, with the people that initially ‘verified’ this sham of a document now admitting that they were WRONG!

    Link please? Has the State of HI “admitted they were wrong??”
    That IS news, CG!!! Link us to it!
    (By the by- you’re frothing at the mouth a bit much. If you leave out the diatribes and name calling, your points – such as they are- will stand out better)

    Simple…if he coulda he woulda by now!

    Why? What reason would he have? Do you think he cares what the far right thinks?

  666. Robert wrote:

    You’re not “doing an audit of Obama & Company.” My original assertion is correct: the state of HI has verified the fact of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth in the state of HI.
    The verification of state officials is sufficient.

    Robert……since you are so prone to want legal verification on everything from everyone (except yourself, of course) I would like for you (if you would please) to point us in the direction we must go to find ANY LEGAL DOCUMENT, signed by any official of the State of Hawaii, which does indeed LEGALLY VERIFY what you have stated.
    I swear I have NEVER seen anyone, other than these BOZO supporters, who are so willing to take someone like the IDIOT in OUR White House at their word, especially given the FACT that the COLB you hold so dear has been brought into question as to being factual time and time again, with the people that initially ‘verified’ this sham of a document now admitting that they were WRONG!
    NEWS FLASH for ya Robert………………that COLB that BOZO so brazenly placed on his “Fight The Smears” website is printed on paper that wasn’t even IN EXISTENCE at the time BOZO was born! It’s also been brought into question that it is nothing more than a photo shopped compilation of a number of documents that were used to make the darn thing.
    I’ll just be happy to sit here and wait for the courts to actually pull the LYIN SCUMBAG into court and say “Produce or get outta Dodge!”
    When that happens, I’d be willing to bet that BOZO will NOT BE ABLE TO PRODUCE the first document that would prove BEYOND ALL DOUBT that he is as he claims…a natural born citizen who is Qualified to hold the office of President of the United States as REQUIRED by the Constitution of the United States.
    Simple…if he coulda he woulda by now!
    NOTE HERE……..Warren, I am STILL not receiving any notice when post are made to this thread like I was before. I do apologize for being so long in coming to take a look if there had been any more activity. Thankfully, I do have a friend that keeps me posted regarding this thread. Thanks Wild Bill!

  667. First, she is a Captain. Use the capitalization, please. using “ensign” would to me infer the flag. Like using “general” for a flag officer. Wrong.
    Robert, no matter what, she did volunteer. So did I. And I still have questions.
    Shirking orders!? It is still a volunteer military. Sign up for a short tour and then become a critic. This is not anything against your character, but I really think that you should walk a mile in the boots before you go too far. As you know, I’ve been in battle, more that once, shot at and missed. Damned lucky to be alive. But I am. And I defend anyone who would volunteer to serve, until they prove to be traitors. The Captain hasn’t.
    So, back to point. Looks like discovery is going forward. I like that.

  668. Good grief! I said he was “suspect?” When?

    Hey, wrong is wrong. I inferred that that is what you meant by speaking of the “background of the judge.” My apologies.
    But if you didn’t mean that, what did you mean?

    I served. And I have no problem with the Captain. She has rights. So do you and I. I would appreciate it if you would allow the military to judge her.

    The captain was, until she got her a$$ handed to her by the Court, shirking direct orders to deploy. If you want to challenge Obama’s eligibility, I understand that- but do it while you are continuing to serve with honor, not by letting your comrades in arms carry your water for you.

    That being said, this thread was supposed to be about the eligibility of BHO. Let’s keep it at that. However, if you want to continue to go off topic, I will be there to disagree – maybe.

    Not sure what you mean by this… since when is a court case on eligibility not on topic?

  669. Good grief! I said he was “suspect?” When?
    However, you did say:

    Orly is aiding and abetting a soldier trying to avoid her duty, after the taxpayers funded her education.
    WARNING: PDF FILE
    http://ia311029.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.17.0.pdf
    The first footnote in the judge’s opinion is hilarious, whether or not you agree with the piece.

    I served. And I have no problem with the Captain. She has rights. So do you and I. I would appreciate it if you would allow the military to judge her. Her rights are as an American and a soldier. Please leave it at that.
    That being said, this thread was supposed to be about the eligibility of BHO. Let’s keep it at that. However, if you want to continue to go off topic, I will be there to disagree – maybe.

  670. Ahh, I see. So now the judge is suspect.
    Well, you must admit that I was half right: I knew you guys would claim the judge was biased when things didn’t go your way. I just got the case wrong.
    Of course: this could just be Bonus Day for me. When Carter throws out the Orly case pending in his Court, are you going to start ginning up internet conspiracy theories on him as well?

  671. Wow! Robert! You’re really good. You should work for the New York Times. What an investigative reporter you are. I should offer you a Detroit salute.

    As per your usual Bill, you get frustrated and resort to a personal attack. Last time you wanted me to be a “defense attorney,” and now it’s an “investigative reporter.”
    If you don’t have the tools to debate the subject beyond posting other people’s ideas without your own thoughts and opinions beyond “seems like a cogent treatise to me,” why don’t you at least take the time to look into what you are attempting to debate?
    I bet you haven’t even bothered to read the judge’s decision that you are supposedly against, have you???

  672. Wow! Robert! You’re really good. You should work for the New York Times. What an investigative reporter you are. I should offer you a Detroit salute.

  673. Interesting on a number of points, WB.
    * I agree that calling Orly a “birther” was wrong. But, when you accuse a federal judge of treason, you might get slapped in return. But- it was wrong to call her that.
    * The same does not hold true for the “high school civics” comment. It might have been a bit demeaning, but it is truly a case of it only hurting because it is true.
    * I enjoyed how the blogger dismissed the substance of the Judge’s opinion with a simple “We will leave to others to debate the courtroom banter, motion word smithing and argument methodologies.” Of course, if you read the judge’s ruling you would know that the motion and methodologies were key mistakes from Orly, that she tried to foist back at the judge.
    * The blogger also makes an error when he attempts to state that the COLB has no authenticity. In fact, the COLB has every bit of authenticity that it needs, from being properly sealed.
    * Finally, and this is mainly from the comments that accompanied the blog, these people who are supporting Taitz / Rhodes are deluding themselves if they see themselves as PATRIOTS. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    Remember the evil beasts who attacked our nation on September 11?? The ones assisted and protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan? While Capt. Rhodes is shirking her duty, REAL soldiers have their lives on the line fighting to keep us safe.
    Pay up Orly. And get Captain Rhodes a Dishonorable Discharge and make her repay taxpayers’ tuition money that the coward took to go to Med School.

  674. Thank you, Robert.
    From Citzen Wells, a blog, but reasoned IMHO:

    Judge Clay D Land ruling, Judicial misconduct, Captain Connie Rhodes motion, September 16, 2009, Orly Taitz, Rules for judicial conduct, 28 U.S.C., Judge Land guilty of judicial misconduct
    September 17, 2009 · 308 Comments
    *** Update below September 17, 2009 5:30 PM **
    Despite the lack of respect for the US Constitution, the rule of law, concerned American citizens and not obeying their oaths of office by judges and state election officials over the past year, I, Citizen Wells, respect the office of the judiciary and do not take lightly charging a judge with judicial misconduct. However, due to the serious nature of the Captain Connie Rhodes’ motion, it’s consequences for the military and nation in general, and the non judicious attitude of Judge Land in dismissing the motion, I believe it is the lesser of evils, and certainly in the best interest of ongoing jurisprudence, to check this judicial abuse of power.
    The Citizen Wells blog reported yesterday, Wednesday, September16, 2009, on the ruling by Judge Land.
    Citizen Wells response to Judge Land ruling
    For simplicity’s sake, we reported on the ruling by Judge Land. We will leave to others to debate the courtroom banter, motion word smithing and argument methodologies.
    This is indeed a serious matter. At stake is the integrity of our judicial system, upholding the US Constitution and rule of law, insuring that we have a qualified president and supporting the military as they faithfully uphold the oath they have taken to defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
    Judge Land, as a District Court Judge, is subject to the RULES FOR JUDICIAL-CONDUCT AND JUDICIAL-DISABILITY PROCEEDINGS.
    “These Rules govern proceedings under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 351–364 (the Act), to determine whether a covered judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts or is unable to discharge the duties of office because of mental or physical disability.”
    “these Rules provide mandatory and nationally uniform provisions governing the substantive and procedural aspects of misconduct and disability proceedings under the Act.”
    “(e) Disability. “Disability” is a temporary or permanent condition rendering a judge unable to discharge the duties of the particular judicial office. Examples of disability include substance abuse, the inability to stay awake during court proceedings, or a severe impairment of cognitive abilities.”
    Disability, such as “severe impairment of cognitive abilities”, will not be addressed, although after reading the ruling, that possibility did occur to me.
    “(h) Misconduct. Cognizable misconduct:
    6 (1) is conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to:
    (A) using the judge’s office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives;
    (B) accepting bribes, gifts, or other personal favors related to the judicial office;
    (C) having improper discussions with parties or counsel for one side in a case;
    (D) treating litigants or attorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner;
    (E) engaging in partisan political activity or making inappropriately partisan statements;
    (F) soliciting funds for organizations; or
    (G) violating other specific, mandatory standards of judicial conduct, such as those pertaining to restrictions on outside income and requirements for financial disclosure.”
    First, note, “Misconduct includes, but is not limited to”
    Judge Land is obvious guilty of two of the offenses above.
    (D) treating litigants or attorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner
    Egregious defined: “conspicuously bad : flagrant ”
    (Note dictionary example – “egregious errors”)
    This motion was filed by a captain in the US Military who was required to take an oath to defend the US Constitution. The following was also made clear to Captain Connie Rhodes:
    Officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.
    Judge Land’s persistent reference to “birther” and “birther claim”, aside from having political connotations, is condescending and demeaning. Judge Land is both ignorant and misinformed regarding Obama’s eligibility.
    “5 of “evidence” Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon deserves further discussion. Counsel has produced a document that she claims shows the President was born in Kenya, yet she has not authenticated that document. She has produced an affidavit from someone who allegedly obtained the document from a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya by paying “a cash ‘consideration’ to a Kenyan military officer on duty to look the other way, while [he] obtained the copy” of the document. (Smith Decl. ¶ 7, Sept. 3, 2009.) Counsel has not, however, produced an original certificate of authentication from the government agency that supposedly has official custody of the document. Therefore, the Court finds that the alleged document is unreliable due to counsel’s failure to properly authenticate the document. See Fed. R. Evid. 901.”
    Judge Land dismisses an alleged birth certificate with an attached affidavit yet he quotes the COLB, Certification of Live Birth, a document with no affadavit of authenticity, which is not a birth certificate and refers to the presence of another document. Judge Land has requested no authenticating of the COLB.
    “Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning fundamental principles upon which our Country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles.”
    Judge Land has made another demeaning statement. The irony of that statement is that any middle school student knows that the president must be a natural born citizen and that the judicial system is part of the checks and balances to prevent a usurper from taking office.
    “Instead, she uses her Complaint as a platform for spouting political rhetoric, such as her claims that the President is “an illegal usurper, an unlawful pretender, [and] an unqualified imposter.”
    There is no reason to believe that Captain Rhodes was motivated politically. What is readily apparent is that Captain Rhodes takes her oath of office seriously.
    “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
    defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
    foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
    the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
    reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
    discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.
    So help me God.”
    US Military officer’s oath of office
    This clearly qualifies as an unwarranted and hostile attack upon the character of the plaintiff.
    (E) engaging in partisan political activity or making inappropriately partisan statements
    “To press her “birther agenda,” Plaintiff’s counsel has filed the present action on behalf of Captain Rhodes.”
    Judge Land’s repeated use of the term “birther”, a hallmark insult from the far left and Obama camp, reveals not only his political agenda but a disregard for the US Constitution, an officer in the US military, the plaintiff’s attorney and decent American citizens. That term has no place in the courtroom, especially being flung by a misinformed, biased judge.
    “Counsel makes these allegations although a “short-form” birth certificate has been made publicly available which indicates that the President was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961.“
    “Acknowledging the existence of a document that shows the President was born in Hawaii, Plaintiff alleges that the document “cannot be verified as genuine, and should be presumed fraudulent.”
    Judge Land uses as the basis for part of his decision a politically motivated, display of an unsubstantiated COLB.
    Summary
    Judge Land, who is clearly misinformed and makes uninformed decisions that certainly appear to be politically motivated, should be brought before a judicial review board. And, if Judge Land believes that he is making well founded statements based on substantiated facts, then the spectre of his ability to sit judiciously on the bench arises.
    It is hoped that one or both of two scenarios will occur.
    1. Someone will file a complaint.
    2. I believe it is in the best interest of the judiciary system to self police this matter. Confidence in the judiciary and other branches of government is at an all time low. The American citizens need a clear signal that they will get fair treatment in court and that the judicial branch of government will fulfill it’s crucial part in the checks and balances system of our government.
    How to file a complaint:
    http://www.uscourts.gov/library/judicialmisconduct/jud_conduct_and_disability_308_app_B_rev.pdf
    ** Update **
    “Dr. Orly Taitz, counsel for Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D, filed today an Emergency Request for Stay of Deployment, pending the filing of a Motion for Re-Hearing, in the Case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald.
    Yesterday, Judge Clay D. Land garnered nationally notoriety for his rejection of Captain’s Rhodes’ case, with a severe ruling that was widely faulted by legal experts across the nation.
    Attorney Taitz in today’s filings details the errors of Land’s ruling. What follows is The Post & Email’s summary of Tatiz’s Motions, using a copy forwarded us, by Mr. Neil B. Turner.
    First, Attorney Taitz alleges that Judge Land’s ruling “violates the 5th Amendment rights” of her client, “to due process of law, in particular, by” the Court’s “violation of Local Rule 7 of the United States Middle District of Georgia, to wit:”
    Read more:
    http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/taitz-files-emergency-stay-and-motion-for-rehearing/

  675. Actually, there is factual news today. It looks like Orly may get hit with a $10,000 Contempt of Court fine for filing another ludicrous (“frivolous”) claim.

  676. So what should happen to Captain Rhodes?
    At the very least, she should receive a Dishonorable Discharge and be foreced to repay her medical school tuition.

  677. Tell you what. I think everyone is running scared from this issue. Well, maybe not everyone, but a lot.

    No one that I have seen…

    And now with ACORN on the ropes, and with the close ties to BHO, things are getting really interesting.

    Irrelevant to questions of eligibility.

    And we now have, apparently, new information from Hawai’i about the divorce of SAD and BHO, Sr., and then we have the two DNC certificates of eligibility,

    In both cases, irrelevant to questions of eligibility.
    The only question: was BHO born in HI. The verified answer: Yes.

  678. Robert –
    Tell you what. I think everyone is running scared from this issue. Well, maybe not everyone, but a lot.
    And now with ACORN on the ropes, and with the close ties to BHO, things are getting really interesting.
    And we now have, apparently, new information from Hawai’i about the divorce of SAD and BHO, Sr., and then we have the two DNC certificates of eligibility, and it isn’t ending, Robert, until it is ended. But thanks for the opinion.

  679. Looks like Old Orly has lost another one, this time earning an admonition from the judge about “frivolous lawsuits.” LMAO.
    http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/breaking_news/story/841419.html
    Question for anyone here familiar with the UCMJ: will the good Captain Rhodes face sanctions for her cowardly actions, or will simply kicking her behind over to Afghanistan be enough for the Pentagon?
    My favorite line from the judge’s decision, regarding the Birther theories”
    “Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so,” Land says.

  680. OK, here is my prediction: Judge Carter will dismiss the case (granting the motion of the defendants), at which point you guys will begin spinning wild conspiracy theories involving who “got to” Judge Carter and forced the poor, former marine and great patriot to bow to the socialist Chicago political machine…
    Just a prediction,

  681. Judge Carter is Granting Expedited Discovery – Immediately !!!! OBAMA ELIGIBILITY CASE.
    Hmmm, I thought this was a Dead and Going Nowhere Issue.

  682. The way I see this, the RE verification of Obama’s HI birth and a true analysis of Perkins v. Elg have put this issue to bed…

  683. I’m sorry that you don’t appreciate well thought out arguments, but, frankly, I didn’t expect more.

    Pardon me while I stifle a laugh at being criticized by someone who forms opinions on documents without actually bothering to read the document.

    What I linked you to is a very cogent treatise of the differences. You didn’t disappoint me.

    LOL! Sure you did, Bill!
    See any court cases cited to back up the author’s “cogent treatise?” No? Like it or not, our rule of law partially comes from the court cases that interpret the constitution, and create precedent.
    By the by, here are a few howlers from the “cogent treatise:”

    Obama’s father was Kenyan, and thus, his father could not give any “natural born citizen” status to Obama, except Kenyan citizenship, (or British).

    Wrong. The Supreme Court of the United States says otherwise: see the links to Perkins v. Elg.

    Obama’s mother was American, but 17 or 18, depending on the reports. She was too young to give US citizenship to Obama by blood only, which is crucial for the circumstance of being born overseas, for which she would have to be 19.

    Non sequitur, ten points. The State of HI has confirmed that BHO was born in HI. I know, I know- the bloggers don’t believe it.
    Who cares what the bloggers believe?

    There are provisions for one or two US citizens bearing a child overseas, that child could still be a “natural born” US citizen, but that’s only by statute, and might not be enough, for Constitutional purposes, according to the State Department, remember.
    Therefore, a similar situation could be true. A child born to foreign parents, born not in the nation of his parents, such as in the USA, would have citizenship of his parent’s nation, and also be a “14th Amendment US citizen”, but not a “natural born” US citizen.

    The Supreme Court says otherwise. Who to believe, who to believe… the Supreme Court or the blogger?
    Other than that, the “cogent treatise” pretty much gives a pathetic collection of “if” and “mights.” Yes- IF Obama was born overseas, things would be different.
    Tell me, Bill: What is your treatise from a blogger versus the Supreme Court case I cited?

  684. Robert –
    I’m sorry that you don’t appreciate well thought out arguments, but, frankly, I didn’t expect more.
    What I linked you to is a very cogent treatise of the differences. You didn’t disappoint me.
    Since neither of us are sanctioned by the ABA, wouldn’t it be wise to listen? And, perhaps, learn?
    More than once these points have been made by persons far more aquainted with the law than me. Do you believe you are better equiped to answer all of the questions?
    If you do, please write the President and tell him to hire you as his… uh… Defense Attorney! You could become rich.

  685. After much reading ,I get the feeling our governing bodies are developing job security by reinventing interpretation of existing laws
    instead of inforcing existing statutes.

    I think it is more the far right blogosphere that is busily reinventing interpretations, LilLloyd.
    See the sudden retreat to the wrtings of an obscure frenchman, see the sudden appearance of “constitutional versus statutory Natural Born Citizens,” etc., etc.
    Stick to the most obvious definition: a Natural Born Citizen is a citizen by birthright, rather than by naturalization.
    Simple, easy, concise.

  686. After much reading ,I get the feeling our governing bodies are developing
    job security by reinventing interpretation of existing laws
    instead of inforcing existing statutes.

  687. From the lower court ruling:
    The main question in this case is whether appellee, a natural
    born citizen of the United States, has lost her citizenship
    involuntarily and by operation of law, by reason of her removal
    from the United States by her parents in her infancy and her
    residence in a foreign country until she was 21 years of age.

    Elg had the same circumstances as Obama- one parent a US citizen, one parent an alien.
    See the AFFIRMED opinion above, with both opinions citing “natural born citizen.”
    This is the case that the Supreme Court affirmed:
    http://www.loislaw.com/advsrny/doclink.htp?alias=FDCCASE&cite=99+F.2d+408#%5Bfn6%5D00

  688. LOL, no WB! The Aetna case has nothing to do with citizenship, natural born or otherwise. The reference to the Aetna case is regarding “controversies.”
    The application that I was using is that the Supreme Court- in Perkins – affirmed a lower court decision that the person in question was a “natural born citizen.”

  689. Robert –
    I don’t understand your “?”. Please follow a link to Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227 and help me find the words “natural born.” I have spent a fair amount of time ignoring my family today looking to find that and I can’t – which makes me wonder why you are so sure. Please provide a link to a site that actually has the case law decision. It isn’t found in the Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227 as far as I can find.
    And please note, I tried Google searches and tried several l related links and still could not find “natural born citizen.”
    Help me out.

  690. The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants Page 307 U. S. 350
    (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,

    ?

  691. Robert –
    Here is the Fifth Point

    Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants Page 307 U. S. 350
    (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,” and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.
    The decree will be modified accordingly so as to strike out that portion which dismisses the bill of complaint as to the Secretary of State, and so as to include him in the declaratory provision of the decree, and as so modified the decree is affirmed.

    But, as I stated earlier, I cannot follow the link back, including other links that lead me to the words “natural born.” I can find a lot of natural and naturalized, but nowhere is “natural born.” And I started with the cited case that is supposed to establish the “natural born” part of your posting.

  692. Robert –
    Here is the Fifth Point

    Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants

    Where does it say “natural born” in this?

  693. However, I have tried and tried to find where that was actually stated in the case that was cited.
    Maybe it is somewhere else?

    Nope- it is accurately quoted above. See the “Fifth” point, at the end of the decision right above the footnotes.
    I am not referencing the Aetna case; the court here affirmed the decision of a lower court that the person in question was a “natural born citizen” by virtue of her birth on US soil to Swedish parents.

  694. Robert said

    Ouch.
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
    The Supreme Court of the United States, affirming that a lower Court “acted properly” in declaring a person born on US soil of alien parents to be a “natural born citizen.”

    However, I have tried and tried to find where that was actually stated in the case that was cited.
    Maybe it is somewhere else?

  695. Ouch.
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
    The Supreme Court of the United States, affirming that a lower Court “acted properly” in declaring a person born on US soil of alien parents to be a “natural born citizen.”
    The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg “solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.” The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants
    Page 307 U. S. 350
    (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg “to be a natural born citizen of the United States,”
    and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary’s discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship

  696. Not sure what Vattel’s writings have to do with the discussion, Lil Lloyd. Any idea that children born on US soil have to be naturalized has been debunked long ago…

  697. Excellent, Lil Lloyd. I think that your point is well taken. Those children born of citizens overseas should be considered “natural born” every bit as much as children born of whatever parentage on our soil.

  698. 110TH CONGRESS
    2D SESSION
    S. RES. __
    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
    _______________
    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
    Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself and Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on
    _______________
    RESOLUTION
    Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
    Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States;
    Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;
    Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to American citizens serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;
    Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’;
    Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;
    Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and
    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.
    Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
    Chairman, Committee On The Judiciary,
    On The Introduction Of A Senate Resolution
    April 10, 2008
    Today I join Senator Claire McCaskill in introducing a resolution to express the common sense of everyone here that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen,” as the term is used in the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution contains three requirements for a person to be eligible to be President – the person must have reached the age of 35; must have resided in America for 14 years; and must be a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ of the United States. Certainly there is no doubt that Senator McCain is of sufficient years on this earth and in this country given that he has been serving in Washington for over 25 years. However, some pundits have raised the question of whether he is a “natural born Citizen” because he was born outside of the official borders of the United States.
    John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936. Numerous legal scholars have looked into the purpose and intent of the “natural born Citizen” requirement. As far as I am aware, no one has unearthed any reason to think that the Framers would have wanted to limit the rights of children born to military families stationed abroad or that such a limited view would serve any noble purpose enshrined in our founding document. Based on the understanding of the pertinent sources of constitutional meaning, it is widely believed that if someone is born to American citizens anywhere in the world they are natural born citizens.
    It is interesting to note that another previous presidential candidate, George Romney, was also born outside of the United States. He was widely understood to be eligible to be President. Senator Barry Goldwater was born in a U.S territory that later became the State of Arizona so some even questioned his eligibility. Certainly the millions of Americans who voted for these two Republican candidates believed that they were eligible to assume the office of the President. The same is true today.
    Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former Federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not. I ask unanimous consent that the relevant excerpt from the Judiciary Committee hearing where Secretary Chertoff testified be made a part of the record.
    I expect that this will be a unanimous resolution of the Senate and I thank the Senator from Missouri for working with me on this.
    # # # # #
    EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008:
    ***
    Chairman Leahy. We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
    Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
    Chairman Leahy. That is mine, too. Thank you.

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

  700. Only recently did historians learn that, when Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen.

    I don’t believe that is true, but can you link me to back up?

  701. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt.

    Re read the sentence in Minor. As I read it, Minor doubted the very citizenship of children born of non citizen parents, “natural born” or not. Re read Paragraph #9 and let me know what you think…

    Thus we have two opposing viewpoints regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen”. Which one is correct? So far, the Supreme Court has not answered this question because, until now, there was no reason to. Now, the Supreme Court needs to do its job and answer the question.

    1. The Obama “apologists” have precedent on their side, in the person of Chester Arthur. Like it ot not, one of his parents was clearly not a US citizen.
    2. The embittered anti Obama folks are the only ones who appear to believe that this is a constitutional question. Don”t be confused- just because you believe there is a question here, doesn’t mean that anyone else sees it that way.
    Go back to Michelle’s definition of “natural born citizen” and let me know what act of law was required to make BHO a citizen…

  702. Nope.
    I would say what I said earlier: a “natural born citizen” is as simple as a person born in the United States, of whatever parentage, with very very few exceptions (and none of the exceptions apply to BHO).

    Robert, could you direct me to case law supports your statement?
    Senate Bill S.2128 was supposed to define “natural born citizen”, but it was never enacted.
    With only two exceptions, every American President, who was born after 1787, was born in the United States, to parents who were both U.S. citizens. The two exceptions were Chester Arthur and Barack Obama. When Chester Arthur ran for office, the public did not know about his eligibility problem. Only recently did historians learn that, when Arthur was born, his father was not a U.S. citizen. The 2008 election was the first time in history that the United States knowingly elected a President who was born after 1787 and whose parents were not both U.S. citizens.
    In Minor v. Happersett (1874), the Supreme Court said that, if you were born in the United States and both of your parents were U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you are, without doubt, a natural born citizen. In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that, if you were born in the United States and one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen when you were born, your natural born citizenship is in doubt. So far, the Supreme Court has not resolved this doubt because, until now, there has never been any need to do so.
    “Natural born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution or in any existing Federal law
    The main controversy boils down to this one question:
    If Barack Obama Jr. was born in the United States but, at the time of his birth, his father was a citizen of a foreign country and not a U.S. citizen, does Barack Obama Jr. meet the Constitutional “natural born citizen” requirement for presidency?
    Obama apologists say “Yes”. They believe there are only two kinds of American citizens: naturalized and natural born. A naturalized citizen is someone who becomes a citizen after his or her birth, through a legal process called “naturalization”. A natural born citizen is anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth. Since President Obama was born in the United States and was consequently a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, he is a natural born citizen, regardless of his parents’ citizenship.
    Birthers say “No”. They believe that, when the Constitution was written, a “natural born citizen” was someone who was born in the United States and whose parents were both U.S. citizens at the time of his or her birth. You cannot be a Constitutional natural born citizen unless both of your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born. If you are not a Constitutional natural born citizen, you are not eligible to serve as President.
    Thus we have two opposing viewpoints regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen”. Which one is correct? So far, the Supreme Court has not answered this question because, until now, there was no reason to. Now, the Supreme Court needs to do its job and answer the question.

  703. Perhaps bit of a conundrum , would you say.

    Nope.
    I would say what I said earlier: a “natural born citizen” is as simple as a person born in the United States, of whatever parentage, with very very few exceptions (and none of the exceptions apply to BHO).

  704. Heck, but Michelle’s definition , BHO isn’t even a citizen, much less “natural born.”

  705. Interesting take, Michelle.
    The father of the family next door moved here from Italy in 1966 and became a naturalized citizen in 1976. By your explanation above, their children (all born in the US prior to 1976) are all Italian citizens.
    I’ll mention that next time they try to vote.
    (It’s no wonder this case isn’t getting any attention from the courts)

  706. Every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations.
    .Everything I’ve read seems to underscore the nearly overriding importance of the father’s citizenship and that being “born of” a father of dual allegiance/citizenship renders him ineligible for Prez. I really think a distinction was deliberately drawn by Framers for the purpose of Art II, Sec 1, but for no other purpose.
    Natural-born citizens of the United States are those who are citizens of the United States from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their American citizenship.
    These are those whose parents are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth.
    Natural-born American citizens are those born of American citizen parents, within or without the American Republic, provided in the latter case that one of the parents had resided in the United States prior to the birth of the child. Their American citizenship is natural, the result of parentage, and not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative provisions.
    A natural-born citizen is one not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the large majority, in fact, the mass of our citizens; all others are exceptions specially provided for by law.
    A natural-born citizen is defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.
    It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be “a natural born citizen.” It is only requisite he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country.
    Natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens and naturalized citizens, are those born in the United States of parents who are citizens.
    Natural-born citizens are also those born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the birth of the child. Hence, a child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had previously resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.
    Society not being able to subsist and perpetuate itself, but by the children of its citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
    A Natural Born Citizen is one who is born of citizen parents. A child born abroad to two US citizen parents is a natural-born citizen: Provided, That at least one citizen parent had a prior residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions. U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401.

  707. In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC…

    You are attempting to conflate “dual citizenship” with “natural born citizen.” The two are not mutually exclusive.
    Again, by YOUR definition: can you point me to any “act of law” that was required for BHO to be a US citizen?

  708. Nope …..
    In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC…

  709. One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen.

    By that criterion, BHO is a natural born citizen.
    Unless, of course, you can show where and when he went through a naturalization process… ?

  710. The words “natural born citizen” is not even found in the 14th Amendment or US Code 1401.

  711. FIRST CONGRESS. Sess. II. Ch. 4. 1790
    And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea,Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:Exceptions. Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.[1]

  712. Fourteenth Amendment
    Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States – a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
    This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.
    The primary author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the “word jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”
    United States Attorney General, George Williams, whom was a U.S. Senator aligned with Radical Republicans during the drafting of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, ruled in 1873 the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment “must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment.” He added, “Political and military rights and duties” do not pertain to anyone else.
    Essentially then, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the same jurisdiction the United States exercises over its own citizens, i.e., only citizens of the United States come within its operation since citizens of the United States do not owe allegiance to some other nation at the same time they do the United States. This makes a great deal of sense for the time because there was a great deal of controversy over conflicts arising from double allegiances. In fact, Congress issued a joint congressional report on June 22, 1874 that said the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.”
    Just as a person cannot be naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while owing allegiance to another nation, neither can anyone born. Why would “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be any different with persons born since this jurisdiction equally applies to persons born or naturalized? In other words, the words do not exempt persons born from the same allegiance requirements of persons naturalized.
    It is worth noting that wives and children were never naturalized separately but became naturalized through the father/husband.
    Because “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires not owing allegiance to any other nation, and because the nation does not recognize double allegiances that can be created at common law, narrows the possibilities to what “natural-born citizen” can mean.

  713. Natural-Born Citizen Defined
    One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced.
    Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”
    The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are avoided, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Any alternations or conflicts due to a child’s natural citizenship are strictly a creature of local municipal law. In the year 1866, the United States for the first time adopted a local municipal law under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes that read: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
    Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
    Bingham subscribed to the same view as most everyone in Congress at the time that in order to be born a citizen of the United States one must be born within the allegiance of the Nation. Bingham had explained that to be born within the allegiance of the United States the parents, or more precisely, the father, must not owe allegiance to some other foreign sovereignty (remember the U.S. abandoned England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine). This of course, explains why emphasis of not owing allegiance to anyone else was the affect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
    It should be noted this allegiance due under England’s common law and American law are of two different species. Under the common law one owed a personal allegiance to the King upon birth. Under the American system there was no “crown” (individual) to personally owe an allegiance too.
    Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States, except that it may be that children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1117 (1866))
    The phrase “temporary sojourners” referred to those in the country for purposes of work, visiting or business and who had no intention of taking the steps to become citizens, or incapable by law. The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:
    That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to he dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. … The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box. Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.” President Washington warned a “passionate attachment of one nation for another, produces a variety of evils,” and goes on to say:

  714. Wild Bill, question for you:
    We have been spending alot of discussion in here on the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment.
    Have you read that document and that section?

  715. Funny, you seem to be one who believes that BHO isn’t a usurper, but provide no evidence to the contrary.

    Nope, no evidence at all, not a SHRED of evidence that BHO “isn’t a usurper.”
    Well, other than a properly issued state document showing his eligibility and the statements of state officials verifying that document… other than that…
    LOL.

  716. Sorry, I reversed that, but I’m quite sure that it will be interpreted correctly.

  717. Robert –
    Uh huh. Rule of thumb for you: If you want to “believe” something blindly, and refuse to take ten minutes to inform yourself– AT ALL COSTS, avoid getting into a debate on the subject. You will only look the fool.

    Ah! Thank you for the compliment. You are most generous. I must be a fool. So nice of you to notice.
    Funny, you seem to be one who believes that BHO isn’t a usurper, but provide no evidence to the contrary. People are still questioning, and with good reason, IMHO.

  718. No, Robert, I’m not going to bother since my understanding of what is currently proposed is that health care decisions will be made by a bureaucrat in WDC.

    So you claim something is in an act, actually LINK to the act, and then- when called on it- you don’t need to “bother???”
    LOL- remind me of this next time I hear you claim Obama followers are “sheep!”

    So, believe what you will and I will do the same.

    Uh huh. Rule of thumb for you: If you want to “believe” something blindly, and refuse to take ten minutes to inform yourself– AT ALL COSTS, avoid getting into a debate on the subject. You will only look the fool.

  719. No, Robert, I’m not going to bother since my understanding of what is currently proposed is that health care decisions will be made by a bureaucrat in WDC. That is really all I need to know to oppose it. Hopefully it will get shot down, especially considering that we have the best health care system in the world. Not that it doesn’t need some changes, but as someone said today, you don’t tear down the entire house to remodel the living room.
    Remember, or perhaps you aren’t aware, I spent almost 20 years of my life working in WDC and I know how pols think and act. And, as those almost 20 years showed me, once a pol gets inside the Beltway, they lose perspective. I’ve had the honor of providing breifings to some of them. Trust me. They knew better than I what the answers were – although not one was an engineer or scientist nor had first hand knowledge. And I was the one with boots on the ground. Mine and staff – engineers and scientists.
    So, believe what you will and I will do the same.

  720. Minor v Happersett (1874) has not been overturned according to Leo Donofrio. But the right to voted was amended into the Constitution.

    I tell you what: ask Donofrio point blank if Minor even ADDRESSED the issue of settling the argument about “natural born.” Donofrio will tell you that Minor did NOT address the issue beyond stating what I quoted- the Couirt was clear that they did NOT solve that issue.
    Ergo, Minor has no bearing on natural born citizen status. The court itself clearly avoided the issue.
    And, further, as you read the sentence quoted- the comment in Minor was not even questioning the “natural born” status of children of aliens- it was questioning (and refusing to solve) the very idea of their citizenship, natural born or otherwise. Which was decided in Ark.
    Defer to Donofrio because he is a lawyer? Not in this instance- unless and until he gets a judge to see things his way.

  721. Representative John A. Bingham (OH), author behind the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendmen

    Excellent. He should have included his definition in the amendment that was ratified.

  722. …and read page 429 of the document. It doesn’t sound to me (or a lot of others) like this is intended to allow me, my family, and my doctor to determine what actions should be taken to lengthen my life.

    Done. And nothing on page 429 indicates in any way shape or form that end of life decisions would be beyond the control of the indivdual and family / doctor, etc.
    Can you give me the first few words and paragraph number to which you refer (as pdf file can’t be cut and pasted) to start me to what I am missing?
    Also: Go to your file and read page 426, beginning at line 21: it clearly refers to the “treatment wishes of that individual.”

  723. “Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
    Representative John A. Bingham (OH), author behind the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendmen

  724. Robert:
    You say:
    “At this point, I think the Ark ruling completely overthrows anything regarding citizenship in Minor…”
    Minor v Happersett (1874) has not been overturned according to Leo Donofrio. But the right to voted was amended into the Constitution.
    Furthermore, to quote Donofrio:
    To quote Donofrio:
    BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.
    The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.
    Wong Kim Ark is a 14th Amendment case. Donofrio is an attorney. Do you really think that you know more about this subject than Donofrio does? I certainly do not know as much, so I will certainly defer to him.

  725. Robert:
    Please reread Wong Kim Ark. This is Minor’s paragraph #9 which Wong Kim Ark relies on.
    “‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”
    The above quote from Minor v Happersett is directly relied on in Wong Kim Ark at [169 U.S. 649, 680].

  726. Sorry for the misidentification, “Larry!” (Hugh!)
    The following link gives Minor in paragraph numbers… to which paragraph do you refer?
    The only reference I see is in #9, where the Court (to me) makes clear that they aren’t solving the debate about “natural born.”
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/7522834/Minor-v-Happersett-88-US-162-1874
    As I re read Minor:
    The “doubts” referred to in Minor, are NOT to who is natural born or not, but to who is even a CITIZEN- i.e. the Court states that doubts have never been solved as to whether a child born on US soil of aliens is even a citizen in the first place, not “natural born.” THE DOUBT MENTIONED IN MINOR IS NOT ABOUT NATURAL BORN, IT IS TO IF CHILDREN BORN OF FOREIGNERS ARE CITIZENS OF ANY KIND.
    Ark resolved those doubts, clearly and concisely- Minor is irrelevant to the argument of natural born vs. naturalized.
    Read paragraph #9 above.
    At this point, I think the Ark ruling completely overthrows anything regarding citizenship in Minor…

  727. It was the law. Of Britan. And Kenya was under thier law and control. What is it that you don’t, or cannot, understand about that.

    I understand enough about it to know that the laws of those lands don’t impact who WE call citizens of the USA. And if our law states that a person born in our territory is a citizen, that is up to our nation. The fact that Britain may also recognize the person as a citizen is irrelevant.

    You want to point to earlier laws of English heritage, and I do proudly have that heritage, and then want to igonre it.

    I didn’t point them out, WB- a USSC Justice pointed out those laws.

    Those in the White House (now with 49 czars, and if that doesn’t bother you, then you aren’t looking at history) don’t seem to care very much.

    Remember- anti Obama bitterness, while often well founded, does not in and of itself make you a patriotic citizen or a lover of the Constitution…

    Are you old enough to be caught in the web of being no longer useful so you should just be terminated? How about your kids, if you have any? If they aren’t perfect, should they be terminated so as to not be a drain on the government?

    I’m against the health care reform plan based on its economics, but I’m also smart enough to know that the wild blathering I read on right and left wing blogs has very little to do with what is actually in the plan.
    I know that asking a person like you to use facts is swimming upstream, but here goes: Prove it, WB. QUOTE THE WORDS from the plan that make you believe that the government will be able to decide who is “useful” (based on age or any other factor), and have them terminated?
    I’ll wait here, but remember: don’t quote right wing blogs, quote the plan itself.

    After all, they are more “impotent” than you.

    Well, at least now I understand part of the communication issue I am having with WB…

  728. Robert –
    Good heavens. You said

    Is there any doubt out there that the British don’t get to make laws regarding american citizenship?

    It was the law. Of Britan. And Kenya was under thier law and control. What is it that you don’t, or cannot, understand about that.
    You want to point to earlier laws of English heritage, and I do proudly have that heritage, and then want to igonre it.
    Look, my friend. This country was a colony of English (and other) people who fled oppression. They won. By loss of blood and posessions. But they won. They won because they believed in a system that was NOT the king. They won because they were, and by God, still are, “WE THE PEOPLE.” Those in the White House (now with 49 czars, and if that doesn’t bother you, then you aren’t looking at history) don’t seem to care very much.
    You have said you don’t agree with all of BHO’s policy direction. How about this? Are you old enough to be caught in the web of being no longer useful so you should just be terminated? How about your kids, if you have any? If they aren’t perfect, should they be terminated so as to not be a drain on the government?
    Sorry, Warren, but I don’t think this was off point. I think I’m dead on. We are headed toward extinction if we don’t get this country turned back to free enterprise and an ethic of you get what you work for. Not what the (at least for now) persons in the White House and Congress think you should have.
    By the way, did you know that the congress, who chastised the auto execs for using private jets just authorized $150 million for three for their own use? After all, they are more “impotent” than you.

  729. Robert:
    I said—-
    “Donofrio indicates the Chester Arthur made efforts to hide the fact from the time of his Vice Presidency.”
    You say—-
    But it wasn’t hidden- it was common knowledge.
    What people DID claim is that Arthur was born in Canada- they never made claims about the citizenship of his father.
    I say—-
    According to Donofrio, only one person was on Chester Arthur’s trail. He lied about his father’s lack of naturalization before his birth.
    Robert, there is no precedent here! NONE!

  730. Robert:
    The quote is mine, not Larry’s!
    “The words “without reference to the citizenship of their parents” open up the flood gates as to what US born childen can be natural born citizens. By the above definition of natural born citizen, the citizenship of their parents were limited to born in the US or naturalized before the birth of the child.”
    As to your question:
    [D]o you mean that by that definition, only the children of two citizens can be considered natural born?
    Yes sir, that is exactly what I mean!
    IF you do mean that, how do you come to that conclusion?
    Yes, the statement is from Minor v Happersett. Look for numbers 88 US 162, 168 in the paragraph.
    “Your quote is from Minor which CLEARLY states that the decision of the court does NOT decide the issue of “natural born citizen.”
    Yes, but Minor gives the definition. SCOTUS was not trying to decide the issue of “natural-born citizen”, but SCOTUS did define the phrase.
    “The citizenship of parents before the birth of the child in the US is the critical issue. It separates natural-born citizen from citizen only.”
    Says who? Minor certainly does not, and can you find words in Ark to that effect?
    Robert, These words, —-“The citizenship of parents before the birth of the child in the US is the critical issue. It separates natural-born citizen from citizen only.”—are conclusion and it is fully supported in Minor’s definition and supported in Wong Kim Ark, as follows:
    “‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of [169 U.S. 649, 680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”
    The above quote from Minor v Happersett is directly relied on in Wong Kim Ark at [169 U.S. 649, 680].

  731. Is there any doubt out there that the father of BHO was Kenyan, and thus a British subject? Is there any doubt about the British law at the time thus conferring BHO with British citizenship?

    Is there any doubt out there that the British don’t get to make laws regarding american citizenship?

    And even if his mother could confer American citizenship, he would have dual citizenship; in itself a disqualifier.

    Based upon what, other than your fantasy?

  732. Is there any doubt out there that the father of BHO was Kenyan, and thus a British subject? Is there any doubt about the British law at the time thus conferring BHO with British citizenship? And even if his mother could confer American citizenship, he would have dual citizenship; in itself a disqualifier. The BC is an issue, but not the entire issue. If we found out FOR SURE that BHO wasn’t born in HI, that would be the end of that discussion, but it is unlikely that the debate, or the resolution, would be over.

  733. Larry: As far as accountant and lawyer, you are incorrect on both counts.
    As far as case law to back my definintion of natural born, I point you back to Ark and it’s CLEAR and IRREFUTABLE use of English Common Law in coming to the conclusion that Ark is a US citizen: In English Common Law, a person born in England of aliens was — quote from the Ark case – a “natural born citizen.”
    Why use that quote and that example to reach the conclusion — without qualification– if that was not the intent of the Court?

  734. Donofrio indicates the Chester Arthur made efforts to hide the fact from the time of his Vice Presidency.

    But it wasn’t hidden- it was common knowledge.
    What people DID claim is that Arthur was born in Canada- they never made claims about the citizenship of his father.

  735. The words “without reference to the citizenship of their parents” open up the flood gates as to what US born childen can be natural born citizens. By the above definition of natural born citizen, the citizenship of their parents were limited to born in the US or naturalized before the birth of the child.

    I don’t clearly understand what you are saying Larry… do you mean that by that definition, only the children of two citizens can be considered natural born?
    IF you do mean that, how do you come to that conclusion? Your quote is from Minor which CLEARLY states that the decision of the court does NOT decide the issue of “natural born citizen.”

    The citizenship of parents before the birth of the child in the US is the critical issue. It separates natura-born citizen from citizen only.

    Says who? Minor certainly does not, and can you find words in Ark to that effect?

  736. Larry:
    Robert is not an accountant as far as I know, and he did say that he is not an attorney. I am that accountant by trade that you speak of! Robert has a difference of opinion with others on this blog.
    I was not present at Obama’s birth, but Obama has said that his father was born in Kenya and that his (Obama’s) birth is governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948. As far as can be determined Obama’s father never naturalized to the United States.
    According to the research of attorney Leo Donofrio that I have posted on this blog Obama is not a natural-born citizen due to Obama’s father’s failure to naturalize to the US. I agree with Donofrio as to Obama’s ineligibility.
    I do believe the Robert is misreading Wong Kim Ark, but consider that Leo Donofrio understands people’s reliance on Wong Kim Ark as to their saying Obama is a natural-born citizen since the language of the case is confusing.
    Robert has made a good faith effort in reading Wong Kim Ark and Minor v Happersett. He actually did read Minor v Happersett before I did. I can tell that by his response to me when I first mentioned Minor.
    It took me awhile to understand that the 14th Amendment and US Code 1401 does not apply to natural-born citizens.

  737. Michelle:
    Takes a big person to realize they made a mistake. My hat is off to you. Now, as to Robert – Do you have any case law to back up your claim of only two types of citizens?
    You said you are an accountant by trade and what, an attorney by hobby? Both regular citizenship and naturalized citizenship are statutory so the common law is neither necessary nor applicable to determine their meaning. Natural Born Citizen is in the Constitution but not defined. There case law can help to determine the correct legal meaning but the existence of that class of citizenship, since it is in the Constitution, is irrefutable.
    I most certainly did not vote for Mr. Obama but I have still not made a decision as to his eligibility because I was not present when he was born and the facts are obviously in dispute. I do find it completely objectionable that Obama is stonewalling the issue. It would be so easy to provide the documentation and resolve the matter but he does not do that. There are only two possible reasons why. One is that he is not a natural born citizen and the other is that he is just an arrogant elitist who feels he is above being questioned. Neither answer bodes well for the country.
    I would just like to let you know Robert that I was a practicing attorney for many years and nothing is as scary as seeing non-lawyers pretending to be lawyers. Anyone who represents themselves has a fool for an attorney!

  738. Robert:
    In reference to:
    “But, as I understand it, it was acknowledged at the time that Arthur’s father was not a US citizen… i.e., nothing was done to hide the fact.
    Could be wrong.”
    Donofrio indicates the Chester Arthur made efforts to hide the fact from the time of his Vice Presidency.

  739. Robert:
    This is the first class.
    “..it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
    Here is the second class.
    “Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts…
    The words “without reference to the citizenship of their parents” open up the flood gates as to what US born childen can be natural born citizens. By the above definition of natural born citizen, the citizenship of their parents were limited to born in the US or naturalized before the birth of the child.
    But no reference to the citizenship of parents would enables natural-born status for children of aliens or foreign born parents. Of these SCUTUS does have doubts.
    The citizenship of parents before the birth of the child in the US is the critical issue. It separates natura-born citizen from citizen only.
    But Minor v Happersett did not resolve the doubts. Hence we have the following, quoted above and relied on in Wong Kim Ark.
    “For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
    So, according to the above definition for natural-born citizen a child must be born in the US, and must have citizen parents at the time of his birth. The citizenship of parents before the birth of the child in the US is the critical issue. It separates natura-born citizen from citizen only.
    Presidential eligibility is not the issue in Wong Kim Ark and Minor v Happersett. But there is guidance in Minor v Happersett relied on in Wong Kim Ark.
    Robert, I am not a lawyer. I am just reading and quoting from Donofrio’s research.

  740. This is as good an entree as any to point out the “transparent” reason for the Birther movment: 100% unadulterated bitterness over a lost election.
    Robert,
    I voted for the *** you dumb ***
    (Michelle – profanity violates the commenting guidelines)

  741. So, I can only conclude that a natural-born citizen is a person born of two citizen parents at the time of the child’s birth.

    Why is that, Hugh? How can it be the Minor case that decided this, when the justice wrting in Minor clearly wrote:

    As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

    So the doubts were not solved by the case.
    Additionally, by using Minor to try to prove your point, you are trying to have it both ways: you told me in an earlier post that Ark could not be used as the issue of natural born citizens “was not before the court.”
    Now you want to use Minor as “the case” to prove that BHO is not natural born, although that was not the issue before the court in Minor?

  742. I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but if a legal mistake is made, it does NOT HAVE TO BE REPEATED.

    In other words, you have no precedent or case law to state that a child born in the US is not a natural born citizen… and, the single case that I refer to (Ark) you believe was decided in error.
    Fair enough, and I agree that legal errors do not need to be repeated or verified (see Brown v Board of Ed. for overturning an error).
    That said, I also think your reasons for believing it to be an error are paper thin… what are the reasons, again? “Vattel?”

  743. Robert:
    I also need to insert “These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”—-having the same assurance.

  744. Robert:
    The phrase “it was never doubted” before “that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also” means to me, at least, that We the People can be secure in the above definition since the Supreme Court has never doubted that same definition.

  745. Robert:
    The Case is Minor v Happersett (1874) which Justice Gray quoted in Wong Kim Ark, as follows: In Wong Kim Ark, the court thoroughly discussed “natural born citizen”. And in doing so, Justice Gray quoted directly from the holding in a prior Supreme Court case, Minor v. Happersett. The following passage is a quote from Minor as quoted by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
    ” ‘At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.’ Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.”
    The applicable words are “all children born in a country, whose parents were its citizens, become themselves, upon there birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens”, as apposed to aliens or foreigners.
    So, I can only conclude that a natural-born citizen is a person born of two citizen parents at the time of the child’s birth.
    Furthermore, I can only conclude that Wong Kim Ark fails natural-born since he parents were not even citizens. But Justice Gray did hold that Wong was a citizen.

  746. Robert:
    Also, except for Arthur, every President has had two citizen parents (born in US or naturalized before the child’s birth). Now, Obama has stated that his father was born in Kenya, and he failed to naturalize. So I can only conclude that Obama fails the test.

  747. Robert –
    I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but if a legal mistake is made, it does NOT HAVE TO BE REPEATED.
    Refute that.

  748. As I understand the one-man effort was squashed and covered from he public eye. So, there was never any legal constitutional case bought against Chester Arthur.

    But, as I understand it, it was acknowledged at the time that Arthur’s father was not a US citizen… i.e., nothing was done to hide the fact.
    Could be wrong.

  749. Robert:
    You say:
    Why didn’t the term of Chester Arthur provide precedence for a natural born definition?
    Is it just because when the same issues were raised that time, they failed as well?
    Donofrio’s research is the only source for Arthur’s illegibility that I know. I do know that there was only one man hot on Chester Arthur’s case. Donofrio has searched Chester’s Dad’s naturalization papers and he compared the dates of naturalization and Chester’s date of birth. The naturalization was 14-years later.
    As I understand the one-man effort was squashed and covered from he public eye. So, there was never any legal constitutional case bought against Chester Arthur.
    I will get back with you on the other case law matter.

  750. Sorry, one more quick question:
    Why didn’t the term of Chester Arthur provide precedence for a natural born definition?
    Is it just because when the same issues were raised that time, they failed as well?

  751. Obama supporters and Robert are FOOLS. Masquerade is the proper term,where transparency is used. Obama knows his birth place is in question by many and the numbers keep growing,Yet he keeps hiding the Facts from the general public. Where’s the transparency ?
    Obama is a liar and a narcissist, plain and simple, for anyone to see.

    Thanks, Michelle.
    This is as good an entree as any to point out the “transparent” reason for the Birther movment: 100% unadulterated bitterness over a lost election.
    Just as bad as the Left crying about the USSC’s proper Florida decision in 2000…

  752. In fact, I told you through Donofrio that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen only and not a natural born citizen; but you are not listening to what Donofrio says, so naturally you are not going to listen to us. .

    And he was a citizen by virtue of his birth- natural born, as Gray makes quite clear through all of his references back to English Common Law.

    It is difficult to have a conversation with a person whose mind is already made up

    Physician, heal thyself.

    Gray is not deciding on natural born citizen status. That was not even the issue before the Court.
    So Gray could not rule as to Wong Kim Ark is a natural born. Gray is not saying that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.

    In fact, that is EXACTLY what Gray is saying: again, I point you to those very words, used in reference to English Common Law.

    For a child to be a natural born citizen both parents of a child must be “born or naturalized citizens before the child’s birth.

    I wil ask you AGAIN: Please provide case law to back that up.
    (And I’m sure you won’t use Ark Kim for that, as you stated that that was not even the issue before the court…)

  753. Warren,
    I am still not getting email notification of new post like I was previously. I have hit the subscribe button again and submitted but still am not receiving the notifications of post to this thread.
    Any way you could help me out with this and set it up to where I get email notification when something new is posted?
    Thanks,
    CG

  754. Here’s an interesting post concerning the Kenyan BC and the missing page of the O divorce papers……………….it’s long, but definitely thought provoking……….
    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/?p=3652
    The Kenya BC, that I am seeking to be authenticated, is more plausible then the short version HI BC posted by Obama
    FreeRepublic.com
    August 5, 2009
    by BP2
    Few people know the prima facie facts tied to the Obama’s mother’s 1964 and 1980 divorces as well as a handful of us here on Free Republic. I know it probably better than most.
    When I started looking at the date (Feb 17, 1964) on this new Kenyan birth certificate, I immediately started comparing it with the dates of the 1964 divorce between Obama’s mother and father – TRYING to REFUTE the Kenyan birth certificate. Was it at all PLAUSIBLE, at least based upon what we know as prima facie facts, confirmed by an independent source – such as a judge in a divorce case? If you wish to refer back to this initial comparison, the information is on Post 2,222 of the Free Republic thread “Is this really it? (re: possible Obama’s Kenyan B.C.)”.
    There’s been a fair number of fake Obama documents surfacing in the days and weeks leading up to the release of the Kenyan birth certificate, quickly debunked, designed to create confusion of prima facie – so, many of us are naturally suspicious. You can cry “wolf” only so many times before others stop believing you, even though later there may truly be a wolf. That said, I’m not a forensics expert, nor have I seen the Kenya birth certificate – but I can connect dots.
    Although ANY document can be faked, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that a sneaky pro-Obama “operative” came up with a fake document that also plausibly MATCHES the timeline of the 1964 Obama divorce and other events, as well as the new Kenyan birth certificate does. Anything is possible of course, but I see the Kenya birth certificate as a believable document – for various reasons that I’ll outline below.
    Not all of the deductive reasoning used in Post 2,222 came from 13-page divorce decree. For example, information regarding the 10-day “knock and nail” notification for Obama SR in Boston came from work with a local Private Investigator and a clerk in a Hawaii Court records office (who will remain nameless to eschew FURTHER harassment to them from the Left). These “contacts” also explained that Marriage and Birth Certificates are NOT Public Record in Hawaii, but divorce decrees ARE Public Record. However, documents that are NOT Public Record have occasionally “popped-up” mixed in with Public Records upon modern review, due to sloppy record-keeping decades ago, as well as changes to Hawaiian privacy statutes since the cases were judged.
    Additionally … there’s the issue of the missing page from the 1964 divorce papers … page 11 …
    In assisting with the retrieval of the initial 8 pages a couple of weeks before Obama’s Inauguration, I and a few other researchers subsequently discovered from the clerk in Hawaii that there were 6 MORE pages, or 14 total pages total. The clerk read the index information directly from the microfiche machine over the phone when the request was placed. “14 pages total,” she said, very clearly, repeating the answer when queried several more times on the page count.
    I mailed off a check for the other 6 pages to be sent. Imagine my surprise a few days later when I opened the envelope and only saw 5 pages – page 11 was missing – bringing the total page count to 13.
    See the whole Obama 1964 divorce on Scribd.com or as 13 individual images below (in proper order):
    I immediately called the clerk in Hawaii and asked where the extra page was. She looked, and counted, and said that there must be some mistake in the records – she counted only 13 pages that are available for reprint. I pointed out to her that the page count she sent skipped from page 10 to page 12 – page 11 was missing. To that, she suggested that perhaps the pages were simply misnumbered before they where archived into the microfiche.
    I accepted her answer, not thinking much about it at the time. Perhaps it was just a clerical error in the 1960s, when hand-filed paper records and IBM punch cards were how court documents were tracked and maintained.
    I have since come to learn that Obama and his team of lawyers have been working to sanitize his records since he announced that he’d run for President circa November 2004. Now in the White House, he’s still ACTIVELY blocking subpoenas for such documents as his Cambridge and Occidental College records TODAY – the same type of documents promised to be made available during his campaign. Obama and his lawyers are exceedingly adept at exploiting loopholes in Hawaiian birth certificate law to keep Obama’s past hidden from the American people.
    This missing page – page 11 – very likely is a copy of the original birth certificate, based upon the prima facie timeline of the 1964 divorce. The Kenya birth certificate was likely requested on Jan 23, 1964 by either Judge King (to award custody on the next trial date), or recommended to Ann Dunham by her attorney for the ex parte divorce, where only one parent was expected to be present.
    The missing page, 11, should be chronologically-numbered as all other pages were in the original docket file, by the court clerk at the time. Starting at page 8, Exhibit A is placed where it would have occurred by date in the paperwork (and appeared on microfiche), even denoting an erased, yet barely-readable “8? on both pages of the returned notification sent to Obama SR. The missing page, numbered as page 11, would likely be a page that would have been admitted to the divorce file sometime in mid- to late-February 1964 – almost as if it were an undocumented “Exhibit B”.
    Here’s a very plausible timeline merging the 1964 Obama Divorce papers and new Kenya birth certificate:
    Jan 20 (Mon) – divorce request is filed by Stanley Ann D. Obama
    Jan 23 (Thur) – divorce orders for trial are given by Judge King at chambers (note – if the judge, or Ann Dunham’s attorney, told her to order the Kenya birth certificate, it would have been mailed 10,000 miles away, to the “Coast Province” Registrar’s office of the “Republic of Kenya”, likely arriving around the first week of February 1964 to be processed)
    Jan 28 (Tue) – Gail A. Watanabe, presumably an assistant of Ann Obama attorney George Kerr, mails the notification for trial to Obama SR (her affidavit is signed Feb 3 and filed)
    Jan 30 (Thur) – via Air Mail, notification of trial arrives at Obama SR’s Cambridge, Mass, address. The 10-day “knock and nail” notification would have expired on Sun, Feb 9. Therefore, the next trial date would have been automatically set, per Judge King’s instructions, for the first Tuesday, 30 days later, on March 3
    Feb 10 (Mon) – allowing for a 10-day “knock and nail” notification for trial, Obama SR’s trial notification would have been retrieved by the US Post Office on this date, to be mailed back (as events turned out – UNSIGNED by Obama SR) to Hawaii as an exhibit for trial
    Feb 17 (Mon) – the Obama Kenya birth certificate is signed by the “Coast Province” Deputy Registrar, to be mailed back to Hawaii for receipt by Ann Obama and/or her attorney (note: mail time would have ranged from a few days (Air Mail) to a couple of weeks (ship), arriving back in Hawaii in the last week of February to first week of March 3 (Tue). Based upon Judge King’s Jan 23 orders for the next trial date, “at 9:30 a.m. on the first Tuesday after thirty (30) days have elapsed from and after the date” that Obama SR would have been served with the notice of trial. That notification came back, unsigned, by Obama SR, so Ann’s attorneys surely requested, and received Default Judgment for the divorce in her favor for “grievous mental suffering”
    Mar 5 (Thur) – trial takes place in favor of divorce in Hawaii, placing custody of Obama JR to his mother by default (note: the trial was likely rescheduled 2 days after the automatically set date of Mar 3, possibly for the convenience of the judge and/or parties)
    Mar 20 (Fri) – the divorce decree is signed by Judge King
    In Hawaii, birth certificates are not Public Record. If the Kenya birth certificate was a part of the divorce decree, it may have been pulled out at the end of the trial, or more recently by a watchful archivist or attorneys wishing to remove unfavorable information about Obama.
    To date, despite other honest attempts to refute the Kenya birth certificate, such as dealing with when the “Republic of Kenya” came into existence as a republic have been “un-bunked.” Dishonest alterations of the Kenya birth certificate have been maliciously created by sites such as Democratic Underground, designed to discredit the Kenya birth certificate – they’ve been un-bunked as well.
    Having not actually seeing the Kenya birth certificate, and it’s chain of evidence, no intellectually-honest person can say if it’s real or not. By the same token, none of us have seen or touched the short-form “Certification of Live Birth” that has appeared on Obama’s “Fight the Smears” or FactCheck.org websites.
    No one can confirm the chain of evidence of Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” that has appeared online, which is the abbreviated-version of Obama’s true, 1961, original long-form(s) “Certificate of Live Birth” and associated vital statistics records. Even the Hawaii Department of Health directly refuses to verify Obama’s online COLBs.
    Hawaiian law would have allowed for Obama to have been born in a foreign country. The “Certification of Live Birth” can’t confirm if Obama has EVER been eligible to hold the office of Commander in Chief, based upon loopholes in pre-statehood, transitional and current Hawaiian statutes. Inconsistencies, such as conflicting hospitals in Hawaii that Obama, his friends and family have publicly-stated he may have been born only add to the confusion. Obama’s abstract “Certification of Live Birth” doesn’t tell us if there were ANY “certifying officials” present who independent verified the “facts” of his birth – it’s anyone’s guess.
    Obama himself cannot guaranty that he was born on American soil – really, who can remember their own childbirth?! Furthermore, his mother’s whereabouts are unconfirmed, inconsistent, and unknown, from the time of Obama’s conception, until a few weeks or months after his birth.
    Thus is the purpose of Medical Doctors, Nurses, Midwives and Registrars, acting as “Certifying Officials” of a birth, to ensure the integrity – or chain of evidence – of the birth certificate to be properly recorded within Vital Statistics archives. Judges presiding over divorces ALSO produce a verifiable paper trail, as we can see on the 1964 Obama divorce.
    At this time, both Birth Certificates from Kenya and Hawaii lack a publicly-exhibited, independently-verifiable chain of evidence – and chain of custody. As such, the Obama Kenyan birth certificate is as strong and believable a document as the Hawaiian “Certification of Live Birth”. However, Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate possesses something the Certification does not – plausibility, based upon independent prima facie facts – the 1964 Obama divorce decree.
    6,799 posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:22:21 AM by BP2
    Posted 2009-08-05 9:51 AM (#19775) By: EternalVigilance

  755. Obama supporters and Robert are FOOLS. Masquerade is the proper term,where transparency is used. Obama knows his birth place is in question by many and the numbers keep growing,Yet he keeps hiding the Facts from the general public. Where’s the transparency ?
    Obama is a liar and a narcissist, plain and simple, for anyone to see.

  756. Robert:
    I repeat part of my post in reference to you question to Larry about want Case Law to support his position of “regular citizen, natural born citizen, and naturalized citizen”. Please reread it.
    Yes, Robert, there is Case Law!
    But you are not hearing what we are saying! Your position is “I believe that there are two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized.
    And I think that it is crystal clear that any child born on US soil, of whatever parentage, meets the first type. Without question and without exception (well, except diplomats, etc.- the clear exceptions that Gray makes, by the way).”
    In fact, I told you through Donofrio that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen only and not a natural born citizen; but you are not listening to what Donofrio says, so naturally you are not going to listen to us. It is difficult to have a conversation with a person whose mind is already made up.
    Now, your “crystal clear” comment is “that any child born on US soil, of whatever parentage…”
    Chief Justice Gray is ruling on “citizen only” according to the 14h Amendment, and he finds the Wong Kim Ark is a citizen only. In the disputed passage he is making a comparision (“as much as”). The subject is “citizens”, not natural born citizens. Gray is not deciding on natural born citizen status. That was not even the issue before the Court.
    So Gray could not rule as to Wong Kim Ark is a natural born. Gray is not saying that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
    For a child to be a natural born citizen both parents of a child must be “born or naturalized citizens before the child’s birth.
    You are misreading Wong Kim Ark.

  757. Lots of posts, but let’s pick out a few:

    There need be no Case Law there since the framers wrote (used the different choice of word) different qualifications for the President and the lesser Offices. But you say there is really no difference.

    When did I say that Hugh?? Can you point me to it? I will apologize, if I did say that…
    In fact there are differences… look no further than the Governor of CA, who can be a senator but not POTUS. Why? He wasn’t BORN here.

    Well, those framers, those ignorant framers of our Constitution, they must not really know anything, because in the 21th Century we have a new interpretation of what those idiot framers ment.

    They wrote exactly what they meant. I just find it amazing that the Birthers would grasp so wildly at the straw of what a frenchman wrote, rather than look at the clear and concise underpinnings of English Common Law.
    (Note: The framers were ENGLISH citizens prior to the Revolution).

    It is difficult to have a conversation with a person whose mind is already made up.

    Tell me about it!

    Third – IF (and I say “if” because I don’t think the lady would be soooo stupid) the good Dr. in Hawaii had made the statement that BOZO was a natural born citizen, she just broke Hawaiian LAW and is now subject to court proceedings against her for doing so.

    Which HI state law is that, CG?
    I know, I know- you can’t tell me what state law she broke, but you think you read about one on “the internets.”
    Think about what you are saying and then get back to me– tell me the implications of a US state being prohibited by law from verifying the status of its citizens. Think of every illegal alien crossing the border and simply being able to claim “I was born in HI!”
    Doesn’t pass the common sense test, does it CG?

    Federals have refused to touch Fitzpatrick, thereby confirming the Treason by definition.

    Thanks for the morning laugh, Hugh. By ignoring a crank, the Feds have confirmed treason by BHO??? LOL.

    If you were a natural-born citizen, there was no choice between two nationalities that one had to make at age 21.

    Um, Hugh: There isn’t such a requirement for children born on US soil.
    Again, use common sense: Why don’t all of the “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens need to make a choice at age 21?
    Obama supporters (and I do not support many of his policies) are FOOLS if they do not keep this Birther thing going…
    EVERY GOP candidate for any office anywhere must be asked over and over and over again if he or she believes that BHO was born in the USA, and is eligible to be POTUS. Let the candidate look like a tin foil hatter or be separated from a small part of their base…

  758. This is a long post but with very important historicals.
    August 4, 2009; 04:03 PM
    Kamira at Donofrio’s site concerning Dangerous Precedent:
    IceTrey wrote, “In order to retain his citizenship he had to renounce all other citizenships and take an oath of allegiance before he was 21.”
    What you’re speaking of is born out of the naturalization process only. This is why what Obama and his campaign put on Fight The Smears so blatantly proves he’s not a natural-born citizen. He’s actually not only admitting that he’s a dual-citizen, but he’s admitting that if he were to abide by the laws post-Constitution with regard to the presidency, he’d be looking at standing in a naturalization line. These aren’t requirements that natural-born citizens were ever mandated to take. If you were a natural-born citizen, there was no choice between two nationalities that one had to make at age 21. A natural-born citizen didn’t have to choose between anything. He wasn’t born with anything else besides his American nationality. There was nothing to choose between.
    A foreigner on the other hand, had to make a declaration of intent to become a citizen, then reside here for five years, have someone sponsor them in a court of law and before that court, take an oath of sole allegiance before even being considered of being allowed into the union of the new republic.
    If you had children before you were naturalized, they followed the patrus sequitur patrem rule, which meant you followed the nationality of your father as a free person. Yes, Vattel is often credited with equivalent language you see in the Constitution, but that came from the Committee of Style when they wrote it because language and words were important. But as Leo points out, Vattel is not the Constitution. But we know who did point out the Constitution in law and it was Justice Joseph Story in Conflict of Laws. He explains exactly what doctrine this country followed and it was the patrem rule when it came to all free persons. Read this book and it become immensely clear. See particularly sections 43, 44 and 46:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=DW8DAAAAQAAJ&dq=joseph+story+commentaries+on+the+conflict+of+laws&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=S-z8yO8_-E&sig=iE7mBK27XZAlns9Xt7ic7ILJbIY&hl=en&ei=XL9rSqL2CYX0MbHo_fgG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
    What’s more, the application of the law is exactly as Justice Story defines and is in complete unison with the founder’s writings. We see it right here in BARRY V. MERCEIN, 46 U. S. 103 (1847), where there’s no doubt and if you notice, no allowances for double-allegiances whatsoever. It was unheard of:
    “The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during his father’s temporary residence therein – twenty-two months and twenty days – not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, and writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint. Constitution United States, art. 3, sec. 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, sec. 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. III. cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Clar. & Fin. Ap. Ca. 523; Story’s Confl. Laws, 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelford on Marriage, Ferg. Rep. 397, 398.”
    As you can see, there’s no allowance for double-allegiances. The U.S. refused to endorse it and they still don’t endorse it to this day. The intent of the framers was certainly not to endorse it, hence the patrem rule and framer Rufus King’s words at the constitutional convention:
    “Framer Rufus King said allegiance to the United States depended on whether a person is a “member of the body politic.” King says no nation should adopt or naturalize a person of another society without the consent of that person. The reason? Because “he ought not silently to be embarrassed with a double allegiance.”
    There was none of this citizen at birth of aliens when they constructed the words “natural-born citizen”. Justice Gray wasn’t even born yet. Therefore, no one can expect the Founders to have addressed an issue that wasn’t even allowed.
    You were either;
    a. a citizen having pledged to the declaration of independence.
    b. a citizen through inheritance of being born of citizen parents; or
    c. a citizen through naturalization
    If it’s not obvious, natural-born is B and the earliest laws on the books prove it. Nothing else matters except what the framers meant when they wrote Article II. Everything else is irrelevant. The fourteenth amendment doesn’t change what a natural born citizen is. It added to the list by saying that those included in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were citizens so that the legislation couldn’t be reversed. They made a constitutional amendment out of that Act so they couldn’t revert back to slavery ever again.
    Wong Kim Ark adds to the list again, and even though that decision is cut from invisible cloth and should be thrown out, even Justice Gray doesn’t say that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen and he knew he couldn’t because he would have been impeached, if not laughed off the bench! Look at the dissenting opinion in that case and what is Justice Fuller saying? He’s saying, uh guys… I thought we followed the rule of partus sequitur patrem. You know? That little rule that says a child follows the nationality of his father?
    What you are seeing are anti-Americans trying to endoctrinate you into believing that this country never held the patrem rule, that we were based on English common law and jus soli. It’s garbage. It’s LIES. We followed partus sequitur patrem from Roman civil law and Justice Story confirmed that fact that other Justices followed.
    Look at the law and the history and it proves them wrong and Leo Donofrio right. It’s just going to take some time before guys like Bill O’Reilly read enough to get up to speed. The rest of them are doing it on purpose. They don’t want you looking at the early case law because that will show you the true Founder’s intent and they hate that. They want you to believe you’re helpless in this fight and there’s nothing you can do about it. You have to stay close to the period of the Constitution and study that. The Framers won’t steer you wrong. Neither will Joseph Story, David Ramsay, The Federalist, The Papers of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc.
    Leo Donofrio is 100% correct. The birth certificate makes not one iota worth of difference, although Obama should have never been allowed to hide it. That’s BS and everyone knows it. The real point is, Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be in that oval office. One thing I will agree with Bill O’Reilly about is that the Obama administration is going to make SURE it’s about his birth certificate, but not to only make the “fringe” look stupid, but because God forbid America goes digging into what’s behind Article II. There will be hell to pay and they know it. You may even demand your individual sovereignty and right to be heard in a court of law. How’s it feel to know you lost that right given to you by the Framers? And the socialists responded how? They laughed in your face.
    This is about a government take-over and letting Obama and that administration in based on lies to the American people and that’s the truth. It’s not about race. That’s another lie. Most of his administration and his congress are WHITE, including Obama. WHITE socialists who want to enslave you again.
    [Ed. A natural born citizen doesn’t have to choose to renounce any other citizenship. He doesn’t have to renounce anything. Exactly. Well said.]

  759. Greek:
    I understand, but they have some reason to do it now! Any way I am just reporting. But Indictments for Treason is an entirely different matter!

  760. Hugh…while true, I really don’t put much faith in the Citizens Grand Jury movement. Just look at what happened before and then what is happening now…..they are delivering their “presentments” during a time when the people are in recess and there are only staff members in the offices and the staff members are throwing the presentments in the garbage cans, sometimes right in front of the people presenting the presentments!
    Eddy..thanks..I’m giving that a try!
    Nice to see all you fine folks again!!

  761. Greek–
    You should be able to get yourself reconnected to the notices. Try to post another comment but before hitting ‘submit comment’, look for the check box that allows you to subscribe to this topic. If that doesn’t appear, look for ‘manage your subscriptions’ in red. That will link you to the topic threads by name. (Remember that this one started way back in October or November.)

  762. Greek:
    A genuine Kenyan BC leading to settling this issue would cause multiple earthquakes in DC and every Obama stronghold. Most everyone in the Federal Government would be suspect and subject to sanctions of some kind. It is a complicit fraud with many moving parts.
    I do know that presentments and indictments are being delivered to the Federal officials (Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday-tomorrow). Stephen Pidgeon is in on it, and a group from Patriot’s Heart Network. LTCD Walter Fitzpatrick, USN, (Ret) and other military have indictments against Obama for TREASON, all part of this effort. Federals have refused to touch Fitzpatrick, thereby confirming the Treason by definition.

  763. WOW…things really start popping when I’ve been away for awhile.
    THANKS Wild Bill for letting me know that the thread was back up and hummin!
    WARREN……could you please set it up to where I get email notices again when something new has been posted to this thread? I used to get those but for some reason have not received any for a few months now. THANKS!
    Let me play a little catch up here right quick….and I don’t mean by gettin involved in trying to answer all the legalese stuff, so you can rest easy there. I only have a few questions really.
    First, and most importantly – why is it that the BOZO supporters are so afraid of letting anything come before the courts concerning their Messiah?
    Second – What happens IF the newly found Kenyan birth certificate with BOZO’s name plastered all over it is found to be genuine? What are the BOZO supporters going to say then? To my way of thinking, it is the BOZO supporters who will be hurt the worst should it be found that their Messiah isn’t a natural born citizen…………THEY are the ones that have been lied to should this prove to be true. Could it be that this is what is driving them to fight the idea of the simple truth seeing the light of day concerning their Messiah?
    Third – IF (and I say “if” because I don’t think the lady would be soooo stupid) the good Dr. in Hawaii had made the statement that BOZO was a natural born citizen, she just broke Hawaiian LAW and is now subject to court proceedings against her for doing so. It just doesn’t make sense that these officials would have said at every turn that they cannot give out information and then turn around and do so, going so far as to proclaim themselves an ‘expert’ by declaring BOZO to be a natural born citizen. Weird that!
    Right now we are in a ‘wait and see’ posture with the disclosure of the Kenyan birth certificate by Dr. Orly Taitz. Until then, everything else is just mere speculation.
    Personally, I am willing to wait for the courts to rule on the authenticity of the document…which, by the way, I personally believe to be a true and factual document simply based on a few things that I have seen regarding same. (Just to set the record straight)
    I can say this…..IF this Kenyan document is proven genuine and is backed up by more forth coming evidence, there are going to be an awful lot of people looking at the accommodations that will become available at the Cross Bar Hotel…and deservedly so. Like I have said many times on here…..this is SERIOUS! We are not talking about electing a local dog catcher here (although I think BOZO would have a hard time even qualifying for THAT position)……we are talking about the office of President of the United States. BOZO, and ANY who have aided and abetted him in his quest to hold the office of POTUS, if found to be ineligible, are in some SERIOUS TROUBLE!
    Hate to say it, but this effects ALL OF US……’birther’ and ‘non birther’ alike!
    One would think that ALL AMERICANS would like to get to the truth of the matter…..I simply do not understand the reluctance of some to have that truth brought forth!

  764. Yes, Robert, there is Case Law!
    But you are not hearing what we are saying! Your position is “I believe that there are two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized.
    And I think that it is crystal clear that any child born on US soil, of whatever parentage, meets the first type. Without question and without exception (well, except diplomats, etc.- the clear exceptions that Gray makes, by the way).”
    In fact, I told you through Donofrio that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen only and not a natural born citizen; but you are not listening to what Donofrio says, so naturally you are not going to listen to us. It is difficult to have a conversation with a person whose mind is already made up.
    I told you about the difference qualification for Representatives and Senators, and the President. There need be no Case Law there since the framers wrote (used the different choice of word) different qualifications for the President and the lesser Offices. But you say there is really no difference. Well, those framers, those ignorant framers of our Constitution, they must not really know anything, because in the 21th Century we have a new interpretation of what those idiot framers ment. They really did not mean what they wrote on paper!
    In this matter follow what Donofrio says. According to attorney Stephen Pidgeon, Donofrio’s research is invaluable. I have an e-mail from Pidgeon speaking about his research. He does not have all the answers, but he has lots of information, and when he is wrong he will admit it. All he is still learning and he is teaching those who follow his site.

  765. Robert –
    Are you willing to admit that one side or the other is wrong? That there really is an answer that surpasses your judgement? Or is it just, in your opinion, that those of us who are simple and trying to get the facts who are wrong?
    RSVP

  766. Is it not possible that persons such as Kim Jong Il or Osama Bin Laden might imgregnate a US citizen woman? And if this woman gives birth on US soil the precedent set by Obama would allow that child to be Commander In Chief.

    Tell Leo that YES it is possible.
    God, it must be hard to be so afraid…

  767. Concerning the Dangerous Precedent article as stated above, it is obvious the Founders and Framers disagree with your position of

    I think the “Dangerous Precedent” was set by Chester Arthur, actually. Amazing that our Republic has survived this long, huh?
    (And I know. Spare me the details of the Donofrio conspiracy theory surrounding Chester Arthur, and his father’s double secret US citizenship…)

  768. Robert – No, there are three types of citizens not two as you suggest. There is a regular citizen, a naturalised citizen and a natural born citizen. The key is figuring out the correct definition for a natural born citizen. I think that natural born only applies to a child of two US citizens regardless of where they are born.

    Any case law to back that up?

  769. Robert:
    Concerning the Dangerous Precedent article as stated above, it is obvious the Founders and Framers disagree with your position of
    “I believe that there are two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized.
    And I think that it is crystal clear that any child born on US soil, of whatever parentage, meets the first type. Without question and without exception (well, except diplomats, etc.- the clear exceptions that Gray makes, by the way).”

  770. More from Donofrio:
    The Dangerous Precedent Set by Obama being President
    Obama’s father was never a US citizen, nor was he ever permanently domiciled in the US. At birth, Obama was a British citizen. Obama admits his birth status was governed by Great Britain. The question presented then is whether the US is willing to allow persons who were born without a single allegiance to the US to be Commander in Chief of our military.
    For it is this specific fear that prompted our first Supreme Court Chief Justice – John Jay – to suggest to George Washington the following:
    Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
    This letter was written on July 25, 1787. It is in direct response to Alexander Hamilton’s suggested Presidential requirement appearing in the first draft of the Constitution wherein Hamilton – five weeks earlier – on June 18, 1787 submitted the following:
    No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.
    There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation. Hamilton’s original drafted presidential requirement was rejected by the framers. Instead of allowing any person born a citizen to be President, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement from John Jay, that the President be a natural born citizen.
    Contrary to media lies, you will find not one single statute in current US law which uses the words “natural born citizen” in code provisions which grant citizenship. For no statute can make one a natural born citizen. It’s a status, not a right. And that status is necessary for only one purpose under the sun – to be Commander In Chief of the US armed forces.
    Any citizen can hold any office in the entire Government of the United States except for Commander In Chief. And for good reason, as John Jay made clear all those years ago. This doesn’t mean that immigrants from all nations can’t one day be President. They can. But they need to have two generations of US citizenship to do that – not one.
    If we decide to ignore the natural born citizen provision, we open the door to the possibility of a person with strong ties to foreign nations – possibly stronger than to our own – to be the sole commander of our military men and women who protect us. And they also deserve our protection – AT ALL COSTS – from such a treasonous scenario.
    We shouldn’t let our Constitutional guard down for the sake of allowing one very popular man to endanger all future generations. Is it not possible that persons such as Kim Jong Il or Osama Bin Laden might imgregnate a US citizen woman? And if this woman gives birth on US soil the precedent set by Obama would allow that child to be Commander In Chief.
    I’m not worried about Obama as President. I’m worried about who comes next because of the precedent he sets. The same fear caused me to challenge McCain on the ballot as well.
    This is the issue before the nation – and it’s right from the mouth of John Jay’s more restrictive requirement that it was “wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”
    The framers wisely provided us with that check.
    By weakening the natural born citizen check, we dangerously enlarge the pool of candidates who can be Commander In Chief or our armed forces.

  771. Larry:
    Regular citizen: Child is born in US, of foreign parents who who do not naturalize before child’s birth.
    Naturalized citizen: Child is foreign foreign and naturalized.
    Natural born citizen: Child is born in US, of US citizen parents, or if of foreign parentage, the parents must naturalize to the US before child’s birth.

  772. Robert:
    So, is the answer to my question “yes”? The words natural born do not appear in the 14th Amendment and the US Code 1401.
    To quote Donofrio:
    “SCOTUS clearly states in Minor (v Happersett) six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, that the definition of ‘natural-born citizen’ is not found in the Constitution:
    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
    That passage establishes two important legal facts which cannot be overturned by any Birth Certificate.:
    1. it establishes as precedent that the definition of natural-born citizen is not contained in the body of the Constitution and that we must look elsewhere for the definition
    2. it establishes doubt that persons born in the US to foreign parents can be President”.
    Minor v Happersett has not been overturned.

  773. Robert – No, there are three types of citizens not two as you suggest. There is a regular citizen, a naturalised citizen and a natural born citizen. The key is figuring out the correct definition for a natural born citizen. I think that natural born only applies to a child of two US citizens regardless of where they are born.

  774. Here is a question, and please answer it: Do you think that the 14th Amendment and the related US Code 1401 provide for natural born citizens?

    I believe that there are two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized.
    And I think that it is crystal clear that any child born on US soil, of whatever parentage, meets the first type. Without question and without exception (well, except diplomats, etc.- the clear exceptions that Gray makes, by the way).

  775. Mr, (fill in a name since there are several) please open your records for all of those of us who are, in fact, your employers, can know you. NOW!

    All you have the right to know has been asked and answered.
    Born in Honolulu, HI and of proper age.

  776. Robert:
    Justice Gray certainly uses English Common Law. So, I certainly stand corrected.
    Here is a question, and please answer it: Do you think that the 14th Amendment and the related US Code 1401 provide for natural born citizens?
    I read a good part of Wong Kim Ark.
    Justice Gray says:
    The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who at the time of his birth are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.’
    “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’
    So you are saying the both citizens are absolutely natural born citizens? Right
    After all you said, in response to this:
    “He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.”
    The following:
    “That’s incorrect, Hugh. BOTH, are in fact natural born. Gray makes clear there there is no disticntion to being born of aliens to being born of citizens, as your quoted passage clearly states.”
    So, you must think that the 14th Amendment and US Code 1401 qualify citizens as natural born.
    Let me to the Constitution directly.
    Presidents must be natural born citizens. Representatives are only required to be citizens in Article I, Section 2, (2); and Senators are only required to be citizens in Article I, Section 3, (3). So, by the very words of the Constitution, Representatives and Senators are not required to be natural born citizens, but citizens only.
    So, there is a Constitutional distinction between between natural born citizens and citizens only.
    Citizens only would be native citizens, I suppose. You are arguing from a 14th Amendment, US Code 1401 for “natural born citizen”, and the words are not even found in those documents.
    Minor v Happersett provides:
    “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
    Minor v Happersett (1874) has not been overturned.
    Finally, there is Justice Gray’s Majority Opinion: “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

  777. You know, Robert, that you could perhaps be wrong.
    So could I be. However, I, and others, still, simple as we are, just want an answer to the question of:
    Mr, (fill in a name since there are several) please open your records for all of those of us who are, in fact, your employers, can know you. NOW!

  778. No, I have not read the Opinion, but I can assure you that Leo Donofrio has read the Opinion.

    I’ve read it as well, Hugh. Spend some time, and do it… don’t rely on right wing blog sites with an agenda.
    See that Donofrio can’t even get in the door of the courtroom, because he has ZERO case law on his side. Read the opinion, and point out where it tells us that English Common Law (discussed throughout Gray’s writing) is not taken into account in the Ark decision.

  779. If it is authentic this will be hard for The One to explain away.

    LOL, thanks Patriot. But, as a rule of thumb, hardly anything on worldnetdaily.com is worth “explaining away…”

  780. Warren:
    I have posted comments to Robert, and Patriot has post a comment. Is there a problem?

  781. Robert:
    Here is a post from an English teacher on Donofrio’s site, speaking of the analysis of Wong Kim Ark.
    Curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:
    July 30, 2009 at 2:31 pm
    Leo,
    Yet another terrific post to educate those of us not schooled in the law. I wanted to provide my take on the sentence from a non-legal point of view. My education is in Philosophy and English, so my take on the sentence comes from the English grammar perspective of deconstructing the sentence which is essentially what you have done from a logic and common sense point of view.
    First it is important to note that the subject of the sentence is his children (the children of the domiciled persons, or resident aliens as the paragraph states). As a result, the portion of the sentence if born in the country, is as much a citizen stands on its own with the subject and does not require the remainder of the sentence for the ruling to be made, the point to hold, and the sentence to be complete. Why is that? It’s because the part of the sentence is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen is a subordinating conjunction. A subordinating conjunction has a dependent clause and an independent clause. And as you suggested in your post subordinating conjunctions compare things. What is critical here from the English grammar perspective is that when conjunctions compare two things as equivalents they are not subordinating conjunctions, they are correlative conjunctions. When correlative conjunctions are used to compare two things as equivalents they do so using word pairs. So…as = equivalent comparison of an independent and dependent clause. There is no so in this sentence, therefore, the comparison between the clauses is not a comparison of equivalence. In the subordinating conjunction in question the independent clause is as much a citizen, the dependent clause is the natural-born child of a citizen. This is the absolute crux of your argument. Because the clause the natural-born child of a citizen is dependent on the sentence having in it the independent clause of as much is a citizen, one could never say that the justices were comparing natural-born child of a citizen and a citizen because the dependent clause does not have to be there for the sentence to remain true. The subordinating conjunction and the subsequent comparison that results is only used to qualify the final portion of the sentence “and by operation of the same principle” (you don’t have this portion of the sentence quoted above). Because the two are being compared as two different types of children the conclusion is that those two different type of children are as a result “by operation of the same principle.” You could deconstruct the sentence and remove the dependent clause and say his child is as much a citizen, but you then could not include is “by operation of the same principle.” You need the dependent clause natural-born child of a citizen to make the final conclusion of the sentence is “by operation of the same principle.”
    If you wanted to say the child is as much a citizen and the natural-born child of a citizen were equivalent, you would have to have the word pair so…as included in the correlative conjunction. The sentence would look something like this so his child is a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen. But that sentence when you read it doesn’t even make sense. The reason it doesn’t make sense is because it completely changes the subordinating conjunction into a correlative conjunction which transforms the sentence into a nonsensical statement.
    The reason it becomes nonsensical is the relationship of the clauses (independent and dependent clauses) of the subordinating conjunction are no longer being used to qualify the final portion of the sentence “by operation of the same principle.” Therefore, the subordinating conjunction is completely changed and no longer represents what the justices were really saying that they were comparing two different types of children citizens and concluding that those two different types of children citizens are “by operation of the same principle.” The meaning of by operation of the same principle is left for you to write about in its legal intent. I don’t have the expertise to decipher what that portion of the sentence means.
    I know this is extremely convoluted when taken from a grammatical perspective, but that is due to the fact that the sentence is rather poorly constructed in part because it quotes from someone else in the middle of the sentence and because the English language is somewhat complicated to begin with. But the points I’ve made here are critical to understanding what is actually being said from a grammatical perspective, and absolutely support your conclusions from a grammatical point of view.
    [Ed. I was going to put it just as you say above, but then I thought my way would be way more confusing… that’s a joke. Thanks for writing this. I thought the law was technical, but you’ve just convinced me that the English language is a mess.]

  782. Robert:
    No, I have not read the Opinion, but I can assure you that Leo Donofrio has read the Opinion.
    Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
    My understanding is that the children of every citizen or subject of another country is a citizen if in fact the children are born in the country. For the child born in the country to be a natural born citizen the child’s parents (which in this case are foreign born) must naturalize to the United States before the child’s birth.
    The natural born child is a citizen. If born in the country, the child of a foreigner is a citizen. Both children are citizens, but only one is natural born.
    A natural born-subject under English Common Law is not the same as a natural born citizen in the Constitution.
    To quote Donofrio:
    BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.
    The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.

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

    That’s incorrect, Hugh. BOTH, are in fact natural born. Gray makes clear there there is no disticntion to being born of aliens to being born of citizens, as your quoted passage clearly states.
    Taken with the rest of the opinion (and its reliance on the fact of English Common Law, wherein citizenry is by location of birth rather than by parentage), the meaning of the Court was and is clear.
    It is no wonder that the Courts see no question here…

    SCOTUS ought to revisit Cort Wrotnowski’s case if they truly care about the future of this nation and the health of our republic… which is being torn apart by this issue as we speak.

    Which nation is “this nation,” Hugh? Because it certainly isn’t the USA.

    And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.

    You didn’t read the opinion, did you Hugh?
    Did you read the lengthy passages regarding English Common Law that Gray uses to justify his opinion?

  784. Robert: I did need to post this. This should clear it up for you.
    Justice Horace Gray Clearly Indicated That Wong Kim Ark Was Not a Natural Born Citizen.
    The SCOTUS decision in Wong Kim Ark has caused more confusion regarding the natural born citizen issue than any other case in US history. One particular passage has been fervently relied upon by Obama eligibility supporters in claiming the case establishes children of aliens – born in the US – as natural-born citizens.
    I can understand such reliance. The passage below has been confusing for me as well. Yet, I never truly believed SCOTUS was stating that Wong Kim Ark could be President and Commander In Chief. I just couldn’t find the words to thoroughly distinguish the case.
    However, it finally became clear today. The words of the passage suddenly re-arranged the focus of the majority’s intent. Here’s the infamous passage:
    The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
    It appears at first glance that the passage claims children of aliens born on US soil are themselves natural-born citizens. And that’s certainly the hard line taken by Obama eligibility supporters. But a closer inspection reveals this is not what the court held.
    Have another look:
    “…and his child… ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
    Justice Gray does a very revealing compare and contrast here:
    – he compares two children
    – on the one hand, he mentions the US born child of a resident alien
    – on the other hand, he mentions the “natural-born” child of a citizen
    Do you see the difference?
    He clearly states that only one is natural-born: the child of the citizen.
    He says that both are citizens. But only the child of the citizen is natural born – for this is what he is comparing the other one to. So the holding indicates Wong Kim Ark was as much a citizen as any other citizen despite not being natural-born.
    – The Court does not say that the child of the alien is a natural-born citizen.
    Had the court intended to state that both were natural born, they would have said:
    “…and his child, if born in the country, is as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…”
    But that’s not what they said.
    – By the Wong Kim Ark decision, both children – the alien born and the natural born – are entitled to the same rights and protections as citizens.
    – But only one satisfies the requirements to be President: the natural born child.
    – This is because natural born citizen status is only required for one purpose: to be President. There’s no other legal attachment to nbc status.
    Being eligible to be President is not a right or protection of citizenship. For example, not all natural born citizens can be President. Those who are not 35 years old and/or have not been residents in the US for 14 years – though they may be natural born citizens – are NOT eligible to be President.
    Here’s the final holding of the case:
    The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question…whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. (Emphasis added.)
    This is the core holding of the case. It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen. The single question presented is not whether the child is a natural-born citizen.
    If Justice Gray and the majority deemed Wong Kim Ark to be a natural-born citizen then that’s what they would have said. But they didn’t. And this in a very detailed and thorough opinion where “natural-born” was used to compare and contrast the children of citizens to the children of aliens.
    I still don’t agree with the Court’s analysis of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language in the 14th Amendment, but I’ll save that for another post.
    My analysis above doesn’t conclusively establish that Obama is not eligible to be President. His case is distinguished from Wong Kim Ark’s in that Obama’s mother was a US citizen. His father was never a US citizen and as such Obama (admits) he was governed by Great Britain at birth.
    This presents a unique question of first impression for the Supreme Court. Based upon my review of history and law, I don’t believe Obama is eligible to be President. But it’s certainly not an easy decision either way you look at it. Yet, this is the kind of difficult decision our Supreme Court exists to answer.
    I continue to press this issue for fear that it will continue to erode the chain of command. The brave men and women of our military deserve to know for certain that their Commander is Constitutionally eligible to lead them.
    SCOTUS ought to revisit Cort Wrotnowski’s case if they truly care about the future of this nation and the health of our republic… which is being torn apart by this issue as we speak.
    I personally don’t care who the President is anymore. I’ll never care again. Both McCain and Obama have damaged the office and this nation severely by their willingness to put us through this. It doesn’t matter who the President is. We’ll still be at war. We will still have poverty, hatred, racism, fascism, sarcasm, nukes, etc… the new boss is the same as the old boss. We do get fooled again. Everytime. But if we let this sit and the chain of command erodes… Goodbye Ms. American Pie.

  785. Hugh- Can you perhaps point me to Justice Gray’s “quite clear indication?”
    I certainly could not find it.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649
    Here are a few other tidbits from Justice Gray, though…
    In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.

    It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
    The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.
    The fourteenth amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.

    I know: he was referring to England… but that is the basis he used for the WKA decision, so…
    In any case, I will wait for the clear indication…

  786. From Donofrio’s site, a comment and response:
    Can yo show us your evidence for the exclusion of “citizens at birth?”
    [Ed. Yes, read Wong Kim Ark. Justice Gray indicates quite clearly that WKA was not a natural born citizen despite having been born in the US.]

  787. Robert:
    You say:
    Hugh- thatnks for following up on the Minor comment. Good to see that the blog author admitted the case does not give precedent (also rather odd that he – was it him?– would have accused Obama of false swearing regarding something he admits is not precedent, but I guess that is another matter).
    As far as dicta and “law school” goes, I get a laugh out of it: true, I have never been to law school, but if he is trying to claim that his case holds constitutinal water ask him for me why no court in the land will give these things any sort of credence whatsoever…? I’m pretty sure that the judges involved have all been to law school, after all.
    Here is a comment from Donofrio’s site with his comment.
    “jan C Says:
    July 28, 2009 at 7:57 am
    Leo, I have a copy of the document that Obama used to gain ballot access in the state of WV. He signed a statement that he ‘is a candidate in good faith and eligible to hold office’. Guess what? Guilty of false swearing. But isn’t it difficult to prove intent?
    THis document plus the fee are what he supplied in a contract with the state of WV and in exchange he received presidential preference primary ballot access. Could not this contract be set aside on the basis that he misrepresented a material fact?
    In the state of WV, ANY PERSON can file an election complaint. Does not need to be a citizen, and it can be done at any point. I had been working hard, without benefit of an attorney, to prepare a complaint until I got caught up in the tea party movement which broke my momentum. However, now I believe the timing is excellent to submit the complaint. Do you have any advice? I am a resident of NJ, my mother is a resident of WV.
    I actually did speak with an attorney in WV, whom I thought would be sympathetic, but was somewhat discouraging because of the political climate in WV. He did not offer to help me and I did not discuss my thoughts about the contract approach. The thing that is a bit problematic, technically, in WV is that Obama LOST the primary against Clinton AND he lost to McCain in the general election. He was not elected despite his misrepresentation.
    I do believe that Obama has misrepresented himself, because he KNOWS that his background is an exception at best to the natural born citizen clause and the issue should have been subjected to a public evaluation, not hidden behind closed doors (Obama and whoever is behind him). I admit that is cryptic and conspiratorial.
    Please contact me through my email if you are interested in responding. I’ve been following you since November!
    [Ed. How can a Con Law professor sign such a document in good faith? Honestly, I don’t believe there’s any justice to be had through the court system. I’ve lost all faith.]”
    As to false swearing, that is the action of Obama. As far as I know whether he falsely swore about what is precedent or not precedent means nothing all. The action of falsely swearing is wrong on its face.
    To quote Donofrio above:
    “Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.
    When you swear that what you say is true, then – to the best of your knowledge – what you say must be true. If you are a gifted Constitutional scholar/professor who knows of a SCOTUS holding which calls your “natural-born citizen” status into question and directly states that there have been doubts thereto, but you go ahead and swear under oath that you are – in fact – a natural-born citizen, then you are also – in fact – guilty of false swearing.”

  788. This is a post from Donofrio’s site concerning Orly Taitz’ blog
    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/
    Kato Says:
    August 2, 2009 at 10:17 am
    You think the circus has been in town this past…wait until you see what’s going on this morning at Orly’s site. A Kenyan BC has surfaced (photo).
    [Ed. I’m all over it. According to the court filing, Orly has in her possession only an image, not the actual document. She has a photo and is asking the court to help her validate it. However, the image contains a ton of information and should be easily verified.]

  789. Barak Obama is on tv addressing something almost every day – how come he doesn’t address this particular issue and the concern some Americans have about it? Only he can put the issue to rest – why doesn’t he?

  790. Hugh- thatnks for following up on the Minor comment. Good to see that the blog author admitted the case does not give precedent (also rather odd that he – was it him?– would have accused Obama of false swearing regarding something he admits is not precedent, but I guess that is another matter).
    As far as dicta and “law school” goes, I get a laugh out of it: true, I have never been to law school, but if he is trying to claim that his case holds constitutinal water ask him for me why no court in the land will give these things any sort of credence whatsoever…? I’m pretty sure that the judges involved have all been to law school, after all.

  791. As I can recall, the courts have simply not heard any of the presentments – so far.

    That would seem to me that the Courts consider it settled law, with no need for judicial review. No need to hear a case that attempts to argue otherwise.
    Say, for example, that someone argued that children born on US soil of Albanian, Dutch, and Chinese (or whatever) parents do NOT qualify as US citizens, while children of French, Italian, and German parents DO qualifty as US citizens. There would be no need for a court anywhere to hear such an argument… it is done, settled law.
    The same is true here.

  792. Quote
    “According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.” from Vattel Decoded by Leo Donofrio

  793. Robert:
    You say:
    “Addtionally, NOT every question is a Constitutional question- it seems to me that the vast majority of the nation and certainly the courts are quite happy with the ipso facto definition of “Natural Born Citizen.” Simply born on US soil. There is no need for review and clarification,”
    Let me clear, the Natural Born Citizen issue is a Constitution question of the highest order, of first rank, absolutely. The majority of the nation do not even understand the issue, most likely. Perhaps, the courts do not care. Whatever excuse you give , every desire you have for no further review, will not uproot the fact the framers wrote those words into the Constitution with definite legal intent.
    To quote Chief Justice Marshall in Madison v Marbury:“ It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”
    Any refusal of the courts to deal with issue at hand is harmful to the Judicial mandate. “Simply born on US soil”, is not enough for Natural Born Citizen status. A child’s parents must be citizens (born or naturalized) at the time of the child’s birth on US soil.

  794. Robert:
    To answer your comments/questions concerning Minor v Heppersteff and voting I posted you comment on Leo’s blog “Obama is Guilty on at least one count of false swearing.” His site has answered a lot of my questions.
    Leo:
    I posted your false swearing argument onto another site for discussion and it has caused some stir (The site majors in the birth certificate).
    Following your quote is the man’s reply. He brings up the issue of women voting in the Minor case, and voting may be part of that case (I have not read it), but I would think that does not mean that the holding of the case concerning what SCOTUS says about natural born Citizens is false. Or if there is any truth to the man’s response how does this affect Minor? I really do need to read Minor. I feel like I am a little behind the 8-ball, but I do trust your judgment in this regard. I would like to reply to the man and insert any comment you may have. Thanks for your help and your time.
    Your quote:
    “Obama – the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.
    Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.”
    The response:
    So. LOL… if Minor v. Heppersteff is the last word on citizens, and Obama is guilty of “false swearing,” wouldn’t Obama also be guilty of aiding and abetting a crime connected to the his wife- after all, I bet we could prove she voted.
    And- if Minor is law- then women can’t vote.
    (Hmmm… perhaps Minor isn’t a case that carries Constitutional muster these days???
    Maybe??)”
    [Ed. The case was not overturned. The Constitution was amended so women could vote. The part of the case which discusses NBC is dicta. Dicta is not precedent but it is a guiding force and is considered by courts in making future decisions. The main importance as to nbc eligibility is that we have a unanimous opinion – later quoted and relied upon in Wong Kim Ark – which unequivocally proves that SCOTUS is on record as saying there is no definition of nbc in the Constitution so the 14th amendment citizenship does not automatically make one nbc. That’s what Minor stands for. You have to keep in mind that these talking heads in comments and blogs are not lawyers. Non-lawyers don’t usually have the necessary education to truly fathom the nuances involved. There’s a reason we go to law school and take bar exams.]

  795. Robert, please. By what logic have you decided that the courts are happy with

    the ipso facto definition of “Natural Born Citizen.” Simply born on US soil.

    As I can recall, the courts have simply not heard any of the presentments – so far. But keep in mind, there are still cases pending. They may all be ignored, but I suspect that Leo Donofrio’s analysis is far superior to mine – and yours. Or did you not read the information provided by Hugh?
    And, thank you, Hugh, for posting that.

  796. There is no moral or legal requirement that says you cannot correct a mistake.

    Absolutely. Just as there is no moral or legal requirement that each and every past issue need be revisited and reviewed.
    Addtionally, NOT every question is a Constitutional question- it seems to me that the vast majority of the nation and certainly the courts are quite happy with the ipso facto definition of “Natural Born Citizen.” Simply born on US soil. There is no need for review and clarification,

  797. I really think that best way to consider all of this is that there have been cases where bad law and/or decisions have been made, which in some minds mean that there is a precident that the error now seals all new circumstances, and that is simply NOT true. There is no moral or legal requirement that says you cannot correct a mistake.

  798. Obama – the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.
    Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.

    LOL, not sure what to say… if the words of the USSC justice in Minor are to be taken as the law of the land, wouldn’t MRS OBAMA also be guilty of a crime??
    She did, after all, vote in the election. And Minor held that it was perfectly reasonable to deny women the right to vote…
    So- just thinking out loud here- MAYBE (maybe!) the Minor Case is not where we are today for “constitutional muster?”

  799. Obama – the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.
    Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.

    So. LOL… if Minor v. Heppersteff is the last word on citizens, and Obama is guilty of “false swearing,” wouldn’t Obama also be guilty of aiding and abetting a crime connected to the his wife- after all, I bet we could prove she voted.
    And- if Minor is law- then women can’t vote.
    (Hmmm… perhaps Minor isn’t a case that carries Constitutional muster these days??? Maybe??)

  800. Two Minute Warning; Vattel Decoded by Leo Donofrio
    Here is an excert from Donofrio’s post. It explains Natural Born Citizen.
    ONE FINAL POINT ABOUT THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CLAUSE.
    The more I read Vattel (pictured above), specifically the passage which defines “natural-born citizen”, the more convinced I become that the framers understood Vattel much better than we have on this issue. I now am firmly convinced that the framers relied on Vattel’s definition when they included the natural born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
    Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution. It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.
    It’s the difference between a fact and a legal status.
    Whether you are a natural born citizen is a fact of nature which can’t be waived or renounced, but your actual legal citizenship can be renounced. The difference is subtle, but so very important. “Natural born citizen” is not a different form of “citizenship”. It is a manner of acquiring citizenship. And while natural born citizens may end their legal tie to the country by renouncing citizenship, they will always have been naturally born into that nation as a citizen.
    Let’s take a look at Vattel’s famous text:
    § 212. Citizens and natives.
    The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
    Two different sentences. Two different civil groups are being discussed.
    Examine the subject heading given by Vattel, “Natives and Citizens”. Two separate groups of the civil society are addressed in the heading. And here is the start of the greatest proof that the framers relied on Vattel as to the natural born citizen clause.
    In the passage above, the first sentence defines who the “citizens” of a civil society are. Vattel states; “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.”
    In the very next sentence he describes a different set of people wherein he states, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
    There are natives and citizens, just as the header says. All citizens are members of the civil society, but not all citizens are natives or natural-born citizens. A native can’t renounce his “nativeness”. He’s a native forever. He might renounce the citizenship he gained through being a native, but he can’t renounce the FACT of his birth as a native.
    Vattel equates natives with natural-born citizens. They are the same. According to Vattel, in order to be a native, one must be born of the soil and the blood of two citizen parents.
    He goes on as follows:
    “As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
    Some have argued that this passage indicates only one parent – the father – is necessary for one to be a natural born citizen. That is false. The above passage only mentions the word “citizen”. It says the children of the father are “citizens”, but it does not say they are “natives or natural-born citizens”. Vattel is discussing the legality of citizenship, not the fact of one’s birth as being native.
    When Vattel wrote this in 1758, he wasn’t arguing for its inclusion in a future US Constitution as a qualification for being President. But the framers did read his work. And when it came to choosing the President, they wanted a “natural-born citizen”, not just a citizen. That is clear in the Constitution. Vattel doesn’t say that “natives or natural-born citizens” have any special legal rights over “citizens”. He simply described a phenomenon of nature, that the citizenship of those who are born on the soil to citizen parents (plural) is a “natural-born citizen”.
    Citizen = legal status
    Native or natural-born citizen = fact of birth which bestows citizenship.
    Vattel also wrote:
    “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
    Once again, he does not mention natives or natural-born citizens in this passage, just citizens. Furthermore, he states that the citizens may renounce their citizenship when they come of legal age. But nobody can renounce a fact of birth. The fact is true or it is not true. You’re either “born” a natural-born citizen or you are not. The legal citizenship which attaches to this fact of birth may be renounced, but the fact will be with you forever.
    And it is that fact of birth the framers sought to guarantee for each President of the United States. The framers ruled that the commander in chief be a natural born citizen. Like Vattel, the framers purposely distinguished between “citizens” and “natural born citizens”. And to that distinction there can only be one effect:
    ONLY A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CAN BE PRESIDENT.
    According to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, the 14th amendment cannot make the natural born citizen clause from Article 2 Section 1 superfluous. If being born as a 14th Amendment citizen was enough to be President, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect. According to Marshall, that argument is inadimissible.
    President Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States whethe he was born in Hawaii or not.

  801. Obama is Guilty of at least one count of false swearing.
    [Ed. This story was edited and updated at 7:38 AM on July 28, 2009 to reflect that only one count of false swearing is documented by the document below. The original story included two counts based upon two statements allegedly given to the State of Arizona and the State of Virginia. This was originally posted by The Obama File blog. That blog was wrong in that the two documents were actually separate pieces of one document forwarded by Obama to the State of Arizona. The notary was in Virginia and that is where the confusion arose. Below is a signed sworn statement by Obama forwarded to the State of Arizona and notarized by a notary in Virginia. The legal analysis remains unchanged and unedited from my original post.]
    The US Constitution requires that the President must be a “natural born citizen” of the US. The Constitution makes a clear distinction between a basic citizen – who may be a Senator or Representative – and a “natural born citizen” – the higher standard which is required for the President/Commander In Chief.
    Obama was a Constitutional law professor and Harvard Law graduate running for President. He was fully aware of the most on point US Supreme Court holding which discussed the meaning of “natural born citizen” – Minor v. Happersett – wherein the Supreme Court stated:
    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
    In the Minor case, the person wasn’t running for President of the US so the court didn’t have to reach the nbc issue. But the court did note that the foreign nationality of a native born person’s parents could effect that native born person’s natural-born citizen status.
    Furthermore, the court also stated that the definition of “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution so “Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.” Why is this important?
    BECAUSE SCOTUS ISSUED THE MINOR HOLDING IN 1874 WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 1868.
    The most predominant argument that Obama is Constitutionally eligible to be President relies on the wording of the 14th Amendment which states that a person born on US soil and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. But the 14th Amendment does not say that every person born on US soil is a “natural-born citizen”, it just says “citizen”. Obama supporters have argued that 14th Amendment citizenship makes one eligible to be President and satisfies the natural born- citizen requirements of Article 2 Section 1. This is the “native born” = “natural born” argument.
    The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. But the Minor decision was issued in 1874 wherein SCOTUS said:
    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
    The 14th Amendment had already been part of the Constitution for six years when SCOTUS made that statement. SCOTUS clearly and unequivocally states in Minor that the 14th Amendment does NOT define who is a “natural-born citizen”. Anybody who says the 14th Amendment does define “natural-born citizen” is lying and/or ignorant as to the Supreme Court’s holding in Minor – the most on point discussion of the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS.
    Obama – the famed brilliant Constitutional scholar – had to be aware that the most directly on point US Supreme Court case in our nation’s history directly stated that there were doubts as to his nbc status. Yet, regardless of these doubts expressed by the highest court in the land, Obama went ahead and swore – under oath – that he was eligible to be President.
    Therefore, he is now intellectually convicted of false swearing.
    When you swear that what you say is true, then – to the best of your knowledge – what you say must be true. If you are a gifted Constitutional scholar/professor who knows of a SCOTUS holding which calls your “natural-born citizen” status into question and directly states that there have been doubts thereto, but you go ahead and swear under oath that you are – in fact – a natural-born citizen, then you are also – in fact – guilty of false swearing.
    You can’t legally swear to the best of your knowledge that you are eligible to be President when the SCOTUS last word on the issue directly calls such eligibility into doubt. You can’t even do that with a straight face let alone a sworn oath.
    Even if the current SCOTUS were to one day hold that Obama is a natural-born citizen despite his British/Kenyan birth through his father (who was never a US citizen) that would not have been a holding available to Obama at the time he swore he was eligible.
    The state of Arizona accepted as true the false sworn statements by Obama and thereafter placed his name on the ballots. He was then elected President. The voters in Arizona were directly defrauded by Obama’s false affirmations.
    When Obama swore he was eligible, he lied. He didn’t swear that he might be eligible or that there was a good chance he would be found eligible. He swore that he was – in fact – eligible. Obama’s certain affirmations under oath and penalty of perjury are false. He could not have been certain and he should not have sworn that he was. He’s guilty of false swearing despite whatever definition of natural-born citizen comes down the pike.
    On December 13, 2007, Obama could not have been certain he was eligible to be POTUS. He may have believed he could be held eligible according to his own hopes and his own analysis of what the current SCOTUS might say. But such an analysis could be nothing more than an intellectual guess. The affirmation demanded that he swear he was – in fact – eligible to be POTUS.
    A statesman puts the safety and legal sanity of the nation ahead of himself. Obama reversed that call to honor and placed himself ahead of the law. The law questioned his eligibility but he swore under oath no such question existed.
    The proper thing for Obama to have done was raise the issue before the American people prior to the election. Perhaps he could have accomplished this by bringing a law suit to determine whether he could satisfy these affirmations without perjuring himself. He did no such thing. He swore something was true when he knew the truth was in doubt. Regardless of what SCOTUS might say about this issue in the future, no future holding can change the facts as they existed on December 13, 2007.
    Obama has now been intellectually convicted of false swearing.
    ———————————————————————————————
    I have omitted at Affirmation Scan dated November 30, 2007 that can be found at
    Donofrio’s site http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/.

  802. And your point is???
    Mine is: What IS a ‘natural born citizen’? You all raise an interesting question but I’m thinking this question, if it’s as burning as it is, should have been answered long long long ago…at least a century.
    You all failed before the election because, contrary to what’s been insinuated lateley, you put much of the focus on ‘where was he born’ and ‘we want to see the COLB’…now, it’s “it doesn’t matter if he was born in Hawaii, please define ‘natural born citizen'”. (LOL. Please do NOT suggest that there wasn’t a whole lotta focus on the certificate…the thread is still here, we can go back through it and take a look. The issue of his father’s Kenyan citizenship was brought up but was never a major focus. We had Granny says he was born in Kenya. That one went to ‘place of birth’. We had wifey was underage so can’t confer citizenship…????
    Grasping at straws and very few straws remain.

  803. Eddy –

    Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
    1. Records of the Federal Convention
    2. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472–73, 1833

  804. Round and round and round she goes…
    Where she stops, nobody knows.
    Sorry, it’s gotten amusing again.
    Hugh (or Donofrio) said that the Constitution does not define ‘natural born citizen’. They also seem to indicate that it isn’t defined anywhere else either.
    They lambast the representative from Hawaii for her presumption at declaring Obama a ‘natural born citizen’.
    So where did Donofrio’s authority to proclaim the following come from?

    Both parent must be citizens of the United States at the time of a child’s birth for the child to qualify as natural born.

    Also, where did the following Presidential pre-qualifier come from? I’m guessing that since the qualifications for being a ‘natural born citizen’ aren’t clearly spelled out anywhere, that this requirement that candidates prove that status has been a real challenge.

    If you want to be President, you have to prove more than just the fact that you are a citizen of this country. You must prove you are a “natural-born citizen”

  805. Robert:
    Chester Arthur’s father naturalized 14-years after Chester’s birth. So, Chester lied as to his own natural born Citizen status at birth. My source for this is Leo Donofrio’s site. The Constitution’s qualifier is being a natural born Citizen. There is no mention of a birth certificate in the document, obviously.
    According to Donofrio the birth certificate issue is a smoke scene for Obama. He can control the birth certificate issue through legal means, but he can not control over the fact that his father was born in Kenya and never naturalized to the United States. Both parent must be citizens of the United States at the time of a child’s birth for the child to qualify as natural born.

  806. Not according to the US Supreme Court – not for Obama and not for any of us.

    So Chester Arthur was never president? Zounds!

  807. Here is Leo Donofrio’s article “Hawaiian Health Department’s Fukino Now Constitional Lawyer?”
    Well kiddies we really shook them up yesterday with our post revealing the US Supreme Court’s most on point decision regarding the definition of “natural-born citizen” in the case of Minor v. Happersett which was decided six years after the 14th Amendment was adopted. They were quick to respond weren’t they.
    After building up the main stream media pressure for the last week for what was sure to be a long form BC in the face, they were confronted with a severe blow to the mantra that the 14th Amendment defines “natural born citizen”. It doesn’t and SCOTUS confirms this in Minor. Their response was an emergency statement by Hawaii’s Department of Health which seeks to stop the fire we started yesterday. Their response was literally concocted only hours after our last post.
    To recap, yesterday we proved that the most on point and controlling decision in our entire history of SCOTUS jurisprudence with regard to the definition of the term “natural-born citizen” – the Minor case – unequivocally states that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution. This analysis destroys the Obama eligibility supporter mantra that 14th Amendment “native born” citizenship is equal to “natural-born” citizenship.
    SCOTUS clearly states in Minor, six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution:
    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
    That passage establishes two important legal facts which cannot be overturned by any Birth Certificate.:
    1. it establishes as precedent that the definition of natural-born citizen is not contained in the body of the Constitution and that we must look elsewhere for the definition
    2. it establishes doubt that persons born in the US to foreign parents can be President
    This is the most on point decision in our legal history as a nation regarding the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 requirement that the President be a natural-born citizen. As such, it not only deserves respect – it demands it.
    Yet, apparently Yahoo news and every other main stream news source in the country would have you believe that Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino is a better Constitutional scholar and source of law than our own Supreme Court precedent.
    Only hours after I posted my analysis of the Minor case, Fukino issued the following statement:
    “I … 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…”
    Wow! Fukino has transmogrified the Constitution. She, and she alone is the sole arbiter of who is and who isn’t a natural-born citizen. Incredible. Where did she get her law degree? Or is she simply the great legal oracle of our generation. Have we discovered, as the monks discover the new Dalai Llama, the legendary great legal oracle of our generation?
    Since the Supreme Court has stated in Minor that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution, then 14th Amendment citizenship does not establish that any of us are natural-born citizens eligible to be President. The Supreme Court makes it clear as the sun that we have to look beyond the Document for such a determination. Not just for Obama, but for any of us seeking to be President. The natural born citizen requirement was meant to protect the nation from foreign invasion and influence.
    The Minor case also tells us that doubts exist as to whether native born persons of foreign parents can be natural-born citizens. And with that SCOTUS decision is supposed to come legal precedent and respect. But apparently the great legal oracle Fukino thinks because she maintains a database of birth records, she is now an authority on Constitutional law.
    And this is where our main stream media goes for Constitutional law advice – to Hawaii’s Department of Health Director.
    Well Fukino, since the Supreme Court states you must look outside the Constitution to determine the meaning of “natural-born citizen”, please tell us where you went to make this monumental announcement that Obama is a natural-born citizen. Please do tell. Because as we’ve said all along at this blog, we believe Obama was born in Hawaii.
    We’ve also said that when push comes to shove Hawaii is going to verify that Obama was born in Hawaii.
    Now Hawaii is going even further than we anticipated. Not only is Hawaii saying Obama was born in Hawaii, Hawaii is also now defining natural-born citizen for the rest of United States history.
    Yes, it’s true, Fukino mandates from her little cubicle at the Department of Health in Hawaii that she has overruled the US Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett and she has seen the light of legal truth and all doubts mentioned by SCOTUS in Minor can now be discarded. The great legal oracle of Hawaii has spoken.
    What a load of crap this is. Thanks to all the BC fringe for giving such power to the BC. I’ve told you a million times that the BC does not matter at all. If Obama were born on the mall in DC in a manger rocked by Ronald Reagan sipping a Martini while reading a masonic Bible with a million man march full of witnesses, Obama would still not be eligible to be President.
    The Supreme Court has unequivocally expressed such doubts in Minor. And that being said, I will admit that while SCOTUS has expressed such doubts, they have never defined “natural-born citizen” either. While I believe the great weight of evidence proves he is not eligible, I will not be as low down filthy as the opposition and tell you that the law has been determined. It has not. But it should be. And that’s what I’ve been saying all along.
    SCOTUS expressed their doubts about Obama’s eligibility in Minor. The current court should have clarified the issue with a decision. Obama should have asked them to clarify such an important doubt by bringing the Arizona sworn affirmation to them and asking whether he could sign it without committing perjury.
    But the great legal oracle Fukino manages to save the day only hours after the Supreme Court’s Minor decision was finally decoded to reveal beyond any doubt that…
    “native born” does not = “natural born” …
    Not according to the US Supreme Court – not for Obama and not for any of us.
    If you want to be President, you have to prove more than just the fact that you are a citizen of this country. You must prove you are a “natural-born citizen” and Fukino can’t prove that by showing a long form Obama BC. And neither can Obama. And neither can you.
    That’s right. None of us have a long form BC which can prove we are eligible to be President because, as far as I can tell, while our long form birth certificates contain the names and residences of our parents, they do not contain citizenship information. Since 14th Amendment citizenship, according to SCOTUS in Minor, does not define “natural-born citizen”, the court states that we must look elsewhere to make that decision.
    The court unequivocally stated in Minor that we should look at the nationality of the parents and if the parents are US citizens, and the child is born in the US, then the child is a natural-born citizen of the US. If the child is subject to a foreign nationality through a parent then there are doubts which were clearly expressed by SCOTUS in Minor. Obama’s father was NEVER a US citizen. Obama also admits that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. Obama chose the word “governed”, not me.
    But Fukino has overruled the United States Supreme Court today in a direct assault on the legal truths exposed by this blog yesterday. What an amazing turn of events. At least we’ve discovered who the great legal oracle of our generation is. It’s not Obama and it’s not me. It’s Fukino. She is the greatest legal mind of our generation. All hail the great legal oracle form Hawaii.

  808. OK, Robert:
    How about answering the question: Why is Wild Bill’s comment a non-sequitur? Do you have guts enough to do that? Since you have all the answers about everything please tell us why we lowly natural born citizens have to verify our identities and yet the person holding the highest office in land does not have to do so?

  809. Please include in your answer more than legalese of the Hawaiian officials.

    Thanks for the laugh, Hugh! Rarely have I heard such a simple declaration that records have been seen and verfied referred to as “legalese!”

  810. BHO was elected by a slim majority.

    The US doesn’t vote on the popular vote, it goes by the Electoral College- and I defy you to call that vicotry “slim” with a straight face.

    He started off with wildly positive numbers, but in less than six months the shine wore off of the new shoes. So, for you to be right, there would have to be a lot of us who are NOT bigots, but you think are. Am I close?

    As a group, I don’t think anyone could ever say that “conservatives” are any more or less bigoted than “liberals.”
    That said, I think you also must admit that a black GOP candidate would have slim chance indeed of becoming president… the “southern strategy” does, after all, include quite a few bigot voters. (and to stress: the GOP as a whole would abhor the racial beliefs of those voters)

  811. I am an accountant by trade. Evidentiary rules are different in law and accounting I am not a Certified Public Accountant, but I did spend some time auditing. If we were doing an audit of Obama & Company your assertion of “All the evidence that is needed: a COLB that gives a birthplace in the USA, and the statements of HI state officials verifying that fact” is not sufficient evidence. It cannot be. Then original document must be examined.

    Huh?
    You’re not “doing an audit of Obama & Company.” My original assertion is correct: the state of HI has verified the fact of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth in the state of HI.
    The verification of state officials is sufficient.

  812. non-metaphysical stephen wrote:

    I do think there is a racial component to the birthers’ claims. But of course the GOP’s whole Southern Strategy relies on racism, so it shouldn’t be too far a stretch to find that it’s there among the birther movement as well.

    And my counter to that is that I don’t believe that to be entirely true. Possibly to some degree, but look at the numbers. BHO was elected by a slim majority. He started off with wildly positive numbers, but in less than six months the shine wore off of the new shoes. So, for you to be right, there would have to be a lot of us who are NOT bigots, but you think are. Am I close?
    Look at the Daily Presidential Tracking Poll at Rasmussen Reports. Unless it is very wrong, BHO is rapidly losing his popularity, at least in his policies. And that means that a LOT of folks who voted for him are having a bit of “buyer’s remorse.”
    Sorry, Robert. No conspirancy here.

  813. Robert,

    I don’t think Ann intended to call anyone a racist, but it was still a poor choice of words.

    I do think there is a racial component to the birthers’ claims. But of course the GOP’s whole Southern Strategy relies on racism, so it shouldn’t be too far a stretch to find that it’s there among the birther movement as well.

  814. Robert:
    Why is Wild Bill comment a non-sequitur? Please include in your answer more than legalese of the Hawaiian officials.

  815. Robert:
    I am an accountant by trade. Evidentiary rules are different in law and accounting I am not a Certified Public Accountant, but I did spend some time auditing. If we were doing an audit of Obama & Company your assertion of “All the evidence that is needed: a COLB that gives a birthplace in the USA, and the statements of HI state officials verifying that fact” is not sufficient evidence. It cannot be. Then original document must be examined.

  816. Let me reverse that question, Robert.
    What evidence do you have to support the allegation that BHO is even a citizen of the US of A?

    All the evidence that is needed: a COLB that gives a birthplace in the USA, and the statements of HI state officials verifying that fact.
    Game, set, match.

    Oh, and guess what? Just to join the Navy took a lot of documentation. But then, maybe those of us who go in harm’s way have to be fully vetted before we can be trusted. Ya’ s’pose?

    Non sequitur, ten points.

    So, Robert. Do you have a passport?

    Yep. Just had it renewed.

  817. Robert said:

    Present your evidence that Dr. Fukino is part of a conspiracy to keep the truth from you, WB, going so far as to out and out lie about Obama’s birth records…

    What evidence do you have to back up your libel/ accusation?

    Let me reverse that question, Robert.
    What evidence do you have to support the allegation that BHO is even a citizen of the US of A?
    I don’t see a conspiracy. I see what appears to be a lot of deceit.
    As I said, I’m a pretty simple guy. I just want BHO to answer the question before him: Where is your original birth certificate, and may We the People see it please?
    BYW, when I got my first passport, while I was working for the US Government and had passed a full background check in order to get a clearance to see classified information, and that, BTW, was AFTER I had obtained a fairly high security clearance while in the US Navy, and my birth record was part of the application. And part of that included proof of my place of birth.
    Oh, and guess what? Just to join the Navy took a lot of documentation. But then, maybe those of us who go in harm’s way have to be fully vetted before we can be trusted. Ya’ s’pose?
    So, Robert. Do you have a passport?

  818. You bring up “conspiracy”. Well, what is wrong with that conclusion concerning Obama? Even if Obama hatched his effort all by himself without any help, he has had at least the help of many lawyers to hid the birth certificate.

    Don’t forget the HI state officials who would have to be a part of the conspiracy.

    At any rate, Wild Bill is not asserting conspiracy here.

    Of course he is. He can deny it, but if what he believes to be true IS true, it must be a conspiracy. If BHO was not born in HI, HI state officials are lying to us.

  819. Robert:
    Wild Bill’s assertion of there being “conflicting stories” is not libel/accusation but only a statement of fact. Certainly, Obama’s birth certification is surrounded by conflict.
    You bring up “conspiracy”. Well, what is wrong with that conclusion concerning Obama? Even if Obama hatched his effort all by himself without any help, he has had at least the help of many lawyers to hid the birth certificate. At any rate, Wild Bill is not asserting conspiracy here.
    The assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand and his wife on 28 June 1914 was in conspiracy. In Law, “conspiracy is an agreement by which two or more persons confederate to do something unlawful.” Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 1935.
    If you cannot accept conspiracy certainly the lawyers Obama is using to defend his birth certificate is certainly complicit with Obama is his deeds.

  820. By the by, I will say that I disagree with well known Obamabot Ann Coulter, who compared those who question the fact of Obama’s citizzenship to “the few remaining Klan members” [paraphrase]
    I don’t think Ann intended to call anyone a racist, but it was still a poor choice of words.
    Earlier, she referred to them as “cranks,” and I think that is pretty mean spirited as well.
    Another Obamabot, Bill O’Reilly, called the claims “bogus,” and I think that is much more accurate.

  821. All I can say abiout this at this time on night is that we now have more connflicting stories.

    Present your evidence that Dr. Fukino is part of a conspiracy to keep the truth from you, WB, going so far as to out and out lie about Obama’s birth records…
    What evidence do you have to back up your libel/ accusation?

  822. I’m a simple guy. I just want a simple answer. Too much to ask?

    No Wild Bill – it is not too much to ask. Usually when one is not forthcoming, there is something to hide. Tick Tock 🙂

  823. All I can say abiout this at this time on night is that we now have more connflicting stories.
    Why can’t PeeBo (or to be respectful, The One and Only Other One Other Than God who needs no birth certificate) let his records out?
    I’m a simple guy. I just want a simple answer. Too much to ask?

  824. A bad day for the so called “birthers.” Much of the argument against Obama’s HI birth comes from a very selective reading of HI Health Dept’s Dr. Fukino’s statement. i.e., she said she verifed the existence of the records, but never came out and said Obama was born in HI.
    She issued another statement today:
    “I … 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,” Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said in a brief statement. “I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_birth_certificate
    Pretty hard to dance around that and claim Fukino is being coy…

  825. In the end, the truth will out. For the first time I saw a news story on television about the birth certificate issue. Ok, it was on Fox but that is the first time I have seen the issue on television.
    Obama can run and he can hide but the truth will be revealed.

  826. Unfortunately, thanks to his patriotism, Major Cook just got let go by his civilian employer! I think it because the employer is a contractor for the govt and the military more or less told the employer “Get rid of Cook or we get rid of you!” and now we have a sad situation of a guy loosing his job over this LYING IDIOT currently sittin in OUR White House!
    Guess you saw where the libs radio shows are even turning on O, right? Kinda like a feedin frenzy……only this time, the sharks are feedin on one of their own that they have tried every way in the world to justify!
    This should get REALLY INTERESTING in the next few days, especially with that Judge in California saying that the case WILL BE HEARD!
    TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK 😉

  827. Well, tomorrow Orly Taitz will be in court in Georgia with the Army major who refuses to be deployed. And, a judge in California has agreed to expedite another of Orly’s cases. Then there is Andy Martin in Hawai’i getting things stirred up about what hospital BHO was born in – if any.
    Plenty of reasons to think that the matter may actually get resolved.

  828. Robert –
    Please. You really might add a disclaimer ot your statement:

    No you aren’t. You are speaking of a wild theory which has no basis in fact…

    such as IMHO, emphasis on the O, since it is just your opinion.

  829. Wild Bill, along with the Greek, Loyd and I have been, and are still speaking of unconstitutional acts against “We the People” that demand answers, enforceable remedies to correct actual grievances and injuries.

    No you aren’t. You are speaking of a wild theory which has no basis in fact…

  830. Robert:
    Wild Bill, along with the Greek, Loyd and I have been, and are still speaking of unconstitutional acts against “We the People” that demand answers, enforceable remedies to correct actual grievances and injuries. The Constitution provides for “We the People’s” the right to speak, the right to have enforceable remedies, and the right of correction of actual grievances and injuries.
    We assert to you that actual violations of the Constitution have been committed against “We the People”. We are asserting that oaths have been broken and perjuries committed.
    If “We the People” have no rights of remedy, then “We the People” have no rights.

  831. Why are so many dismissive of the issue? Maybe because they fear what may follow if it is in fact true that BHO is NOT qualified to be president?

    Or maybe because they don’t believe the officials of the State of HI would go to such great lengths to hide something like that? And maybe they believe that the case being dismissed in every single court that it’s been brought carries some water?

    None the less, they were given the job by “We The People” and therefore, as the ones who hired them, we have a right to question anything about them or their actions.

    OF COURSE you have that “right.” What you DO NOT have is any “right” for people to respond, any “right” for the official in question to respond beyond what is required by law, or any “right” for anyone else to give your “issue” the time of day…
    When do the Sotomayor confirmation hearings begin?

  832. Robert –
    In spite of what you might think, this is a genuine issue for a great many people. And I agree with Hugh that there are probably many out there unaware of the debate. However, that number may be decreasing every day, and I suspect that it is. Why are so many dismissive of the issue? Maybe because they fear what may follow if it is in fact true that BHO is NOT qualified to be president? It would make for a very awkward situation, wouldn’t it?
    I contend, as do many others, that the president and ALL elected officials, down to townships, are employees of those who pay their salaries. And even those who do the job gratis, which in some cases does happen. None the less, they were given the job by “We The People” and therefore, as the ones who hired them, we have a right to question anything about them or their actions.

  833. The very existance of lawsuits concerning the birth certificate means that it is not a “non-issue”.

    I’m sure you are kidding me here, right Hugh?
    Tomorrow, I am going to march down to Missouri State Circuit Court and sue YOU for harassment.
    Will that be an “issue,” then or will you laugh at it when the Court quickly dismisses the case?

  834. Robert:
    It seems that CBS Outdoors is protecting their Obama supporting position.
    Many people have raised questions about the birth certificate. The very existance of lawsuits concerning the birth certificate means that it is not a “non-issue”. It has nothing to do with whether lawsuits are won or lost, or dismissed outright. As to immateriality, the vast majority of the U.S. population is not even aware of the problem.

  835. And, why, Robert, does CBS Outdoors not want money to allow free speech on billboards?

    CBS Outdoors is part of the conspiracy? And before you make your usual claim that you aren’t saying it is a conspiracy, please attempt to provide another reason… say, along the lines of: it is the reasonable policy of CBS Outdoors not to sell advertising space to gadflys and conspiracy theorists. Kind of the same reason they don’t need to sell to the KKK or Black Panthers…

    Since it seems that the whole BC thing, to you, is immaterial, doesn’t it stand to reason that no one else cares either?

    Why would that stand to reason?
    However, the fact is that the non issue of the BC IS in fact immaterial to the vast majority of the population… and rightly so.

  836. And, why, Robert, does CBS Outdoors not want money to allow free speech on billboards? Since it seems that the whole BC thing, to you, is immaterial, doesn’t it stand to reason that no one else cares either?
    NOT!

  837. Meanwhile, in the real wold:
    Judge Sotomayor is about to become Justice Sotomayor.
    Yet more proof that Obama is handling the birth certificate “issue” in exactly the correct manner by ignoring it. Let the far right target this nonsense rather than the very real USSC nominee.
    I wonder if CG understands the delicious irony of his “TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK…”

  838. Hey Jayhuck, I think you forgot about the election process in this country. When you are elected as President you only get four years at a time so Obama will have to campaign with a record this time man, roflol!

  839. Wild Bill–
    No problem…When the new post came up, I was surprised not to see you or CG in the comments. Then I noticed that Warren had linked to the video but not to the other comment thread. There hasn’t been a lot of comment on it but I thought you’d be encouraged by the update that seems to indicate that you are, at the least, being heard. (Free speech is worthless if we have restrictive hearing.)
    LOL. We may not agree on everything BUT when citizens speak, someone ought to be listening….whether it’s one citizen, 400,000 citizens or a vast majority. I think we can agree on that one!
    Warren–
    Thanks for providing the link.

  840. Jayhuck–
    Your comments here concern me. You said nothing to contribute to the conversation. Your comments indicate that you don’t even realize the difference that these bloggers have been discussing between the short and long term certificates.Yet you interject yourself into the discussion laughing out loud. (LOL)
    On what basis do you laugh at them and their concerns?
    Question: Did you jump in to engage in discussion or simply to deliver a slam (3 times)?
    Warren–
    Did you link here to your new related post on this topic? If not, can you?

  841. Jayhuck –
    With the hypocracy of BHO (talk about a carbon footprint), he won’t get 8. Fly to NYC for a date night with your wife? And with any luck, maybe not even 4.
    People will wise up. How about the VAT? And his promises about giving everyone a tax cut – except the rich? And he’s acting like a king. And a VAT will only make everyone of us worse off.
    If I recall, we rejected the king idea well over 200 years ago.

  842. Jayhuck:
    There is a definite difference between the long form birth certificate and the COLB. It is no laughing matter.

  843. Laughing Out Loud – I’m curious if this thread will still be running when Obama has had a full 8 years in office? 🙂

  844. LOL – I’m curious if this thread will still be running when Obama has had a full 8 years? 🙂

  845. LOL – Now I understand why this is the longest running thread; Crazy Greek, Robert, etc….. 🙂 My understanding is that the short BC pulls information from the long BC. Yet, many conservatives aren’t satisfied – hmmmmmm – well, I’m laminating my short BC as I speak 🙂

  846. And an amen from me, too, Warren. Thanks.
    Looks like things are heating up in Hawai’i as well. Not because of the sun either. We may be getting closer to an answer.

  847. Excellent Warren..thanks for the heads up……seems to me they are still in their “denial” phase and hoping that they can ride that for at least 4 years……..TICK TOCK

  848. It will be interesting to see how it goes.
    My best is for a quick and clean dismissal…

  849. There is the possibility that because of the significance of this, that the court is being overly generous with Justice so that they can’t say they didn’t have enough time because of yada, yada, yada…

    Of course that’s a possibility. I STRONGLY doubt that, however.
    So why is it just a constant showering of the Supreme Court with petitions? Why no petitions to the lower courts, as well? Are there alot of petitions pending before the lower courts?

  850. Ya’ know, Robert –
    There is the possibility that because of the significance of this, that the court is being overly generous with Justice so that they can’t say they didn’t have enough time because of yada, yada, yada…
    If they wanted to ignore it, they could simply say so. No standing, wrong venue. Any number of excuses that they are not using.

  851. Why is the Justice Department stalling on addressing a pending court case on eligibility for an additional (forget how many) days when all that needs be done is for BHO to have Hawai’i release his original birth certificate? Shouldn’t this fact tell us something?

    Replace “stalling” with “ignoring” and you have the fact that tells us something…

  852. So, Robert –
    Why is the Justice Department stalling on addressing a pending court case on eligibility for an additional (forget how many) days when all that needs be done is for BHO to have Hawai’i release his original birth certificate? Shouldn’t this fact tell us something?
    What I find especially annoying is that the court is allowing extensions of time that are outside of policy.

  853. I don’t think it has much to do with John Roberts or any of the other justices, lloyd.
    Think about it: all that it would take to give this case the smallest bit of traction- you know, enough to make the evil Mainstream Media, if even in a blurb, is for ONE federal judge to think that the claims made sense and issue an order to Obama to produce the documents.
    Could there be an appeal? Of course, but it is enough to get the ball rolling and garner some attention, etc., etc.
    And instead, not one judge (no matter who appointed them) has given this case any credence whatsoever. Not one.
    Shouldn’t that tell you something?

  854. Meanwhile, in the Real World, about 100 days in Obama gets his first crack at a USSC nominee…
    No doubt the new justice will need to do some quick boning up on citizenship issues, huh?

  855. I will not do your researching for you just so you can come back on here and say your “Not good enough….try again” bull****!

    Sorry to hold you to a standard, CG. But otherwise, we all end up trotting out people like Jerome Corsi and Michael Moore, and try to call it “truth.”

  856. Ahhh..let me make a prediction here. IF answered, it’s gonna be something like this….”That’s just a bunch of sore loser’s trying anything they can to say O’s birth certificate is fake and I told you they would say that…..” blah blah blah BULL****.
    Standby Bill…it’s comin………;-)
    ROFLMFAO

    No. I will simply agree with WB’s assessment of the story.
    How about you, CG? What do YOU think of the story?

  857. Wild Bill wrote:

    Robert –
    I have to give you a grade of A on your ability to avoid actually answering questions.
    At this point in time, it would appear that there are some REAL conspiracy theorists out there now.
    This is laughable. Look at the holes that you could drive a tank through.
    http://216.221.102.26/blogger/post/Is-the-Obama-administration-working-on-a-forged-long-form-Birth-Certificate-as-we-speak.aspx

    Ahhh..let me make a prediction here. IF answered, it’s gonna be something like this….”That’s just a bunch of sore loser’s trying anything they can to say O’s birth certificate is fake and I told you they would say that…..” blah blah blah BULL****.
    Standby Bill…it’s comin………;-)
    ROFLMFAO

  858. Actually Robert, what I am frustrated about is having to deal with IDIOCY like your statements on here. I will not do your researching for you just so you can come back on here and say your “Not good enough….try again” bull****!

  859. Somehow, I KNEW this would your answer. It’s clear………you can’t answer the simplist request.

    You asked me for “ANY records pertaining to O and his eligibility to be President.”
    I know you want to ignore theo COLB, etc., but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
    I’m sorry if you don’t like the facts, but there you go.

    I’m done too!

    Wise choice. Your “case” has gone nowhere since the COLB was released, and after the dismissal of Berg, it is out of business completely.
    Why are you suddenly “done” now? My guess is that you are frustrated by an inability to come up with a credible link on the Kenya sealed records story, but that is just a guess…

  860. Robert wrote:

    How about some of the O supporters providing some documentation….such as links to………
    1. [irrelevant]
    2. [irrelevant]
    3. [irrelevant]
    4. [irrelevant]
    5. ANY records pertaining to O and his eligibility to be President
    GOOD LUCK!! -)
    Points #1 through #5 have no relevance, and #5 has already been provided: see the released COLB and the statements of HI officials.
    Documentation sufficient for each and every official that certified the election results of November 2008.
    Done.

    ROFLMFAO
    Somehow, I KNEW this would your answer. It’s clear………you can’t answer the simplist request.
    Pathetic!
    I’m done too!

  861. Here you go, CG- you said it yourself:

    Given that it was reported by several news agencies that Kenyan officials had stated (not verbatim here now) “O’s records are to be sealed until after the election”….

    I am sure out of the “several news agencies” you cite, one at least will be credible.
    What about Fox? Do they have anything on it?

  862. Robert…would you please give me your definition for the word “credible” so I can do a search for ya?

    Oh, give it a try and see CG! I’m sure you can decipher right wing nutter sites, left wing nutter sites, and actual statements of the government of Kenya…

  863. How about some of the O supporters providing some documentation….such as links to………
    1. [irrelevant]
    2. [irrelevant]
    3. [irrelevant]
    4. [irrelevant]
    5. ANY records pertaining to O and his eligibility to be President
    GOOD LUCK!! -)

    Points #1 through #5 have no relevance, and #5 has already been provided: see the released COLB and the statements of HI officials.
    Documentation sufficient for each and every official that certified the election results of November 2008.
    Done.

  864. Hey now…here’s a neat thought. Instead of some of us anti O folks being constantly asked to provide such and such…how about this?
    How about some of the O supporters providing some documentation….such as links to………
    1. O’s original birth certificate
    2. O’s college records from Occidental
    3. O’s selective service records
    4. O’s Harvard records
    5. ANY records pertaining to O and his eligibility to be President
    GOOD LUCK!! -)

  865. While this is not pertaining to any “records” in Kenya, take a listen to this recording of a conversation with the Kenyan Ambassador recorded by a radio station out of Detroit………most have probably heard this before. Pay special attention starting at time 12:34 into the 19+ minute tape.
    The Ambassador is CLEARLY ADMITTING that O was born in Kenya…….he later has tried to backpedal saying he was referring to O Sr. (O’s father) but it is clear on the tape that he was referring to PRESIDENT ELECT O……..NOT his father.
    http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=91

  866. Robert wrote:

    Again: can someone give a credible link that Kenya has sealed ANY records to do with BHO, and then it will (hopefully) say which records and why…

    Robert…would you please give me your definition for the word “credible” so I can do a search for ya? Don’t wanna waste either of our time posting links (of which there are many) listing sites for you to then come back and say “Not credible”.

  867. Robert wrote:

    Just so I keep this straight, though: You are saying there is no conspiracy, but you do say that Kenya is sealing birth records to keep the truth from coming out.
    LOL. OK.

    Well Robert….the only thing I can suggest here is that IF you really want to “keep this straight”, the FIRST thing you must do is GET IT STRAIGHT.
    I never mentioned Kenya saying anything about ‘birth’ records. What I DID SAY was that IF Kenya had records on O that needed sealing until “after the Presidential election” (their words), what record could they be OTHER THAN birth records since O had only been in Kenya once or twice and what records would they have on O as just a visitor.
    BTW…..we aren’t talking about records of O’s family here as you contend, but O HIMSELF!! (Just to keep it straight) 😉

  868. Um, WB… the second website you posted only refers back to the wnd article that you posted earlier.
    From the article:

    Let us investigate this statement by the Kenyan Government.

    And then the author provides no “statemente from the Kenyan government.” Pretty funny!
    Again: can someone give a credible link that Kenya has sealed ANY records to do with BHO, and then it will (hopefully) say which records and why…

  869. Given that it was reported by several news agencies that Kenyan officials had stated (not verbatim here now) “O’s records are to be sealed until after the election”…..can you give me one reason why Kenya would have ANY RECORDS regarding O in their possession that would require sealing?

    Records of family. Don’t know until we see a statement from the government of Kenya.
    Just so I keep this straight, though: You are saying there is no conspiracy, but you do say that Kenya is sealing birth records to keep the truth from coming out.
    LOL. OK.

  870. And I do believe him to be credible.

    Why would you believe Corsi to be credible? In his book, Corsi accuses Obama of still using drugs, and then presents this as “evidence” on Larry King:
    CORSI: What I’m saying in the book is that people who admit that they’ve used drugs — and Obama — Obama said he used drugs through Occidental. And it was a lot of drugs. He said it was — it had become virtually habitual with marijuana and cocaine. My argument is that the self-reporting of people who use drugs as to when they quit is not reliable. That’s the argument I was making.
    LOL!

  871. Wild Bill,
    Thanks for the link. Very well put. I like the way she thinks. eg Obama wasn’t born in Kenya , didn’t live in Kenya , or claim citizenship, What records could Kenya possibly have to keep sealed?
    I’d make a bet on a Birth certificate. “Strategy of Legality.”

  872. Hey Greek –
    You are right on, bro. And BTW, the link I just posted for Robert should be of interest to you, Loyd and Hugh, too.

  873. Robert –
    I’m sorry about this, but I was in a rush to get out of the house this morning and didn’t give you my second site, so here it is now.
    http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/janak/081102
    I don’t find very much about the credentials of Michael Rivero, other than where he was born and that he has a website, however Jerome Corsi is a different matter. And I do believe him to be credible.

    Jerome Corsi, Ph.D.
    ——————————————————————————–
    Ranging in topics from politics, economics, U.S. immigration law, Israel and the Middle East, Jerome Corsi, Ph.D. and No. 1 New York Times best-selling author, is renowned among news media outlets worldwide for his ability to break down today’s most pressing international issues in a manner engaging and concise – and at times controversial.
    The author of 16 books, Corsi rose to national prominence with the 2004 release of “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry” – a No. 1 New York Times best-seller.
    Corsi holds a Ph.D in Political Science from Harvard University, and in 1981 was designated top-secret clearance by the Reagan administration to provide government officials with anti-terrorism training and hostage survival. Dr. Corsi is a frequent on-air contributor to Fox News Channel. In addition to his political science expertise, he has helped develop international financial-services companies specializing in securities products.

  874. Robert…….in regards Kenya and the two statements, let me ask you this……
    Given that it was reported by several news agencies that Kenyan officials had stated (not verbatim here now) “O’s records are to be sealed until after the election”…..can you give me one reason why Kenya would have ANY RECORDS regarding O in their possession that would require sealing?
    Supposedly, O has only visited Kenya once or twice. IF he were not born there, why would Kenya have some sort of ‘record’ regarding O?

  875. Robert wrote:

    Hmmmm….
    Can anyone tell me what the Republican governor of the state of HI would be willing to participate in the charade?

    I don’t believe that the governor is participating in any way in some sort of “charade” as you call it Robert. There is only one person doing so….O himself!
    A simple question such as “can you prove where you were born?” should NOT brew up this much controversy…period!
    It’s really quite simple……..O has one reason and one reason alone for not being forthcoming with his original birth certificate…….he’s HIDING something…plain and simple. Trying to tap dance around the issue with “well, if it showed he WAS born in Hawaii, people would just say it’s fake…”type statements is just plain foolish…IMHO, of course.
    If THIS is what we have sunk to in America, let’s just close down all the courts in this country and go back to mob rule like a lot of the third world nations on this planet.
    However, I think America…and AMERICANS are better than that. We have a system that is the envy of the world..or, it USED to be! Let’s USE IT!

  876. It’s a bit long, however…

    Other than repeating the (apparently erroneous) statement that Lingle had the birth records sealed, it has two statements on Kenya, without citation.
    And no, Jerome Corsi is not a credible source.
    Perhaps something in a less partisan publication that cites the Kenyan government officials involved or at least gives more details?

  877. As for your “NO serious person” comment, let me just say this…

    Agree for the most part, CG. I had no basis for implying that you, WB, et. al. are not serious people.
    But let’s be realistic: you said “50 million people” were questioning it. Wrong.
    Better to say: no serious person of public stature is carrying the ball on this one…. Alan Keyes (sorry) does not make the grade.
    If this were a real issue, you would have many and varied standard bearers.

  878. Thanks, Bill, but that is not what we were discussing… you said that Kenya sealed the records… I believe that, but we need to see which exact records were sealed to discuss it. Of course, you said “the records of BHO” which I believe to be accurate. HIlarious that others on this board have misstated it as the “BIRTH records” of BHO.
    By the by, WND may be incorrect on their headline:
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/obamabirthallinone.php

  879. Hmmmm….
    Can anyone tell me what the Republican governor of the state of HI would be willing to participate in the charade?

  880. Kindly stop the conspirancy stuff. If anyone could be dubbed as a conspiratist I would suggest that it is you.

    I know you don’t like it WB, but factually if what you propose is true, it MUST be a conspiracy that keeps us from knowing the truth.
    No two ways about it.

    First, not ONCE has anyone said they have seen the actual birth certificate.

    Of course. Because they are carefully and cleverly wording their statements to avoid the fact that they simply have not looked at the certificate. Of course, instead of simply saying that “we haven’t looked at the certificate,” the HI state officials are instead choosing to participate in the conspiracy by not simply and clearly saying what they know and don’t know…
    LOL. Sure, WB.

    Second, BY LAW they are only to give the information to a legal requestor. That would be the family – or a court.

    Seems like a pretty clear reason it hasn’t been released, doesn’t it?

    And last, and again, why did Kenya seal the records of BHO?

    Find me a credible link to that information, and we can see what it says…

  881. Oh, hell! I just remembered! You never responded to this either!!

    Let’s keep this one separate from the rest, WB.
    What gives you the idea that Orly “may still be correct?”
    What do you find in the Constitution that tells you that the age of a parent has ANYTHING to do with the citizenship of the child?
    Again, this is an EXCELLENT reason for BHO to ignore this entire non-issue. Production of a gold plated original birth certificate wouldn’t matter at all… it would turn things to: “See, the mother is under age and therefore…”

  882. Robert –
    Kindly stop the conspirancy stuff. If anyone could be dubbed as a conspiratist I would suggest that it is you.
    Greek, Hugh, Loyd and I – and as Greek pointed out – certainly more than just the four of us.
    Since you don’t want to answer me, let’s go back to a fact about the hospital in Hawai’i and the answers that have been given.
    First, not ONCE has anyone said they have seen the actual birth certificate.
    Second, BY LAW they are only to give the information to a legal requestor. That would be the family – or a court.
    Third, why is there no hospital in Hawai’i that has records of the birth since Stanley Ann Dunham has never been found to have been in any Hawai’ian hospital for such a procedure?
    And last, and again, why did Kenya seal the records of BHO?
    Greek has it nailed. So do I. There can be no reason if he was born in Hawai’i.
    Now, given that you don’t know the answers to these questions, how about just fessin’ up to that?
    Oh, hell! I just remembered! You never responded to this either!!

    Hating to throw a wrench into your argument, but the age of majority USED to be 21 until 1971.
    The age of majority used to be 21 in most states. But after the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1971, giving 18-year-olds the right to vote in federal elections, most states dropped their age of majority to 18.
    Ergo, Dr. Taitz may still be correct.

  883. Robert wrote:

    Addressing your remarks regarding Dr. Furkino……I NEVER stated that Dr. Furkino was “lying” as you contend.
    You seem to have a problem with misstating what I say, and I think it is purposeful. Let me be clear: for your conspiracy to be true, Dr. Furkino MUST be doing one of two things:
    1. Lying; or
    2. Refusing to reveal the truth that she knows.
    So. Which is it? #1 or #2? Either way, according to you, Furkino is participating in a conspiracy…

    My answer would be #2 Robert, since Furkino, by Hawaiian LAW, CANNOT reveal the truth she knows! If she did, she would be in jeopardy of loosing her job. Take a look at what has been said by the State of Hawaii since the one ‘spokeswoman for Furkino’ stated what she did…”Yes, that’s what she meant..”!
    Robert wrote:

    Again, you are dancing around what I said. Put it another way: if 50 million people WERE questioning BHO’s birth, you would have something. 50 million people aren’t questioning it.
    In fact NO serious person is.

    Robert, ask anyone who knows me personally, which you DO NOT, and you will find that I am NOT the type of person to “dance around” ANY issue. I will get up close and personal every time!
    As for your “NO serious person” comment, let me just say this………I am a Vietnam Vet with 7 years active duty and 4 tours in a war zone. I consider myself DAMN SERIOUS when it comes to who is chosen as the leader of MY country and the one person who is empowered with the authority of sending our military around the globe!
    Now, if by “Serious” you are implying someone in authority (judicial) to make a ruling based on FACTUAL EVIDENCE presented before them in a court of law, I might agree with you. However, you are painting with an awful broad brush in your use of the statement “NO ONE SERIOUS” in my opinion.
    I guess it’s just a difference of opinion in you and me. Personally, I take EVERY PERSON with the ability and right to vote in this country DAMNED SERIOUS! When presented with the FACTS the voters in this country have a pretty good track record of electing our officials. However, when LIED TO, things sometimes happen where one who is NOT QUALIFIED is elected..and it is my contention (along with countless others) that this is exactly the case we have before us now.
    I find it bizarre that most of O’s supporters (like you I would venture to guess) are so against having a simple little document verified.
    Simple question for ya……”What could it hurt?” Now PLEASE Robert, don’t come back with this lame “They would just say it’s a conspiracy if his ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE stated that O was born in Hawaii” statement you always trot out!
    What if that ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE listed Kenya as O’s place of birth? What would YOUR ‘conspiracy theory’ be then Robert? That someone actually got into the Hawaiian archives and somehow ‘switched’ the document?
    IF there is any ‘tap dancing’ going on here Robert, I would contend that it is YOU that is giving a first rate impression of Fred Astaire!
    SHOW THE DAMN ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE……..and let’s be done with this!
    Let the chips fall where they may………..WTF could possibly be WRONG with that?
    If that certificate shows O was Hawaii born, you and other O supporters get to go around feeling all giddy and say “See….we told ya so” and life can move forward with O as POTUS!
    If, on the other hand, that certificate shows O to be born someplace other than Hawaii and NOT a natural born citizen, then those of us who think he is LYING get to feel all giddy and say “See….we told ya so” and we get to remove this LIAR from office, ship his ass out of the country and life can move forward with SOMEONE ELSE (probably Biden) as POTUS!
    Either way, YOU would still have a Democrat sittin in the Oval Office……and THAT alone should make you happy, right? 😉

  884. Addressing your remarks regarding Dr. Furkino……I NEVER stated that Dr. Furkino was “lying” as you contend.

    You seem to have a problem with misstating what I say, and I think it is purposeful. Let me be clear: for your conspiracy to be true, Dr. Furkino MUST be doing one of two things:
    1. Lying; or
    2. Refusing to reveal the truth that she knows.
    So. Which is it? #1 or #2? Either way, according to you, Furkino is participating in a conspiracy

    IF you do not consider the American voter ’serious’, I feel there is very little hope for you. In answer, YES I do see some ’serious persons’ questioning……a little over 50 MILLION ’serious persons’ to be exact!

    Again, you are dancing around what I said. Put it another way: if 50 million people WERE questioning BHO’s birth, you would have something. 50 million people aren’t questioning it.
    In fact NO serious person is.

  885. Greek and Wild Bill:
    Concerning the sealing of the Kenyan records it only means to me that the preponderance of evidence suggests that Obama is actually born in Kenya. Otherwise, there is no reason for Kenya to seal documents especially since Obama and Hawaii seemingly declare Hawaii birth.
    I do not have absolute proof but the dots connect to Kenya.

  886. Wild Bill wrote:

    Why did Kenya seal BHO’s records? I want you to ONLY respond to this. And this only. Why did Kenya seal BHO’s records?

    Hummmmmm…thought and question on this one Bill………..
    Since, as Robert and others are contending, O WAS born in Hawaii, I’m just wondering WHY Kenya has ANY RECORDS on O that require ‘sealing’? Think about it…………..Since O was not born there (as espoused by his supporters and himself) and only visited there once……..do ya think that Kenya is in the habit of starting some sort of “record” on anyone that comes into their country? I mean…IF O was not a Kenyan national and was just a visitor, WHY would Kenya have ANY TYPE OF RECORD (other than passport records I assume) on O?
    Anyone ever thought of that?
    Only reason I can think of is that maybe, just maybe, O got sick and went to a doctors office or a hospital while visiting his homeland.
    Ah yeah….RIGHT! SURE HE DID!
    That’s gotta be the “record” that’s so important it needs to be ‘sealed’ by the Kenyan government!
    Silly me…………gosh, the answer was staring me in the face all the time and I was just too stupid to see it!
    ROFLMFAO

  887. Robert wrote:

    Hate to break it to you CG, but for your conspiracy theory to be true, more people than Obama have to be in on it.
    I guess the people (eg Furkino) who said they saw the certificate are lying.

    Ok…once again….I DO NOT HAVE any ‘conspiracy theory’ as you keep mentioning. I am simply asking for PROOF……UNDENIABLE PROOF….that O was born in Hawaii….something O is still fighting at every instance because the ONLY document that could show this is the ORIGINAL HANDWRITTEN BIRTH CERTIFICATE that Hawaii holds, and will not release without O’s approval…which they ain’t about to get!
    It’s NOT a ‘conspiracy theory’ to ask for PROOF Robert. It would become a ‘conspiracy theory’ once that proof was offered and then still denied…..GET IT?
    Addressing your remarks regarding Dr. Furkino……I NEVER stated that Dr. Furkino was “lying” as you contend. What I DID state was the Dr. Furkino has NEVER STATED that the birth certificate Hawaii holds says ANYTHING about where O was born. Dr. Furkino simply stated that the State of Hawaii was IN POSSESSION of O’s birth certificate….PERIOD!
    Wish you would learn to read!
    Robert wrote:

    Do you see any serious person questioning Obama’s legitimacy?

    Hummmmm……IF you do not consider the American voter ‘serious’, I feel there is very little hope for you. In answer, YES I do see some ‘serious persons’ questioning……a little over 50 MILLION ‘serious persons’ to be exact!
    I’ll say it again………your willingness to defend the indefensible is admirable…….misplaced I feel, but admirable. I’ll give you that much.

  888. Robert –
    Okay. Once again.

    Why did Kenya seal BHO’s records? I want you to ONLY respond to this. And this only. Why did Kenya seal BHO’s records?

    And you say??

  889. Please, Robert, answer with something very rational.

    I know, Bill. Part and parcel of such a “debate.” No, I cannot provide any proof of a negative. I can’t tell you why people do or don’t do things.
    And, realistically, that wouldn’t matter to you; if the hospital did come forward and make a statement, the same thing would happen then that is happening now with the Department of Health statement: the Hospital Spokesman would become a part of the conspiracy…
    Why would a hospital’s statement mean more to you than a Department of Health Statement?

  890. Laughable…..well, at least we KNOW for a FACT that ONE person is “in on it”, as you contend.
    That would be…..what’s his name? Oh yeah…O B A M A!!!!!

    Hate to break it to you CG, but for your conspiracy theory to be true, more people than Obama have to be in on it.
    I guess the people (eg Furkino) who said they saw the certificate are lying.

    Now, I’m NOT saying that there won’t be a fair share of ‘conspiracy nuts’ that will have a hard time accepting those FACTS, but this DOES NOT in ANY FORM remove the responsibility of the one in question from presenting EVERY FACT POSSIBLE to prove his contention that what he has stated is the TRUTH!

    Why?
    Why is the current “fair share of conspiracy nuts” not an acceptable level? Do you see any serious person questioning Obama’s legitimacy?
    Nope.

  891. Robert wrote:

    For your suspicion to be true, at the very least, Obama and several HI state officials MUST be “in” on it.

    Laughable…..well, at least we KNOW for a FACT that ONE person is “in on it”, as you contend.
    That would be…..what’s his name? Oh yeah…O B A M A!!!!!
    Robert wrote:

    I KEEP giving it you to- you just don’t like it. Reason: it would not matter. The internet crowd would call it a forgery (see the COLB) or go to the fallback twisting logic attempts at redefining “natural born citizen.”

    Again….laughable! I knew that was gonna be your answer…that’s the reason I stated what I did above…to wit……….
    CG wrote:

    Now this is about the dumbest statement I have ever seen in print! Al this tells me is that the “no amount of evidence” statement probably pertains to the person that wrote it! Generally, when confronted with FACTS, most people who are ‘free thinkers’ are willing to admit that they were wrong in their initial thinking.
    Now, I’m NOT saying that there won’t be a fair share of ‘conspiracy nuts’ that will have a hard time accepting those FACTS, but this DOES NOT in ANY FORM remove the responsibility of the one in question from presenting EVERY FACT POSSIBLE to prove his contention that what he has stated is the TRUTH!

    Totally unbelievable….and LAME at best to say that Robert….I hate to be the one to inform you of this but…..FACTS are FACTS! Given your reasoning, we shouldn’t even have any trial in any court in this country for anything because SOMEONE MIGHT BE CONFUSED BY THE FACTS!
    Absurd!!

  892. Robert –
    As my favorite president said “There you go again.” That was the Carter/Reagan debate of 1980.
    Zero?????????? Judges who refuse???????
    Wrong on zero. And judges who refuse? They have simply not heard the case for legal (in their opinion) reasons. And I’m not sure I agree with their assessments.
    Why, Robert, are no hospitals wanting to become listed on the National Register of Historic Places? Hell’s bells. If the first non-white president was born in YOUR hospital, or if YOU were the delivery doctor, wouldn’t you want to be in line for fame? HEY!!! OVER HERE!!! THIS HOSPITAL!!!
    Why did Kenya seal BHO’s records? I want you to ONLY respond to this. And this only. Why did Kenya seal BHO’s records?
    Please, Robert, answer with something very rational.
    Awaiting your reply,
    Wild Bill

  893. YOU seem to be the only one espousing this line of thought here!

    CG, for your suspicion to be true it MUST be a conspiracy. One or more people know the truth and are keeping it from you. Ipso facto, it is a conspiracy. For your suspicion to be true, at the very least, Obama and several HI state officials MUST be “in” on it.
    Of course, the judges who refuse to hear the case…

    Just one GOOD reason.

    I KEEP giving it you to- you just don’t like it. Reason: it would not matter. The internet crowd would call it a forgery (see the COLB) or go to the fallback twisting logic attempts at redefining “natural born citizen.”
    Second reason: the issue is on ZERO radar screens that matter.

  894. Robert wrote:

    Youre incorrect. The law that Orly and others attempt to invoke only applies to children of US citizens born OVERSEAS.

    Let me do some research on this and get back with you on it. I do believe that you are the one incorrect here…just need some time to verify and confirm.
    Robert wrote:

    NO Hawaii ‘official’ that was present when said document (the vault copy the claim to hold) was examined has EVER stated that O was “born there”. What they DID state was that the State of Hawaii was in possession of his original birth certificate….PERIOD!
    And so, your conspiracy theory relies completely on what people HAVEN’T said rather than what they have said. The article’s point- agree with it or not- is that reasonable people find it hard to believe that people like Dr. Furkino, her spokesperson, the republican governor of HI, etc., would be so coy and silent as they have seen the birth certificate (or have the right to) and have sat on such a whopper of a secret (that they, according to your theory) that BHO was born outside HI.
    It’s not logical. Sorry about that.

    Ok Robert..here we go again. It’s not MY “conspiracy theory” here. I DO NOT (or does anyone else on this forum who is commenting on this, I believe) have any type of “conspiracy theory” here. YOU seem to be the only one espousing this line of thought here!
    The only “not logical” thing happening in regards this topic is that (1) Dr. Furkino has NEVER come forth and stated that “Yes, this is what I meant” and (2) O’s reluctance to provide a look see at the original document. That’s it!
    Think about it Robert and answer if you can. Give us ONE GOOD REASON WHY O would NOT want the information contained on his original birth certificate scrutinized? Just one GOOD reason. Problem is, you can’t…simply because there is NO good reason for his behavior. NONE!
    “Reasonable people” would NOT have a problem with confirmation, unless of course, there was information contained on said ORIGINAL HANDWRITTEN birth certificate that would REFUTE what that “reasonable person” of yours had been saying Robert.
    THAT’S what is “not logical”.
    You seem like a fairly rational person Robert. Why is it such a problem for you that the information contained on O’s original handwritten birth certificate (the ONLY document which stands any kind of chance at all of NOT having been tampered with) be seen? Could it be that you too are concerned that, once again, O has LIED to you?

  895. NO Hawaii ‘official’ that was present when said document (the vault copy the claim to hold) was examined has EVER stated that O was “born there”. What they DID state was that the State of Hawaii was in possession of his original birth certificate….PERIOD!

    And so, your conspiracy theory relies completely on what people HAVEN’T said rather than what they have said. The article’s point- agree with it or not- is that reasonable people find it hard to believe that people like Dr. Furkino, her spokesperson, the republican governor of HI, etc., would be so coy and silent as they have seen the birth certificate (or have the right to) and have sat on such a whopper of a secret (that they, according to your theory) that BHO was born outside HI.
    It’s not logical. Sorry about that.

  896. Unless I’m throughly confused and mistaken, the laws that were in effect at the time O was born did not allow for his mother to convey citizenship.

    Youre incorrect. The law that Orly and others attempt to invoke only applies to children of US citizens born OVERSEAS. Which, if that was the case, Obama would ipso facto not be “natural born” no matter his parents’ age.
    It has nothing to do with retroactive- your assumption there is correct- changed laws would not impact what had gone before.

  897. Forgive me for being so late in some of my posting here, but I have really been busy gettin ready for retirement and haven’t had much time to read all that has been posted or articles linked to. Just this morning, I did finally get around to reading one that you posted Robert and I am really glad I did.
    On April 2, 2009 Robert wrote:

    When you send it to your psych prof (at Harvard), ask him what he thinks of this incredibly appropriate piece:
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/

    It’s a fairly interesting article…….let me take a few moments here to pick it apart……
    First, the DATE the article linked was written……..Dec. 5, 2008…
    Now to the ‘meat’ of said article……………………………..

    You might think these rumors would have died off after Obama produced proof in June that he was, in fact, born in Hawaii to an American citizen, his mother, Ann, or after Hawaii state officials confirmed in October that he was born there.

    I see several problems in this one paragraph alone.
    The COLB that O had posted on his site as ‘proof’ has been brought under question as to authenticity.
    The State of Hawaii doesn’t even accept this ALONE as proof for one of their own citizens apply for a homestead!
    NO Hawaii ‘official’ that was present when said document (the vault copy the claim to hold) was examined has EVER stated that O was “born there”. What they DID state was that the State of Hawaii was in possession of his original birth certificate….PERIOD!

    But that doesn’t matter. The faux controversy isn’t going to go away soon. Yes, Obama was born in Hawaii, and yes, he is eligible to be president.

    Really? I have to ask….someone PLEASE point me in the direction I must go to find this PROOF that “Yes, O was born in Hawaii and……is eligible” statement. I would REALLY love to see that in writing…preferably from the Doctor that delivered him AND the hospital where O was born in the State of Hawaii. Thus far…and we are into late April now…..NOT ONE doctor or ONE HOSPITAL has come forward saying “Yes…and here is the proof”….NOT ONE!
    Doesn’t this one FACT strike anyone (other than those of us who do not believe O was born in the United States) as just a bit ODD? An apartment complex where O lived is now gettin all excited and wanting to erect their sign “O lived here”. Schools on the island of Hawaii are clamoring all over themselves for their ‘piece of history’ wanting their name immortalized as one of the schools O attended. Colleges in CONUS are screaming that ‘Yes indeed, O attended here!” Yet, NOT ONE doctor practicing in the United States of ONE HOSPITAL has yet to step up and shout “Yeah Baby…I’m the one that delivered the President elect and this is where he was born!” NOT ONE!!!

    But according to several experts in conspiracy theories, and in the psychology of people who believe in conspiracy theories, there’s little chance those people who think Obama is barred from the presidency will ever be convinced otherwise. “There’s no amount of evidence or data that will change somebody’s mind,” says Michael Shermer, who is the publisher of Skeptic magazine and a columnist for Scientific American, and who holds an undergraduate and a master’s degree in psychology. “The more data you present a person, the more they doubt it … Once you’re committed, especially behaviorally committed or financially committed, the more impossible it becomes to change your mind.”

    Now this is about the dumbest statement I have ever seen in print! Al this tells me is that the “no amount of evidence” statement probably pertains to the person that wrote it! Generally, when confronted with FACTS, most people who are ‘free thinkers’ are willing to admit that they were wrong in their initial thinking.
    Now, I’m NOT saying that there won’t be a fair share of ‘conspiracy nuts’ that will have a hard time accepting those FACTS, but this DOES NOT in ANY FORM remove the responsibility of the one in question from presenting EVERY FACT POSSIBLE to prove his contention that what he has stated is the TRUTH!
    Are we therefore supposed to shy away from our quest for TRUTH simply because there will be a FEW who would never believe? I say NO!
    This one statement ALONE in this article shows me that the person writing said article has their own agenda…….’O at any cost’……..

    For believers, it works like this: So what if Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, released a statement saying she has verified that the state has the original birth certificate on record? So what if she said separately that the certification looks identical to one she was issued for her own Hawaii birth certificate? Why didn’t her statement specify Obama’s birthplace? So what if a Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman later clarified that Fukino meant that Obama was born in Hawaii?

    Dr. Fukino did indeed release a statement saying she has verified that O’s birth certificate is on record. But, that IS ALL IS SAYS!
    “Why didn’t her statement specify O’s birth place”? The answer to this one is simple…..she CANNOT BY HAWAIIAN LAW so state!
    Hawaiian Health Deparment spokeswoman clarifying? THIS is the whole crux of the matter really. Why indeed would it take a ‘spokeswoman’ to ‘claify’ what the good Dr. Fukino meant? Did the good Dr. Fukino suddenly become inflicted with some problem that would prevent her from ‘clarifying what she meant’ personally?
    Yet, not as of this date..late April 2009, has the good Dr. Fukino come forth with ANY STATEMENT so stating “This is what I meant”! If I was the good Dr. I would be screaming it from the roof tops and in front of ANY camera I could commandeer simply because it would be my integrity that is being brought into question..and yet, so far not ONE PEEP out of Dr. Fukino……STRANGE, to say the least!
    I could go on and on here tearing this one apart, but the simple FACT IS that O himself if fighting to keep his ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE out of the public purview. WHY IS THAT? This birth certificate certainly contains NO information on it of a ‘security nature’ and the disclosure of any information on it would certainly NOT be harmful to the United States of America. Conversely, information contained on this document…the ONLY document in existence that stands the chance of NEVER having been tampered with by ANYONE, could prove him to be the LIAR that a lot of people think he is…hence, O’s reluctance to have it brought forth!
    Simple really!
    Actually, if one were to look at this with an open mind, what other explanation could be given for O’s continued fight to have this document NEVER see the light of day?
    I submit that this is NO PLAUSIBLE answer……other than O has something to HIDE!

  898. Robert wrote:

    I’m sad to see Dr. Orly Taitz go off the rails… see the points in the link below:
    http://defendourfreedoms.org/flysheet.html
    She repeats the thoroughly debunked claim that Obama’s mother was “to young to convey citizenship” to BHO.
    How can a person make a boner of a mistake like that and be taken seriously in a constitutional matter??

    Unless I’m throughly confused and mistaken, the laws that were in effect at the time O was born did not allow for his mother to convey citizenship.
    Are we now saying that simply because it’s O we are talking about that the law is somehow ‘changed’? Unless I’m mistaken (and I very well may be) if one is born under a law that states such and such and then at some later date that law is changed, does not mean that the old law would not still apply to the person who was born under the rulings of the old law….correct? I don’t believe it’s a ‘retroactive’ thing.
    Is it?

  899. Hating to throw a wrench into your argument, but the age of majority USED to be 21 until 1971.

    The age of majority used to be 21 in most states. But after the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed in 1971, giving 18-year-olds the right to vote in federal elections, most states dropped their age of majority to 18.

    Ergo, Dr. Taitz may still be correct.

  900. I’m sad to see Dr. Orly Taitz go off the rails… see the points in the link below:
    http://defendourfreedoms.org/flysheet.html
    She repeats the thoroughly debunked claim that Obama’s mother was “to young to convey citizenship” to BHO.
    How can a person make a boner of a mistake like that and be taken seriously in a constitutional matter??
    Sad. I thought her claim might be going someplace…

  901. Some things just irritate me. This would be one of those.

    USA & Obama Request & Get Extension of Time to Respond
    The attorney for two defendants in the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit, Barack Obama and the USA, has filed an “Entry of Appearance” and has requested and was granted a 15 day extension to the time allotted to them to respond. This is beyond the 60 days they were provided initially. When the government is the defendant, the government is normally given 60 days to respond. With the filing today, they asked for another 15 days and the court granted it. The response deadline date for the defendants thus has been moved from April 20th, 2009 to May 5th, 2009. For more details see the documents at SCRIBD.com or the court filing documents list in the right frame.

    This comes from Mario Appuzo’s site.
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
    More stalling on fessing up.
    I wonder what we’ll hear from the MSM about the “tea parties” tomorrow?
    Something needs to happen. And soon. After all, I’m probably considered a threat to the country now. I am a Viet Nam veteran and swore an oath. OH – and I belong to the NRA. Think I’ll get me one of those bumper stickers that are replicas of the original Navy Jack. The “Don’t tread on me” flag. Stir the pot a bit.

  902. Well……when you stop and think about it, O’s “living” in Hawaii has never been in question, therefore I guess if you wanted to put up a sign attesting to that ……?
    However, the FACT that NO hospital has yet stepped forward with “The President Was Born HERE” speaks VOLUMES!! 😉

  903. Something new from WorldNetDaily

    Hawaii lawmakers have voted to advance a resolution to make the apartment building where Barack Obama grew up a national landmark, yet there is still no move to recognize any island hospital as his birthplace.

    Interesting, no?

  904. If I may ask.
    What is your honest opinion of Barack Hussein Obama? Where, do you think he will lead this country? Do you have a family ,and if so , what will their future be?

    He was the better of the choices that we had. I think the bailout plans- his AND President Bush’s– are huge mistakes.
    Beyond that HUGE issue, I think he has performed credibly thus far…

  905. Robert,
    If I may ask.
    What is your honest opinion of Barack Hussein Obama? Where, do you think he will lead this country? Do you have a family ,and if so , what will their future be?
    Do you have full trust in our countrys leaders?
    Are you really from Missouri? I used to live in Maywood Missouri in the 70’s.
    I love the Mississippi River had lots of fun there.

  906. Thanks, Hugh.
    OOOrah!
    I ain’t a Marine, but I sure helped ferry them. Good guys.
    God bless our troops.
    And may our Navy rule the waves.

  907. Robert:
    It seems you know more than Dr. Edwin Vieira, Leo Donofrio, Dr. Orly Taitz, and Stephen Pidgeon combined. Your credentials must naturally leave those attorneys totally defeated and their tongues eating the dust you walk in.
    The constitutional questions that people are asking flow out of the very words of the Constitution. Those constitutional questions involve the qualifications for the President of the United States. Your assertion that the constitutional questions are nonsense actually shows disrespect for the Constitution itself. The questions themselves must be treated with respect just because they are constitutional questions and not lightly dismissed as “folly and foolishness”.
    Now, Wild Bill, the Greek, Loyd’s Dad, and my Dad, took oaths to defend the Constitution. They are many Americans, both living and dead, that have defended their oaths.
    Concerning this blog you will respect the Constitution. If you are going to deal with Wild Bill, the Greek, Loyd or me, then you will even respect us. Any man who is 100% certain that he has all the answers about these weighty matters will most likely have lumps on his head. It is only a matter of time. Arrogance proceeds a great fall, but humility is exalted. It is the way reality works.
    Respect is a choice! You can make up your own mind, but if you chose to deal with us you will respect us. You want to have a truth seeking conversation with us then we will agree to do so. We (Wild Bill, the Greek, Loyd and myself) are not abiding anything else.
    Robert, it is difficult to have a conversation with a person who is always right about everything!

  908. Kindly give the citation to the finding of the court which has actually made a ruling. Please?

    No Court has stooped to “making a ruling.” “Case Dismissed” I believe has been the operative term used…

    Once again, Robert, cite your proof that I am, without any doubt, without any question, and with full support of the world, meaning more than just you, that I am wrong.

    For someone who claims not to believe in conspiracy theories, you sure do have all the hallmarks: You ask me for “absolute proof, without any question” while you well know that such proof exists for NO ONE, BHO included.

    And if you keep this up, I may have to send some of this to my Psych prof. At Harvard. Either I’m losing it or you haven’t got an argument. Wanna guess?

    When you send it to your psych prof (at Harvard), ask him what he thinks of this incredibly appropriate piece:
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/

  909. Robert –
    Kindly give the citation to the finding of the court which has actually made a ruling. Please?
    Where was a decision made? And not hearing a case is NOT a decision. It is simply not hearing a case. For what reason? I can’t tell you the reasoning. Can you explain it to me, please?
    I’m not a conspiracy type. I am a seeker of the truth.
    Once again, Robert, cite your proof that I am, without any doubt, without any question, and with full support of the world, meaning more than just you, that I am wrong.
    Proof. Not opinion. Got it?
    And if you keep this up, I may have to send some of this to my Psych prof. At Harvard. Either I’m losing it or you haven’t got an argument. Wanna guess?

  910. Robert wrote:

    We (the Greek, Bill, Loyd and I) have you pegged 100%. It’s kind of difficult to have a conversation with a person who is always right about everything!
    Nope. BUT I am 100% correct about this: the constitutional questions on the eligibility of BHO are nonsense.

    Ahhhhh….NOW the truth is starting to manifest itself with you Robert!
    Let’s see…..the Supreme Court exist to answer questions and make rulings regarding the CONSTITUTION and have done so for lo these many years. NOW that it is YOUR GUY that is falling under the microscope of public scrutiny and questions are being asked about his CONSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY to hold the office of POTUS, suddenly it’s “the constitutional questions on the eligibility of BHO are nonsense” from you and those who support this LIAR!!
    THANKS for that clarification Robert!
    ROFLMFAO
    Robert wrote:

    And 100% of the Courts agree with me! What’s YOUR “batting average” so far??

    Ahhhhh… a baseball question…….ever heard of “end of an inning” Robert? It’s not a problem really………your guys have just been hittin infield grounders thus far but soon……..VERY VERY SOON…….it’s gonna be OUR TURN at bat and when a judge is found…..and one WILL BE, it’s gonna be HOMERUN CITY and your guy will be headin for the showers!
    Remember what ole Yogi always used to say….”It ain’t over til it’s over!” 🙂

  911. We (the Greek, Bill, Loyd and I) have you pegged 100%. It’s kind of difficult to have a conversation with a person who is always right about everything!

    Nope. BUT I am 100% correct about this: the constitutional questions on the eligibility of BHO are nonsense.
    And 100% of the Courts agree with me! What’s YOUR “batting average” so far??

  912. Actually, YES, there is a BIG difference Robert. Obama just DEMANDED that the CEO of GM had to go!
    You seem to not understand that difference. Let’s put it this way……….guy runs a stop sign by slowly driving though it in the early morning hours and a cop pulls him over. Cop says “I’m pulling you over because you failed to come to a complete stop at that stop sign.”
    Guy says to cop “Are you kiddin me? There is absolutly NO traffic this time of morning! Besides, I slowed down and looked both ways…what’s the difference?”
    Cop takes out his baton and starts tapping the guy on the forehead and says “Now, you tell me…..do you want me to stop or JUST SLOW DOWN?”

    What the blazes are you TALKING about CG???

  913. Robert, even if the Constitutional lawsuits are going nowhere, those same lawsuits and the attorneys deserve RESPECT, just because of the nature of the lawsuits involved.

    No more respect than a Ramsey Clark type deserves for bringing ludicruous “war crimes” charges against George W. Bush…

  914. It’s been an interesting day. Here’s a link to one WorldNetDaily article addressing the growing body of people who want BHO to clear up the issue of eligibility.
    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93657
    Very sorry, Robert, but there are many more than just a few of us.
    And then we have this:
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93696
    The President of the United States of America bowing to kiss the ring of the King of Saudi Arabia. Very presidential.
    I think I need to buy some more stuff. Emergency meals, flares, water containers, perhaps some of those other things that make finding meals easier.
    This is just about…
    Frankly, I won’t say it in this forum, but I know a lot of you know what I’m thinking.

  915. Robert:
    You say:
    “To your point: I DO consider any lawsuit brought on BHO’s eligibility to be POTUS as “total folly and foolishness.” True. And the courts (how many now?) have ALL agreed with me.”
    OK!
    We (the Greek, Bill, Loyd and I) have you pegged 100%. It’s kind of difficult to have a conversation with a person who is always right about everything!
    So, Donofrio’s position on the natural born citizen is also total folly and foolishness according to you! So, Donofrio has no sense in these Constitutional matters according to you!
    Do you agree with my statements concerning Donofrio?

  916. Robert wrote:

    One’s opinion of an office holder has nothing at all to do with Christianity. Once again, you didn’t read it correctly.
    I am beginning to think that your misinterpretations of what I write are purposeful on your part.

    Yeah….right Robert.
    ROFLMFAO
    It IS, at times, difficult to get the jest of what you mean without asking……….ie:
    Robert wrote:

    However, the FACT remains that there was NO ONE in government, especially the President of the United States, going on record as wanting to FIRE ANYONE within the company simply because said company came to the government with hat in hand.
    LOL, kind of changing your story there, aren’t you CG? From not telling the company how to “operate” to specifically “fire” an employee.
    Not much difference in power and oversight between telling a company how much it can pay and who it should have as CEO, is there?

    Actually, YES, there is a BIG difference Robert. Obama just DEMANDED that the CEO of GM had to go!
    You seem to not understand that difference. Let’s put it this way……….guy runs a stop sign by slowly driving though it in the early morning hours and a cop pulls him over. Cop says “I’m pulling you over because you failed to come to a complete stop at that stop sign.”
    Guy says to cop “Are you kiddin me? There is absolutly NO traffic this time of morning! Besides, I slowed down and looked both ways…what’s the difference?”
    Cop takes out his baton and starts tapping the guy on the forehead and says “Now, you tell me…..do you want me to stop or JUST SLOW DOWN?”
    Bottom line here…I haven’t “changed my story” at all! Your guy O just told GM that their CEO HAD TO GO! THAT is NOT the job of the POTUS or any other institution that would lend money Robert! That is just the actions of one ARROGANT little SHIT that has let his title go to his head…..PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
    I really feel sorry for you that you seem not to be able to understand the difference. It must be really hard for you to constantly be defending the indefensible!
    I’ll give you this however……….you are frustratingly consistent in your defense of your guy. That IS a commendable position on your part! Wrong, but commendable non the less. I just hope you are TOO disappointed when O goes down………and he WILL go down!
    TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK

  917. However, the FACT remains that there was NO ONE in government, especially the President of the United States, going on record as wanting to FIRE ANYONE within the company simply because said company came to the government with hat in hand.

    LOL, kind of changing your story there, aren’t you CG? From not telling the company how to “operate” to specifically “fire” an employee.
    Not much difference in power and oversight between telling a company how much it can pay and who it should have as CEO, is there?

  918. I am certain that you consider any lawsuit bought against your “anointed one” as total folly and foolishness.

    Back to your default argument, Hugh? The saviour stuff? Let me repeat what I have told you a number of times: I do not agree with BHO on any number of issues. He is not my “annointed one.”
    To your point: I DO consider any lawsuit brought on BHO’s eligibility to be POTUS as “total folly and foolishness.” True. And the courts (how many now?) have ALL agreed with me.

    These attorneys are Donofrio, Taitz, Pidgeon, and Berg, etc. If Obama satisfies these people as to his qualifications they will drop their lawsuits.

    Nope. Their lawsuits will be dropped for them, when the courts refuse to hear their cases.

  919. Am I reading this right? Since when does “Christian” have anything to do with one’s opinion of a person holding an office in our government?

    One’s opinion of an office holder has nothing at all to do with Christianity. Once again, you didn’t read it correctly.
    I am beginning to think that your misinterpretations of what I write are purposeful on your part.

  920. Robert wrote:

    Yeah, WB. Ya know…. read what you are saying. To busy with a friend in rehab (good for you being a true friend, and no finer place to show that than when someone else is in rehab, etc. No joke intended), but not to busy to throw out a “dig” at the duly elected POTUS?
    THAT is “Christian?”

    Am I reading this right? Since when does “Christian” have anything to do with one’s opinion of a person holding an office in our government?
    Suddenly, disagreeing with the “duly elected POTUS”, is now a “DIG”?
    Well……..GLORY BE!!!!!
    Awwwww…….you’re goin straight to HELL for THAT ONE Wild Bill!!!!!

  921. Robert wrote:

    Can ANYONE tell me ANY government officials name that told Iacocca “By the way Lee, because you took money from us, we are now going to tell you how to run your business!”?
    Jimmy Carter. The president at the time.
    Chrysler had to give a number of concessions for the government to GUARANTEE THE LOAD (unlike your incorrect statement, the government did NOT “loan” Chrysler money).

    Well, here is what is known for a FACT about the Chrysler Loan in 1979…….
    http://opencrs.com/document/R40005/

    Provisions in the Chrysler Loan Guarantee Act of 1979 included the establishment of a Chrysler Loan Guarantee Board, extensive federal oversight of Chrysler?s operations, detailed reporting requirements by Chrysler?s management, shared sacrifice of parties benefiting from the loan guarantee, and protection of the federal government?s interest.

    Now, correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t see a THING about President Carter tellin Chrysler “You will run it MY way….yada, yada, yada” here! I DO see where there is “federal oversight” and a clause for “protection of interest”, both of which are sound business decisions. However, the FACT remains that there was NO ONE in government, especially the President of the United States, going on record as wanting to FIRE ANYONE within the company simply because said company came to the government with hat in hand.
    Sorry Robert, but your O is about the most ARROGANT ASS ever to set foot in WDC, and it is showing that arrogance every day! Again, a clear example of what happens when someone who LIES his way into a position of power oft times is GUILTY of the MISUSE of that position!
    One other thing……..the office of President of the United States is the office of the Commander In Chief of our armed forces. I can tell you from experience, there is not one dang instance written ANYWHERE in the military jargon that states that ANYONE MUST respect the office holder or uniform wearer. It is the OFFICE and the UNIFORM that are shown respect….NOT the MAN……whether he is LYING every time he opens his mouth or gettin a blow job from under the desk in the Oval Office (clearly a case of total DISRESPECT of said office) while talkin on the phone to heads of State!
    Also this…the military themselves will be the first to tell anyone (and they often do tell EVERY RECRUIT who enters boot camp) “We can’t MAKE you do ANYTHING…..but we can DAMN SURE make you WISH YOU HAD done it!” 😉

  922. Robert
    It is OK if you do not change your mind. But consider what a drill instructor will and can do.
    Will Bill:
    Thanks!

  923. Hugh –
    Sorry to say, but Robert will not change. That’s okay.
    I’m sure that he is absolutely sure of his position. You and I, Greek, and Loyd are too. However, I hasten to point out that when in boot camp, if everyone else is moving the right foot forward and you are moving the left foot forward, you might want to change before the DI finds out. But then, on the other hand, perhaps you like extra military instuction time. Not me.
    Okay, here we go again
    Robert said

    Yeah, WB. Ya know…. read what you are saying. To busy with a friend in rehab (good for you being a true friend, and no finer place to show that than when someone else is in rehab, etc. No joke intended), but not to busy to throw out a “dig” at the duly elected POTUS?
    THAT is “Christian?”
    ?

    Fine. We are back to, as it is known, Square One. Since you have already admitted that you cannot prove the case for BHO being eligible or ineligible, accept the fact and watch where this is going.
    And English 101, the word “Too” should have been in place of “To”.
    Mother was a graduate of Iowa University with a major in English and a minor in French. I never learned too much French. But I do know English.
    I had come to wonder why someone couldn’t find records of foreign students getting money from the Federal Government. Guess what? Seems that Dr. Taitz has such a record that would seem to infer that BHO did, in fact, get federal student aid monies while attending Occidental College under the premise that he was a foreign national. Now, as of today, that is still a fact not in evidence, but it may soon be.
    Dig, sir? No, sir. I have questions. I want them answered. Don’t you?
    Oregon may be one of the least religious states in the country, but there is more than two of us who believe.
    For the record, my friend has been able to walk down the hallway and will probably fully recover and dance again with her boyfriend. OH. They are both past 80 years of age.
    Thanks again, Robert. You are a prince.

    Not an easy place to get into…

    Right.

  924. Robert:
    It certainly is not too much to ask!
    The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was adopted on December 6, 1865, and was then declared in a proclamation of Secretary of State William H. Seward on December 18.
    Specifically Section 1 says: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
    Now concerning the lawsuits:
    You reply to my words:
    “‘There is nothing definite and final about the Obama situation. There are an abundance of lawsuits concerning Obama. If that was so, the lawsuits would cease.’
    What makes you say such a thing?? I can file a lawsuit tomorrow against my neighbor’s puppy for urinating on my fence. It doesn’t mean it will go anyplace (just as the BHO suits have gone nowhere).”
    I am certain that you consider any lawsuit bought against your “anointed one” as total folly and foolishness. As you know there are people (other than the Greek, Wild Bill and Loyd and myself) who have bought their lawsuits—-those attorneys who have fought this battle, those attorneys who understand accurately the implications of the Hawaiian COLB, the need to actually see the vault copy of the original birth certificate, the natural born citizen issues, and how these relate to history.
    These attorneys are Donofrio, Taitz, Pidgeon, and Berg, etc. If Obama satisfies these people as to his qualifications they will drop their lawsuits.
    You compare bringing a lawsuit of your neighbor’s puppy urinating on your fence as going nowhere as to lawsuits bought by attorneys involving grave Constitutional issues as going nowhere.
    Robert, even if the Constitutional lawsuits are going nowhere, those same lawsuits and the attorneys deserve RESPECT, just because of the nature of the lawsuits involved.
    You treat weighty matters as mere trivia! You will do well to change your mind.

  925. Can ANYONE tell me ANY government officials name that told Iacocca “By the way Lee, because you took money from us, we are now going to tell you how to run your business!”?

    Jimmy Carter. The president at the time.
    Chrysler had to give a number of concessions for the government to GUARANTEE THE LOAD (unlike your incorrect statement, the government did NOT “loan” Chrysler money).

  926. Nice, Robert. Thanks for the dig about the Car and Driver joke. Notice that I posted the error only two hours and forty four minutes later. And during that time I was visiting a member of our church who is in rehab after a brain hemorage, so I wasn’t doing due dilegence. So, MY BAD, I was busy trying to be a Christian and a friend.

    Yeah, WB. Ya know…. read what you are saying. To busy with a friend in rehab (good for you being a true friend, and no finer place to show that than when someone else is in rehab, etc. No joke intended), but not to busy to throw out a “dig” at the duly elected POTUS?
    THAT is “Christian?”
    ?

  927. I attended one of the same schools as BHO. I went to Harvard in 1992; not law, but government

    Not an easy place to get into…

    At no time did any one of my professors,even those who hadn’t served a President, make any statements about any administration that reflect any of the crap that we are currently seeing.

    LOL- so what are you saying? That BHO was worse than Nixon for crime? Or worse than W for stomping on the Constitution?
    Sorry, not hardly.

    BTW, Robert, have you ever corrected yourself when you made an error?

    Of course. See my post to you regarding “IF BHO was born in HI.”

  928. Robert –
    You need to realize that the boys in WDC are only concerned about –
    Wait, not necessarily ALL of them, but a hell of a lot.
    I ain’t gonna brag, but I’m going to make a statement. I attended one of the same schools as BHO. I went to Harvard in 1992; not law, but government. I learned a lot from a lot of men who had actually been advisors to past presidents, in economics and policy. At no time did any one of my professors,even those who hadn’t served a President, make any statements about any administration that reflect any of the crap that we are currently seeing.
    And I think, and hope, that you will have to swallow your pride, and arrogance. I don’t think that seeking truth is arrogant or prideful. And I want the truth. So do lots of others.

  929. Nice, Robert. Thanks for the dig about the Car and Driver joke. Notice that I posted the error only two hours and forty four minutes later. And during that time I was visiting a member of our church who is in rehab after a brain hemorage, so I wasn’t doing due dilegence. So, MY BAD, I was busy trying to be a Christian and a friend.
    Again, thanks for your…

  930. Oh yeah……one more thing……
    Remember Chrysler Corp. and Lee Iacocca? He took out a government loan to bring Chrysler back when it was foundering……………..remember?
    Can ANYONE tell me ANY government officials name that told Iacocca “By the way Lee, because you took money from us, we are now going to tell you how to run your business!”?
    IT NEVER HAPPENED!!
    ONLY with O and his cronies, can this type behavior EVER BE SEEN! First mark of a TRUE DICTATOR!!
    There have been many government loans made to companies in the past and NEVER has our government EVER acted in this manner……..NEVER!

  931. There is nothing definite and final about the Obama situation. There are an abundance of lawsuits concerning Obama. If that was so, the lawsuits would cease.

    What makes you say such a thing?? I can file a lawsuit tomorrow against my neighbor’s puppy for urinating on my fence. It doesn’t mean it will go anyplace (just as the BHO suits have gone nowhere).

    He is actively violating the Constitution with his National Security Force,

    Sure he has. Would asking you to quote the unconstittutional passage be to much to ask?

  932. Why am I NOT surrprised that this crowd swallowed the Car and Driver hoax hook, line, and sinker?
    By the by- and I say this as a person against the bail outs. If a company takes federal money, sits at the tax dollar teat? GUESS WHAT: the government (e.g. BHO) gets plenty of say in how that comany operates their business.
    So stop all the “dictator” nattering, and tell me who held a gun to any company’s head and forced them to take the money??

  933. Well, this is apparently NOT an April Fool’s Day gag.
    http://www.redstate.com/josh_painter/2009/04/01/ap-obama-tax-pledge-up-in-smoke/
    Fortunately I gave up on all tobacco products many years ago, but with regard to no increases in taxes… I guess that raising taxes on tobacco products isn’t raising taxes on people in the eyes of BHO.
    We’ve had this same discussion in Oregon more than once and it has never flown because of two primary reasons: 1. More low income people smoke than higher income; and 2. When they can’t afford to smoke, they quit and away goes the income stream for the care of the children – and then they come back and raise income taxes for the rest of us so they can continue the program. Nutty. Evidently there is a total lack of understanding of economics in WDC.

  934. Wild Bill wrote:

    Sorry, gents, but the whole thing about NASCAR was a hoax by Car and Driver.

    ROFLMFAO
    Well, they picked a very believable subject to pull this one off…and got quite a few, I’m sure!
    At least it gives us something to laugh about and that’s what this day is all about anyway! 😉

  935. Sorry, gents, but the whole thing about NASCAR was a hoax by Car and Driver.

    Car and Driver pulled off the biggest April Fools’ Day joke of the day on its Web site, caranddriver.com. It posted a story headlined “Obama Orders Chevrolet and Dodge Out Of NASCAR – Car News”
    Granted, right below the headline, you saw the words “HAPPY APRIL FOOLS’ DAY! THIS IS A JOKE. LIGHTEN UP, PEOPLE”. Still, it became one of the hottest items on Twitter during the noon hour and has sparked a lot of conversation about the auto industry’s involvement in NASCAR.
    (UPDATE: Car and Driver pulls the story, apologizes for the hoax, saying “it went too far”).

    But the story did go all over the place before Car and Driver fessed up.

  936. Greek and Wild Bill:
    “Seen the latest? BHO has told GM and Chrysler that they can no longer participate in NASCAR events after this season if they want Federal funding.
    I know what I’d do.”
    This is the arrogance I am speaking about! Obama and his administration are telling GM and Chrysler what to do about NASCAR. It really is GM and Chrysler’s decision. And Obama says the FEDS do not want to run a auto company.
    In a sense, Obama is challenging NASCAR. Well, there will probably be a revolt among the NASCAR fans. As the Greek says: TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK.

  937. Wild Bill wrote:

    Seen the latest? BHO has told GM and Chrysler that they can no longer participate in NASCAR events after this season if they want Federal funding.
    I know what I’d do.

    You have GOT to be KIDDIN!! This is exactly what happens when an arrogant little s**t gets a little power and it goes to his head!
    Think of this…..a guy that has NEVER run a company of ANY KIND in his ENTIRE LIFE is now picturing himself as the head of the largest auto makers in the world!
    This is just UNF***INBELIEVABLE!!!!!

  938. Seen the latest? BHO has told GM and Chrysler that they can no longer participate in NASCAR events after this season if they want Federal funding.
    I know what I’d do.

  939. Greek:
    You are right! Anyone with half an ear open has trouble with the man. The average Obama supporter did not sign up for what we are all going through. I was speaking yesterday with a friend. He said “Obama could be impeached, someone could take him out, or the LORD could strike him down.” He will cross some line and it could happen. It is very sad! It does not need to happen, but it very much could happen since Obama is so ARROGANT. From what I can see he is trying to take the whole Nation down. You can mark my words, such ARROGANCE will be dealt with sometime, someplace. It is only a matter of TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK.
    On a historical note, the Colonists were willing to live under King George III but he and the British Empire became arrogant oppressors. So it became only a matter of TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK, TICK TOCK.

  940. What I find amazing in all this is that most people that are in support of O would probably ask for more information regarding their dentist or physician than they are of O….this the person that holds the highest office in the land…..simply UNBELIEVABLE!
    What DO we know about O, indeed! NOT VERY MUCH!! Harder questions have been asked of a person accused of committing a crime than is being asked of O…..WHY?
    I simply cannot understand this at all! I know (gut feeling, ok?) that the O supporters that are still trying to legitimize their guy are deep down having their own questions regarding this guy. I talk with quite a few Dems, some my closest friends, and the situation with practically ALL OF THEM is the same….BEFORE the election, during the campaign, you could hardly get them to shut up when it came to ANY discussion regarding O…..now, it’s hard to get a PEEP outta them! GONE is the “Hey, he’s my guy and I’ll defend him to the death” type attitude.
    I have one friend in particular, a black cop out of the New Orleans area, about as staunch an O support as can be found. During the campaign all I heard was “Your guy McCain is going down and the black guy is gonna win…deal with it” type talk. Now…..NOT ONE WORD! I respect this individual too much to send him anything with an “I told you so attitude” because I know that he is having serious questions regarding his stance. BEFORE the election, all I heard was O this and O that….since about the first 30 days in office, NOT ONE WORD! I feel sorry for the guy because I know just how much faith he (and others like him) had put in O and now O is just taking a giant DUMP on him just like he is doing everyone else.
    My prediction is, there will come a time (hopefully soon) when even O’s staunchest supporters are going to start coming out publicly and DEMANDING that O put up or shut up and get outta Dodge! I know that if this were MY guy acting in this manner, I would be FURIOUS that he is doing something which, by his very actions, would be making me (and anyone else who supported him) look like a damn FOOL………and I personally don’t like looking like a FOOL for ANYONE!
    I have to believe that neither do O’s supporters.
    JMHO

  941. I operate my own business, and so, I come into contact with many different people daily.
    It has been a suprise to me to hear my customers tell me that they regret putting O into office. I ask why?
    Simply put , they’re scared . With O’s new found Power , it just seems that he is becoming a Dictator.
    Hmmmm. Now I wonder why that would be? If it walks, looks and sounds like a duck , well you know.
    Americans have become fat and lazy. When they finally wake up and get off of their asses it might just be to late. Does anyone remember Adolf Hitler ( 1933 – 1945) ? It couldn’t happen in America. When the masses are willing to overlook the obvious , it very well could.
    Tell me Anyone – What do you KNOW about Barack Hussein Obama?

  942. Robert:
    You say:
    If this doesn’t get resolved soon, we will lose our country!
    Incorrect. It was “resolved” in November 2008. Definitively and finally.
    I say:
    There is nothing definite and final about the Obama situation. There are an abundance of lawsuits concerning Obama. If that was so, the lawsuits would cease. But even if the lawsuits ceased Obama is seizing or trying to seize parts of the private sector (interfering with the banks, oil companies, health care, etc.), telling the GM CEO that he must step down. He has placed the Census under White House control. He is actively violating the Constitution with his National Security Force, and in other areas. He has the blessings of the Democratic-lead Congress in all this effort. The Federal Government is to assure the States of a Republic form of government, yet Obama marches toward Socio-Facism or Marxism. He has afflicted AIG bonus receivers with what may be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. A President swears an oath to uphold the Constitution.
    Obama is an accident waiting to happen. Nothing will satisfy the Greek, Wild Bill, Loyd or me concerning Obama except full disclosure of all the facts. We have given you many convincing proofs the Obama is a fraud and an usurper. My evidence has been historically based.

  943. Hey, Robert!
    Confirming what the Greek posted. No S…!
    What concerns me, Greek, Loyd, Hugh and others, is that we don’t have a sitting president who is willing to prove his authority to be in the position of POTUS.
    Where the heck is your head?
    Well, no matter what, I am sure you will continue to “Stay the Course!” OMG, THAT was Republican!
    Okay, Robert. Let’s go back to square one. Is BHO an alien citizen? And a usurper? Bet’cha he is.

  944. Robert wrote:

    If this doesn’t get resolved soon, we will lose our country!
    Incorrect. It was “resolved” in November 2008. Definitively and finally.

    Hummm…don’t think the election in November 2008 had anything at all to do with Gov. Kathleen Sebelius!
    Definition of ‘definitively’……

    Adjective
    definitive
    1. explicitly defined
    2. conclusive or decisive
    3. definite, authoritative and complete

    NONE of the above apply. Nothing as yet is “explicit”, “conclusive” or “definite” regarding O’s natural born citizen status!
    Furthermore, to say that an ILL INFORMED ELECTORATE, by their vote, has turned O into a natural born citizen is just plain laughable.
    What I find utterly alarming is that there are actually people in this country that seem to think it alright that we now have a person sitting in the Oval Office representing our nation that has a problem with being an open book when it comes to ANY question regarding his prior life!
    There is one reason, and one reason only, why O is fighting full disclosure and that is because he knows there is something in his past that is going to come back and bite him in the ass!
    Plain and simple!!!!!
    TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK

  945. If this doesn’t get resolved soon, we will lose our country!

    Incorrect. It was “resolved” in November 2008. Definitively and finally.
    By the by, your crack about Dems as the party related to Sebelius was pretty hilarious. Do a quick google for “The Dukester” and “page sex scandal” and then imply again that only the Dems have ethical problems.

  946. Off point, but relevant. BHO’s latest, the Honorable Governor of Kansas, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, for HHS, just recently learned that she owed back taxes plus penalties.
    OH, I’m so shocked!
    Another Dem who can’t figure out that H&R Block will do your taxes.
    If this doesn’t get resolved soon, we will lose our country!

  947. Don’t know if any of you have seen this yet, but there will be a conference in WDC 3-4 Apr.
    http://www.nationalconferenceonobama.blogspot.com/
    It will be interesting to see what comes out of this.
    And, if you haven’t heard Dr. Orly recently, seems she now has records from the state of California that indicate BHO was getting college aid as a foreign student. Stuff just keeps coming up!
    The video gets to the student aid at about 6:35. Thanks, Greek.

  948. Robert –
    If BHO is, in fact, ineligible, then there is a problem. And if no one in Congress is looking or gives a… whatever, then shame on them. But I see that there seems to be a lot of support for a bunch of lawyers telling industry what they (industry) can and cannot do, and they have BETTER solutions that they will impose. Horse hockey!
    What we have is a bunch of folks in WDC who think they are better at being captains of industry than the people who actually do the job. Got your tea bag tabs addressed yet?

  949. I won’t argue with you on the GWB thing, but I personally disagree with those who say that GWB used lies to get us into the conflicts that we are still engaged in.

    I agree with you 100%. My point is that I put the people you linked us to regarding Obama in exactly the same category that I put the people who want to indict Bush.

    There are several new issues at hand that we may hear about in the next week. I certainly hope that would be true. The entire issue of the eligibility of BHO is overshadowing conversation not just here, but on a lot of other sites as well.

    But no place that matters. Certainly, no one in congress is wasting their time with this.

  950. Robert –
    I won’t argue with you on the GWB thing, but I personally disagree with those who say that GWB used lies to get us into the conflicts that we are still engaged in. He, along wtih many other leaders of other countries were convinced that the INTEL was good. And on our side, it was a WJC guy who fed him the INTEL. So, what the hell was he guilty of? Shouldn’t we go after the rest of the leaders of the free world if we were to go after GWB?
    As far as I’m concerned even if some of what GWB did wasn’t what I wanted, he did keep us safe. Or, let me rephrase, we were not attacked after 9/11. Could have been GWB, could have been that no outside cabel wants to really fire up the tiger. And they could, very easily to this day.
    So, where do we go from here? BHO is under fire to let “We The People” know the truth. We need to know the truth. I didn’t put my butt on the line to be attacked by enemy combatants because I was doing my duty and our country was not violating any International Law, but that is what happened. Now we have nations that BHO wants to bring into the fold who are telling him that he is too tough. Oh, great! I will still defend my country, should it come to that, but frankly, we need more than ever to support ourt troops and our Constitution. That’s about all there is between our way of life and socialism.
    I have friends who are going to move to Canada. She is a native Canadian, he is a (dare I say it?) natural born American citizen. He can’t take a handgun although he is retired law enforcement from this country. Just read an article about Vancouver, British Columbia today. The murder rate by firearms is up drastically. And you can’t have handguns in Canada (well, maybe if you have special dispensation from someone in high office).
    Okay, back to where I was headed (sorry about the sidebar), we have to be a country of laws. We have to ensure the enforcement of those laws. Not just for the Commander in Chief and President of The United States of America. Everyone.
    There are several new issues at hand that we may hear about in the next week. I certainly hope that would be true. The entire issue of the eligibility of BHO is overshadowing conversation not just here, but on a lot of other sites as well.
    Global warming? Horse hockey! Compact florescent light (CFL) bulbs to replace incandescent bulbs? Horse hockey! No new coal fired electrical generation plants? There’s a loser! Wind turbines? Ask the folks in the Columbia Gorge in Oregeon. Solar? BHO says that we can manufacture them in this country and give high wages to the builders. Great! Why is it that all of the CFL bulbs are made in China? No nukes? Give me a break! Trojan Power Plant on the Columbia River was a new experiment of sort of new technology. It had some problems, but no one died from the problems. Chernoble? Big problems, but no one was killed. There may be some long term effects, but then, I was exposed to a lot of asbestos while I was in, and while I worked for, the US Navy. I ain’t dead. And in spite of smoking for a lot of years, I don’t have any particular breathing problems except when the pollen count gets high.
    Yeah, we’ve got problems.
    Right here in River City.
    With a capital “T”,
    and that rhymes with “P”
    and that stands for…
    Don’t matter. We are in trouble.
    Okay, folks. End of diatribe.
    G’night.

  951. Did you bother to read the site you linked to WB?
    The guy conjures up a Grand Jury, and, finding nothing in the Constitution that might help him, goes back to a variety of foreign documents, including the MAGNA CARTA?!?!
    WB- it’s the same people who were trying to indict GW Bush for War Crimes. No more or less bombastic…

  952. Robert wrote:

    Hummmmmm…..care to site your source here Robert…….verbatim complete with a link please? This answer seems just a tad bit vague at best, IMHO.
    Asked and answered:
    http://defendourfreedoms.us/

    Hummmmmm…took a look and could not find what you are referring to….clarification with something more specific please?
    Robert wrote:

    So, are you saying that since anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone about anything this makes any lawsuit “meaningless” simply because it doesn’t agree with your view of the circumstances?
    No, that is not what I’m saying.

    Then please, exactly what are you saying Robert?
    Robert wrote:

    The justices vote and set precedent on the issues before them, not what an individual justice may say in an opinion.

    Robert, the very reason the Justices do write opinion is so their ruling can be explained in full and that opinion is therefore directly linked to their ruling. If this were not the case, what would be the purpose of a Justice, or anyone for that matter, including their opinion along with their ruling?
    Think about it.
    No matter how much one may like to separate the two, it can’t be done. Kinda like “Don’t confuse me with facts….” 😉

  953. Has anyone other than me looked at Defend Our Freedoms Foundation today? Seems that the Pakistani government is telling their own people that BHO was born in Kenya!
    How interesting!

  954. Robert:
    I say:
    Chief Justice John Marshall did write in his majority opinion of Marbury v Madison that “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”
    You said:
    “The(y) do not carry the weight of an opinion and set precedent, because the issue you are tying to the words (construction of clauses in the Constitution) was not the issue before the Court.
    The justices vote and set precedent on the issues before them, not what an individual justice may say in an opinion.”
    I say:
    Chief Justice John Marshall did write the majority opinion in Marbury v Madison. In his Constitutional capacity as Chief Justice, Marshall wrote the majority opinion, not an opinion as an individual Justice, nor a minority dissenting opinion.
    Now, it is reasonable to me that a majority opinion expressed on paper by a Chief Justice is fully supported by the others joining him in that opinion. Hence, there is a majority opinion. Perhaps the other Justices would write the opinion differently, but there was definitely agreement among the majority opinion Justices, otherwise those Justices could have joined the dissenting minority and overturned the expressed majority.
    You assert that “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it” does ‘not carry the weight of an opinion and set precedent, because the issue you are tying to the words (construction of clauses in the Constitution) was not the issue before the Court.’
    I say:
    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it” is written into the majority opinion of Marbury v Madison, and its inclusion in the opinion means that it is, in fact, part of that same opinion and carries the weight of that same opinion.
    Furthermore, the words “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it” actually do deal with the construction of clauses in the Constitution.
    Yet you say: The words do not ‘…set precedent, because the issue you are tying to the words (construction of clauses in the Constitution) was not the issue before the Court.’
    Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion Marbury v Madison in 1803. Has Marbury v Madison been reversed or overturned? No! So, the case still has legal authority in 2009.
    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it” is expressing a principle of Constitutional interpretation.
    Of course, the “construction of clauses in the Constitution was not the issue before the Court” in Marbury v Madison, but the case did speak to the nature of interpreting word clauses within the Constitution.
    So, again the self-evident words of the Constitution in “…Article I Section 2 requires Representatives to be Citizens of the United States, and Article I Section 3 requires Senators to be Citizens of the United States.
    Natural born citizen status is not required for Representatives and Senators. Therefore, it is possible to be a ‘born citizen’ of the United States, but not a ‘natural born citizen.’
    It is impossible for the Supreme Court to come to any other conclusion than my original assertion to you that “I think it is fair to say: All persons born in the United States are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens.”
    Therefore, since the words in Article I Section 2 and 3 and Article II Section I are self-evident, those words speak for themselves with full authoritative and precedent setting weight. No Supreme Court has overturned these Articles and Sections, nor does the “issue of clauses of the Constitution” not being before Marbury v Madison have any effect.

  955. An interesting take on Marbury Madison and how it may REALLY be used to set precedent for Obama (note that this does NOT dealy with Marshall’s statement, which, in my previously expressed opinion, does not have any application here):
    http://blog.ccraig.org/2008/12/marbury-madison-and-obama.html
    I’m not sure that I agree with him (and the guy is no wild eyed lefty- he criticizes Griswold)
    There is nothing in Article III that grants the Court the power to arbitrate who gets to serve at the top of the executive branch.
    Just sort of an interesting take…

  956. This quote of Chief Justice John Marshall is directly written into the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Marbury v Madison. As such, it is authoritative and precedent setting to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore, I see no reason that it does “not carry the weight of an opinion of the Court” and “set precedent”.

    The do not carry the weight of an opinion and set precedent, because the issue you are tying to the words (construction of clauses in the Constitution) was not the issue before the Court.
    The justices vote and set precedent on the issues before them, not what an individual justice may say in an opinion.

  957. Gentlemen –
    Let me intrude on the conversation.
    Law is law. And it is my understanding that the Law of This Land is our Constitution. And may it forever stand.
    Hugh, you are “spot on!!” English oath, and I love it.
    Robert, you are a good sport and I hope you will continue to stay with us as a Patriot.
    If we don’t have the Constitution, we might as well all find caves to live in, flint for our muskets, lead for bullets, and the three ingredients for black powder. And I know what they are. I did that as a teenager – just because it was interesting.
    I note, with a great deal of enthousiasm that the Christian community is becoming a factor. I take pride in being a Christian and I am glad to know that there are a lot of us.
    From the movie “Breaker Morant” which is about the Boer wars in South Africa:
    Matthew 10:36
    It is NOT about YOUR household, but it is about the world.
    Stay together. And it is more than just the current administration. It IS about the world.
    If BHO is exposed, at that point we all need to regroup and defend our Constitution, because if we don’t there will be no America.

  958. Robert, Wild Bill, Greek, and Loyd:
    Dr. Taitz really does have persistence guts. Most people, most lawyers would not go to the lengths she has, speaking to Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Scalia personally.

  959. Robert:
    You say:
    “Regarding Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison: The words of a Supreme Court justice do not carry the weight of an opinion of the Court, and certainly do not set precedent.”
    I say:
    This quote of Chief Justice John Marshall is directly written into the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Marbury v Madison. As such, it is authoritative and precedent setting to the best of my knowledge. Furthermore, I see no reason that it does “not carry the weight of an opinion of the Court” and “set precedent”.
    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.”
    These words set forth a principle of Constitutional interpretation and, as such, apply to all the Constitution and in all cases.
    So, I had said the following:
    “It is true that Marbury v Madison does not deal specifically with the natural born citizen issue, but Chief Justice Marshall gave a principle of Constitutional interpretation when he authored the opinion, therefore, his interpretation applies to all the words of the Constitution, I would think.”
    You say:
    “I don’t see how this would be. In effect, you are saying that that interpretation becomes THE interpretation without ever being brought before the Court, or argued to the Court, etc., etc.”
    I say:
    The above-stated presumption is a principle based on the facts presented in Marbury v Madison before the Supreme Court. Marbury v Madison has already been argued before the Supreme Court.
    I also said:
    “If any court made any different interpretation, that interpretation would be unconstitutional since the words and rationale in the Constitution is self-evident. It is the only reasonable conclusion that I can see.”
    Let me explain:
    I did say “Notwithstanding the interpretation of any court, The Constitution says:
    Article I Section 2 requires Representatives to be Citizens of the United States, and Article I Section 3 requires Senators to be Citizens of the United States.
    Natural born citizen status is not required for Representatives and Senators. Therefore, it is possible to be a ‘born citizen’ of the United States, but not a ‘natural born citizen.’”
    It is impossible for the Supreme Court to come to any other conclusion than my original assertion to you that “I think it is fair to say: All persons born in the United States are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens.”
    Therefore, “If any court made any different interpretation, that interpretation would be unconstitutional since the words and rationale in the Constitution is self-evident. It is the only reasonable conclusion that I can see.”
    You replied:
    “I disagree- a Court’s interpretation stands until it is overruled by a higher Court.”
    I say:
    I agree with you, but…
    Marbury v Madison is settled case law. Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution are settled law.
    Let me know what you think!

  960. Thank you, Robert.
    As the line from “Quigley Down Under” said:
    Don’t know where we’re goin’, but no point in bein’ late.

  961. By the way, Robert, a court clerk is not a Justice or a Judge. And it may just be that the “hapless court clerk” was not doing the job he should have been.

    True, WB. Of course, it seems from Orly’s pettion that anyone with whom Orly disagrees is not doing their job…

  962. Hummmmmm…..care to site your source here Robert…….verbatim complete with a link please? This answer seems just a tad bit vague at best, IMHO.

    Asked and answered:
    http://defendourfreedoms.us/

    So, are you saying that since anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone about anything this makes any lawsuit “meaningless” simply because it doesn’t agree with your view of the circumstances?

    No, that is not what I’m saying.

  963. By the way, Robert, a court clerk is not a Justice or a Judge. And it may just be that the “hapless court clerk” was not doing the job he should have been.

  964. Hummmmm…earlier upthread I posted this query………

    NEWSFLASH!!!!!
    85,000 Questions Pour In for Obama Web Chat
    http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_online_town_hall/2009/03/26/196170.html?s=al&promo_code=7CE5-1
    Hummmmmmmm….any takers on the possibility of THIS question gettin to the table to be asked of O?
    “Mr. O…….could you please tell us WHY you are not willing to have the vault copy of your birth certificate currently held by the State of Hawaii released for public scrutiny and verification that you indeed are eligible to hold the office of President of the United States?”
    FOLLOW UP QUESTION…….”Mr. O…….will you now publicly, in front of all these cameras and microphones, tell the State of Hawaii that it is alright with you for them to release that original birth certificate. You ARE on a nationwide feed sir!”
    ANY TAKERS?

    Here’s the latest NEWSFLASH regarding same………………………
    Obama seizes bully pulpit online to pitch budget
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090326/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_online_town_hall
    Direct quote from linked article…………………………

    In a forum that gave him an essentially passive audience…

    Not surprisingly, the Internet questioning dovetailed with the president’s key projects: universal health care, improved education, energy independence and the range of promises made in the White House campaign.

    How LAME! This guy couldn’t sell lemonade to an educated 5 year old unless he totally controls the floor by making sure that no one could ask any hardball questions.
    I TOLD YA we wouldn’t hear a damn thing of any substance outta this IDIOT! 😉

  965. Robert wrote:

    I don’t recall her ever calling for indicting judges
    It’s there! Right between the call to indict Timothy Geithner, and the call to indict some hapless court clerk who made Orly angry…

    Hummmmmm…..care to site your source here Robert…….verbatim complete with a link please? This answer seems just a tad bit vague at best, IMHO.
    Robert wrote:

    But what is the sum total of this “activity?” ANYONE can file a lawsuit, about ANYTHING. It is meaningless.

    So, are you saying that since anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone about anything this makes any lawsuit “meaningless” simply because it doesn’t agree with your view of the circumstances?
    Interesting.

  966. I don’t recall her ever calling for indicting judges

    It’s there! Right between the call to indict Timothy Geithner, and the call to indict some hapless court clerk who made Orly angry…

    But I think you’ll have to admit that there seems to be a heightened level of activity with Orly and others as well. Now there is even a CIVIL case pending.

    But what is the sum total of this “activity?” ANYONE can file a lawsuit, about ANYTHING. It is meaningless.
    If you really want a hoot, though, read the letter from Carlton Childers. Poor guy hates EVERYONE.

  967. NEWSFLASH!!!!!

    85,000 Questions Pour In for Obama Web Chat

    http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_online_town_hall/2009/03/26/196170.html?s=al&promo_code=7CE5-1
    Hummmmmmmm….any takers on the possibility of THIS question gettin to the table to be asked of O?
    “Mr. O…….could you please tell us WHY you are not willing to have the vault copy of your birth certificate currently held by the State of Hawaii released for public scrutiny and verification that you indeed are eligible to hold the office of President of the United States?”
    FOLLOW UP QUESTION…….”Mr. O…….will you now publicly, in front of all these cameras and microphones, tell the State of Hawaii that it is alright with you for them to release that original birth certificate. You ARE on a nationwide feed sir!”
    ANY TAKERS?
    Naw….didn’t think so! I wouldn’t put my money on that dying horse either!!
    Folks, THIS is gonna be one of the biggest dog and pony shows ever to be aired out of the White House! There can’t possibly be ANYONE out there that truly believes THIS is not going to be orchestrated to the max by the White House…is there?
    Oh well…I guess it’s alright…at least O will have his teleprompter handy!!
    ROFLMFAO

  968. Robert –
    Not sure how you came up with this?

    Now we have Orly and her call to indict the judges. Hilarious stuff, I suppose.

    I don’t recall her ever calling for indicting judges.
    But I think you’ll have to admit that there seems to be a heightened level of activity with Orly and others as well. Now there is even a CIVIL case pending.

  969. According to postings on Orly’s site, http://defendourfreedoms.us/, she is getting some serious attention in WDC. Something to watch for sure.

    Great link, WB. And no different than the other screeds presented during the last administration: you couldn’t drive down the street without seeing some yahoo with a bumper sticker that said “Bush Lied, People Died” or “Bush is a Terrorist.”
    Now we have Orly and her call to indict the judges. Hilarious stuff, I suppose.
    It just goes to show that when the extreme left matches up against the extreme right, it is six in one hand and a half dozen in the other.

  970. WOW…….or should I say O U C H!!
    That article pretty much nailed it SPOT ON!!!
    I said it at the start of the campaign……..the guy has NO experience in these things….and I addressed my fears that O was probably gonna be elected simply because he is black…which is EXACTLY what has happened!
    Martin Luther King did indeed have a DREAM………..but I don’t think even he envisioned the NIGHTMARE we are having to put up with now!
    I’ve also stated….be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!
    Well, we got it….question is, what are we gonna DO WITH IT!
    I say KICK EM ALL OUT and let’s start all over from scratch…but FIRST, make it a LAW that you damn well better be able to PROVE where you came from and who you are BEFORE you can RUN for ANY OFFICE in this country!
    IF you can do that, THEN the PEOPLE can decide knowing who they are REALLY voting for!
    Fool me once, shame on YOU………….Fool me TWICE, shame on ME!

  971. All I can say is…IT’S ABOUT TIME!
    They can run…………but they can’t HIDE!!
    The wheels of justice at times grind slowly, but…..THEY DO GRIND!!!!!
    TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK

  972. Wild Bill,
    Thank You for another informative article.
    I have read enough . What are we going to do about it ?
    That is the question.
    Warren hasn’t sent me your e-mail address yet. Not sure he will.
    Here is mine. – [email protected].

  973. Robert, I will get back with you! Computer crashing? Carbonite has worked well for me.

  974. Wild Bill quoted:

    I opened my drawer and Dick Cheney had left me Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

    ROFLMFAO…now THAT’S F U N N Y….I don’t care who ya are!!

  975. And isn’t it interesting that the issue seems to be gaining momentum again. It must be bugging a lot of WDC since VP Joe made a joke – or something –

    “You know, I never realized just how much power Dick Cheney had until my first day on the job. I walked into my office, and you know how the outgoing president always leaves the incoming president a note in his desk? I opened my drawer and Dick Cheney had left me Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

    .

  976. Robert wrote:

    And, as CG indicates in a backhand sort of way, the continued discussion proves in spades why BHO has NOTHING to gain by releasing the original birth certificate.

    I wouldn’t think there is anything I have ever said anywhere that could be considered “backhanded”….it’s one of my faults……….someone doesn’t think they are gonna like the answer they might get, they shouldn’t be askin me the question, cause I ain’t about to try and sugar coat it for ya. 😉
    As to your “NOTHING to gain by releasing” statement…….FINALLY we agree on something!
    O indeed has NOTHING to gain by releasing……….but, on the other hand, he has EVERYTHING to LOOSE….and that is precisely WHY he is fighting to keep that birth certificate out of the public’s scrutiny!

  977. And, as CG indicates in a backhand sort of way, the continued discussion proves in spades why BHO has NOTHING to gain by releasing the original birth certificate.
    Those who are embittered by his election simply fall back to another claim that doesn’t stand up to testing: in this case, a natural born citizen requires two citizen parents.

  978. Sorry, Hugh! My computer crashed, and I got bolloxed up with the “rcsala/ Robert” thing. BOTH are me.
    Anyway…

    It is true that Marbury v Madison does not deal specifically with the natural born citizen issue, but Chief Justice Marshall gave a principle of Constitutional interpretation when he authored the opinion, Therefore, his interpretation applies to all the words of the Constitution, I would think.

    I don’t see how this would be. In effect, you are saying that that interpretation becomes THE interpretation without ever being brought before the Court, or argued to the Court, etc., etc.

    If any court made any different interpretation, that interpretation would be unconstitutional since the words and rationale in the Constitution is self-evident. It is the only reasonable conclusion that I can see.

    I disagree- a Court’s interpretation stands until it is overruled by a higher Court.

  979. United States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898) indicates that foreign born children of Americans are not natural born.

    No, it doesn’t.
    Can you give me the wording that you interpret that way.
    Regarding Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison: The words of a Supreme Court justice do not carry the weight of an opinion of the Court, and certainly do not set precedent.

  980. Greek:
    Yes, if there were other valid, provable facts that would support the natural born citizen, the Hawaiian birth certificate, and we could resolve these in the light of the Constitution, then we could agree with the other positions.
    There is no honor for us to know that Obama is liar. America needs to face the truth.

  981. Hugh wrote:

    If any court made any different interpretation, that interpretation would be unconstitutional since the words and rationale in the Constitution is self-evident. It is the only reasonable conclusion that I can see.

    Precisely Hugh….I agree! Therein lies the “fly in the ointment” when dealing or conversing with ANYONE who is an O supporter and tries to defend O’s ‘reluctance’ to have that vault copy viewed.
    It is “reasonable” to say that there is ONLY ONE REASON why ANYONE would NOT want that vault copy of the birth certificate made public….there is something on it that would PROVE that O is not who or what he says he is and would PROVE him to be a LIAR and not eligible for the office of President of the United States!
    Plain and SIMPLE!! 😉

  982. rcsala:
    You reply:
    “Those cunning arguments would leave the “natural born citizen” clause without effect. Such a construction is inadmissible.”
    Based on the words of Justice Marshall.
    OK.
    You ask:
    What court has upheld such an interpretation, or does Atty. Donofrio believe that all statements of justices written into opinions constitute a standing interpretation of the Constitution, even when those statements have nothing to do with the opinion being rendered
    I say:
    It is true that Marbury v Madison does not deal specifically with the natural born citizen issue, but Chief Justice Marshall gave a principle of Constitutional interpretation when he authored the opinion, Therefore, his interpretation applies to all the words of the Constitution, I would think.
    I do not know what Donofrio thinks about all the other statements of justices written in their opinions. You may write a comment to him at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
    As noted above Representative and Senators have to be “born citizens”; whereas, the President must be a “natural born citizen”. So, the clear words of the Constitution indicate that “… All persons born in the United States are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens.”
    If any court made any different interpretation, that interpretation would be unconstitutional since the words and rationale in the Constitution is self-evident. It is the only reasonable conclusion that I can see.

  983. Those cunning arguments would leave the “natural born citizen” clause without effect. Such a construction is inadmissible.

    Based on the words of Justice Marshall.
    OK.
    What court has upheld such an interpretation, or does Atty. Donofrio believe that all statements of justices written into opinions constitute a standing interpretation of the Constitution, even when those statements have nothing to do with the opinion being rendered?

  984. United States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898) indicates that foreign born children of Americans are not natural born.

    Thanks, Lloyd. Can you explain to me how that case has that effect?

  985. There is an old saying which is becoming more and more truthful every day with this current administration…………………………………………….
    “Power corrupts………….ABSOLUTE power corrupts ABSOLUTELY!”
    This is precisely the kind of action that one would expect coming out of a third world tyrannical government. Now, citizens of the United States are no longer just reading about it happening in some other part of the world but rather seeing it happen HERE, in our own country!
    This type of behavior is EXACTLY WHY the Constitution was written with such emphatic wording. The framers of our Constitution were not dummies. They had seen this type of governing before and were bound and determined not to live under this type of tyrannical power again. Their wording was NO ACCIDENT…..they meant for it to be taken LITERALLY and were willing to fight and die for their beliefs!
    When the citizenry is willing to just sit back and simply go along with whatever their government dishes out, those very citizens have lost their freedom without even realizing it.
    Now, thankfully the truth is out in the open for all to see. Not only is O willing to fight any legal proceedings in court with his $600/Hr. lawyers (at taxpayer expense more than likely), he is also willing (and without hesitation) to send the United States Marshall Service to the very doorstep of a citizen simply because this citizen exercised one of his Constitutional rights, a right that Americans have been willing to die for so that all may enjoy freedom.
    Having read what this man supposedly said to this judge, I can find NO personally threatening remarks made. Yet, this man was harassed at his own home because a federal judge “felt threatened”?
    What about the ‘THREAT’…the CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER that a lot of us United States citizens are feeling right now? Who is gonna stand up for US? Have we forgotten so soon that this is a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE and FOR THE PEOPLE?
    America had better WAKE UP! This is precisely they way countries are lost to dictatorships!
    Just to paraphrase a bit here and then I’ll get off this soap box…………………..
    “When they came for the Jews, I didn’t say anything…I wasn’t a Jew!
    When they came for the Catholics, I didn’t say anything…I wasn’t a Catholic! When they came for the Protestants, I didn’t say anything…I wasn’t a Protestant! When they came for ME…….there was NO ONE LEFT to say anything!”
    Think about it!!

  986. Hey Loyd –
    Yes, I certainly did. Apparently any of us whose opinions differ from those of the current folks in power in WDC makes us suspicious and potentially worthy of investigation.
    It amazes and amuses me that they have become, so it would seem, extremely paranoid. I don’t understand what is driving this obsession. Maybe it’s because they are afraid that they will get voted out. Damn soon. And I’ll bet they’re right.
    I want my country back!

  987. Robert:
    I said:
    “I think it is fair to say: All persons born in the United States are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens.”
    You said:
    “And that has NEVER been an interpretation of any court.”
    I assume the following bothers.
    Child is US born, foreign born parents do not naturalize before his birth; child is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.
    Let’s deal with it and get it behind us.
    Notwithstanding the interpretation of any court, The Constitution says:
    Article I Section 2 requires Representatives to be Citizens of the United States, and Article I Section 3 requires Senators to be Citizens of the United States.
    Natural born citizen status is not required for Representatives and Senators. Therefore, it is possible to be a “born citizen” of the United States, but not a “natural born citizen.”
    I reference a lengthy quote from:
    Two Minute Warning; Vattel Decoded By Leo Donofrio
    The case has also been thoroughly made that Obama is not a natural born citizen with regard to the presumption discussed in Marbury v. Madison by Chief Justice Marshall. That case stands for the nullification of the argument that one becomes eligible to be President through 14th Amendment citizenship (if born in the US). Chief Justice Marshall has spoken from the grave on this issue, and he holds that such a construction is “inadmissible”.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Yesterday, I had a revelation as to what Vattel meant and what the framers intended “natural born citizen” to mean in the Constitution. It’s obvious that the framers drew a distinction between the meaning of “citizen” and the meaning of “natural born citizen”. A “citizen” can be Senator or Representative, but in order to be President one must be a natural born citizen.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    We know that the 14th Amendment only mentions the word “citizen”. It does not use the words “natural born citizen”. And it makes no distinction between a “citizen” born in the US and a “citizen” naturalized in the US. Under the 14th Amendment, they are equals. The 14th Amendment certainly does not state that being a “citizen” satisfies the qualification of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
    Those who are trying to read such an interpretation into the 14th Amendment do so at the ignorance of Chief Justice Marshall’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison. Those cunning arguments would leave the “natural born citizen” clause without effect. Such a construction is inadmissible.
    Chief Justice Marshall provided only one exception to this rule, “such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it”. The words “natural born citizen” don’t require the clause to be construed to mean the same thing as the word “citizen”. The exact opposite is true. The plain text of the Constitution shows that the framers allowed persons to become Senators and Representatives if they were “Citizens”, but as to the office of President they required a “natural born citizen”. So the exception is irrelevant here.
    Marbury v. Madison creates a standing presumption against any interpretation that would render the “natural born citizen” clause to have no effect independent of being a “citizen”. Chief Justice Marshall insisted such a construction is inadmissible.
    INADMISSIBLE.
    Inadmissible in this context means such an argument is not competent to be considered. It’s essentially no different from the situation where a piece of evidence is excluded from trial. It means you can’t even argue such a thing before the court. Please think about this carefully. This means any argument that a “14th Amendment citizen” is the same as a “natural born citizen” – for purposes of effecting POTUS eligibility – is not competent to be considered by the court.
    If the natural born citizen issue were ever heard on the merits, the court hearing the case must recognize that a presumption exists requiring the natural born citizen clause to have independent effect from all clauses which just refer to “citizen”.
    Effect is the key.
    What is the independent effect attributed to the “natural born citizen” clause? The effect is that just being a “citizen” isn’t enough to satisfy the requirement of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 which demands that the President of the United States be a “natural born citizen”.
    This means that under current United States law, the “natural born citizen” clause is presumed to mean something other than a “14th Amendment citizen”. And no other construction is even admissible.
    You can take all the law review articles, emotional pleas claiming the natural born citizen clause is obsolete, the 14th Amendment arguments, Wong Kim Ark, and every main stream media barker, throw them before the SCOTUS altar, and make them kneel to Chief Justice Marshall and the framers.
    SCOTUS has spoken on this issue, and it said the “natural born citizen” clause, being a clause directly written into the text of the Constitution, is presumed to have a unique and independent effect.
    This is a point I have failed to make up until right now, so please forgive me for having not locked it down earlier. But don’t spank me too hard since it appears to be an original argument. It’s not a point I’ve seen published anywhere else.
    Of course it’s well known that each Constitutional clause must have an independent effect. But I don’t believe any other commentary has been published exposing this legal presumption in favor of the “natural born citizen” clause which also renders other arguments inadmissible. By other arguments, I refer to all theories claiming that a 14th Amendment “citizen” born on US soil satisfies the Constitutional qualifications for President.
    Regardless, I must give credit to my sister (an ex prosecutor) for having brought the independent legal effect argument to my attention while Donofrio v. Wells was still pending with SCOTUS. But without having Chief Justice Marshall’s brilliant opinion from Marbury v. Madison in front of me, I didn’t grasp the spectacular power of the presumption. So I’ll leave you with those words once more. Please give them your utmost concentration:
    “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible.…”
    Leo C. Donofrio 03.16.2009

  988. Warren –
    If you haven’t done so, please send my eMail address to LilLoyd.
    Thanks,
    THE Wild Bill

  989. Does anyone know an attorney in the LA area who is interested in this issue? If so, I’d like to learn a name. I already have several and they are already engaged on other fronts, but I’m looking for someone who can file an FOIA.
    Might prove to be interesting.

  990. Well, Greek –
    My original cerified copy no longer resides in my wallet, which it did for all four years in the USN. It’s battered and tattered, but you can still read it and the seal is still raised (not as well as when it was first crunched).

  991. All good questions Bill. I’m thinkin O DOES have them, he just don’t wanna show them!
    (Hummm…now how in hell did I come to THAT conclusion? LOL)
    I have a copy of MINE……been in the house since I was born and it clearly shows the attending physician and the witnesses!! My Mother kept it in my baby album.
    We wonder indeed ole buddy! 😉

  992. I just keep asking myself why BHO has a COLB and his birth certificate is on file, but apparently he doesn’t have a copy of it? If it is there, why didn’t mom and dad simply get a certified copy of the original instead of the COLB? And why didn’t he ever get one before he left Hawai’i for the mainland?

  993. LilLoyd wrote:

    How did he get past the qualifications part of becoming POTUS?

    Ohhhhh….let me give this one a try…………Hummmmmm…Oh yeah…it’s because O…
    L I E D!!!!!
    And THAT’S no brainer for sure!! 😉

  994. Robert,
    United States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898) indicates that foreign born children of Americans are not natural born.

  995. United States v. Wong Kim Ark(1898) indicates that foreign born children of Americans are not natural born.

  996. I think it is fair to say: All persons born in the United States are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens.

    And that has NEVER been an interpretation of any court.

  997. Barack H Obama is NOT Natural Born. This is a no Brainer. After reading the 14th Ammendment multiple times and cross referencing case after case

    You say “case after case.”
    Name one.

  998. Barack H Obama is NOT Natural Born. This is a no Brainer. After reading the 14th Ammendment multiple times and cross referencing case after case , There is no way according to our own written Constitution, that Obama is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen.
    How did he get past the qualifications part of becoming POTUS?

  999. Barack H Obama is NOT Natural Born. This is a no Brainer. After reading the 14th Ammendment multiple times and cross referencing case after case , There is no way according to our own written Constitution, that Obama is qualified as a Natural Born Citizen.
    How did he get past the qualifications ?

  1000. Robert:
    My understanding is:
    If Obama is born in America he is a United States citizen.
    If Obama is foreign born. he would have to be naturalized to become a United States citizen. If not naturalized, he is not even a United States citizen.
    The 14th Amendment speaks only of citizens “born or naturalized”. The 14th Amendment was ratified to secure the rights of former slaves and has broad application.
    Is the elusive third category you speak of “natural born citizen”?
    As you know, “natural born citizen”, the Presidential qualifier, is only found in Article II Section I.
    My understanding is
    The 14th Amendment and Article II Section I are not in conflict.
    I think it is fair to say: All persons born in the United States are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens.
    So, the possible options are:
    Child is US born, both parents are US born; child is natural born citizen.
    Child is US born, foreign born parents naturalize before his birth; child is natural born citizen.
    Child is US born, foreign born parents do not naturalize before his birth; child is a citizen but not a natural born citizen.
    Child is foreign born; the child can only naturalize to United States citizenship and can never be a natural born citizen.
    Don’t stumble over the two or three category issue. We cannot insert “natural born citizen” directly into the 14th Amendment, so to speak. But I think the 14th Amendment and Article II Section I intersect. Hence, the common words “born citizen”.
    I have thought for some time that people have been confused over the 14th Amendment and how it relates Article II Section I.
    This is the only way I have been able to resolve the issue and it is my current understanding!

  1001. In my March 19, 11:17 AM post what third category am I trying to bring into the Fourteenth Amendment? I am not even aware of my placing any third category in the Fourteenth Amendment. I can only find “born or naturalized” there.

    OK, Hugh. If there are only TWO types of US citizens, which of the above is Obama?

  1002. Any client who has an attorney who argues anything he wants to argue has a fool for an attorney.

    OK?

    I believe that I have conclusively made the point that as it currently stands NOT one of us knows the whole truth of place of birth. Robert, you and I stand apart on the issue, because I am very unsure of Hawai’i being the place of birth, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to say that he was born in Kenya. I DO NOT YET KNOW THE (explative deleted by me) ANSWER!!!

    And I am simply stating that I accept the COLB and statements of HI officials in this matter- I understand that that is not good enough for you (in light of the other things that you have read), and I understand that…

  1003. Robert:
    I said:
    Your are correct that ‘…any attorney can argue anything he wants to argue’
    Let me add:
    Any client who has an attorney who argues anything he wants to argue has a fool for an attorney.

  1004. Robert:
    You say:
    “All due respect to Atty Pidgeon (and I do agree that the Tingh case does not specify natural anything), any attorney can argue anything he wants to argue.”
    I say:
    Your are correct that ‘…any attorney can argue anything he wants to argue’. But there are attorneys that will not just argue to make a point or defend a client.
    Attorney Stephen Pidgeon is a Christian and is associated with other attorneys forming Deca Logos International. Their mission statement is described as follows:
    “To advocate for, to promote, and to advance God-ordained human rights in the international arena through word and deed for the glory of the name of Jesus Christ.
    Therefore know this day, and consider it in your heart, that the Lord Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. You shall therefore keep His statutes and His commandments which I command you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which the Lord your God is giving you for all time ~ Deuteronomy 4:39-40”
    I assert to you that Stephen Pidgeon is just not any attorney saying anything.
    Attorneys upholding their oaths will demand full disclose of facts from clients they are defending. if their clients refuse full disclosure, attorneys need to remove themselves from cases. Otherwise, they will be breaking the their oaths.

  1005. Very well stated Hugh!
    I don’t think anyone on here wants to be a “thorn” in anyone’s side on this thing.
    Personally, I just want the truth and at this stage in the game, I don’t believe I have heard that out of O’s mouth. I firmly and truly believe that the ONLY WAY the truth is gonna be found out is for that vault copy of the hand written birth certificate that Hawaii holds to be examined for originality and authenticity.
    My only problem with anyone that can’t understand this is to ask “Why” wouldn’t they want that vault copy looked at. As of now, I haven’t gotten what I consider to be a valid answer to that question.
    Either O is, or is not, a natural born citizen…….what’s the harm in finding out the TRUTH in this matter?

  1006. Wild Bill:
    I have no problem with what you said. You needed to say it, and you read my reply above.

  1007. To Wild Bill, Lloyd, Greek and Robert:
    Wild Bill said:
    I have never said, nor do I believe that Hugh, Loyd or the Greek have made any statement that we know where BHO was, in fact, born. We don’t have any proof any more than you. What we do have, I think, is a sense of dedication to our country, and all four of us are miltary, or in Loyd’s case a son of a miltary member. Three of us took an oath to uphold the constitution. I think Loyd is a firm beliver in that oath as well, even if he didn’t swear to it upon enlistment. That is what we are trying to do, uphold the constitution.
    I say:
    I did not serve in the military, but my Dad was a RM2/c on LSM-467 and LSM-49 during World War II. I think the dots lead to Kenya concerning Obama’s birth, but I don’t have absolute proof.
    Wild Bill appeals to Robert:
    I know you believe in the ‘IF.” On the other hand, you could join this group in a quest for the truth. I’ve done a lot of research based on your questions and assumptions. So far, every time I have done so, I find more and more questions, a few facts, but still not definitive answer.
    My reply to Robert:
    In so many ways, I feel the we (Wild Bill, Lloyd, the Greek, and I) are simply butting heads with you. We find this exasperating and not productive. Surely, we all have different views and angles. But that does not mean that I have the total truth in all these matters.
    I would never had written my comments on the American Thinker without your link reference.
    We are not interested in butting heads with you or anybody else. We are not even interested in being a thorn in your side.

  1008. If this was a court and I was the judge, I’d be banging my gavel and asking for order. Maybe demanding it. I would probably ask both attorneys to approach the bench and explain why we can’t have a civil discussion.
    Hugh and Robert. Please do not take offence at the above. I would simply, as I said before, like to have us all work TOGETHER toward a goal which would be to find the TRUTH.
    I believe that I have conclusively made the point that as it currently stands NOT one of us knows the whole truth of place of birth. Robert, you and I stand apart on the issue, because I am very unsure of Hawai’i being the place of birth, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to say that he was born in Kenya. I DO NOT YET KNOW THE (explative deleted by me) ANSWER!!!

  1009. Robert:
    Help me with this!
    I said:
    So, you are the Judge, the Court is in Session, and you have to decide the case of first impression that is on your docket.
    You said in reply:
    It would never make it into the Court Room. In your brief, I would expect you to outline which category of citizen Obama would fall into, “born or naturalized.”
    Your attempt to bring in a third category, not mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment would fall on deaf ears. Case dismissed.
    All due respect to Atty Pidgeon (and I do agree that the Tingh case does not specify natural anything), any attorney can argue anything he wants to argue.
    Come back to me when a Court or Courts gives the argument credence…
    Questions and comments:
    In my March 19, 11:17 AM post what third category am I trying to bring into the Fourteenth Amendment? I am not even aware of my placing any third category in the Fourteenth Amendment. I can only find “born or naturalized” there. Will you please describe the third category to me?
    The March 19, 11:17 AM post speaks of your previous comment concerning “no case law” vs. my assertion of “cases of first impression”. I am speaking of natural born citizen found in Article II Section I where the qualifications for President are stated.
    But, as a lawyer I would bring you, the Judge, a vault copy of the original birth certificate to determine the location of birth (whether Kenya or US). If Kenya, I would look for naturalization papers and bring them.
    I would also bring you proof of Obama Sr. birth status, certification that he never naturalized to the United States, and also bring my case out of Article II Section I.

  1010. It’s gonna be interesting to see what happens if this does get in front of a judge to be heard and the ruling made on the fact that no one was asked if they opposed. Then again, it still bothers me that no one said something like “Point of order…..objections haven’t been asked for…”

  1011. Robert –
    You and I (and a lot of others) voted for electors. Not for the person on the ballot, believe it or not.
    After we had voted for, and given authority to the electors, they then represent “we the people.” The law establishes the procedure by which the electors make their voice heard and the law of the land followed.
    Bottom line. The law was NOT followed. Do you believe that the laws of this country can be ignored? Or just by elected and/or appointed officials of the government?
    If YOU break a law, I’ll bet you will end up in front of some sort of tribunal. Assuming that you are caught. But, given my background, that happens.

  1012. Robert:
    Yes! This is true!
    Restated: IF (as I believe) BHO was born in HI, he is absolutely, by virtue of his birth, a US citizen.
    If he was not born in the US as I believe, Obama must be naturalized to be a US citizen. This complies with US law.
    However, since Obama Sr. was born in Kenya and never naturalized Obama II cannot be a natural born citizen. For one, Attorney Stephen Pidgeon agrees with this and it is my best understanding.

  1013. Robert –
    You said

    So, did we have a valid election?
    Yes.
    Chasing ghosts like whether or not Dick Cheney used the proper words makes a mockery of the entire election process. By your logic, Mr. Cheney could have simply stayed home that day, and there would have been no valid election.

    So, no matter what rationale I have provided, since the process is done, then there is no recourse.

    From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
    [wais.access.gpo.gov]
    [Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002]
    [Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
    January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002]
    [CITE: 3USC15]
    TITLE 3–THE PRESIDENT
    CHAPTER 1–PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
    Sec. 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress

    Robert, the law was, in fact, not followed. Go back to being a cop on the street and look for evidence.
    If the law is valid, and it has not been repealed so far, and it was not followed, a law was broken. If a law is broken, there is a remedy. This isn’t speculation, it is fact.
    Would you like to help?

  1014. So, did we have a valid election?

    Yes.
    Chasing ghosts like whether or not Dick Cheney used the proper words makes a mockery of the entire election process. By your logic, Mr. Cheney could have simply stayed home that day, and there would have been no valid election.

  1015. So, you are the Judge, the Court is in Session, and you have to decide the case of first impression that is on your docket.

    It would never make it into the Court Room. In your brief, I would expect you to outline which category of citizen Obama would fall into, “born or naturalized.”
    Your attempt to bring in a third category, not mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment would fall on deaf ears. Case dismissed.
    All due respect to Atty Pidgeon (and I do agree that the Tingh case does not specify natural anything), any attorney can argue anything he wants to argue.
    Come back to me when a Court or Courts gives the argument credence…

  1016. Robert –
    I want to add to the “Thank you,” if you’ll allow me.
    I have never said, nor do I believe that Hugh, Loyd or the Greek have made any statement that we know where BHO was, in fact, born. We don’t have any proof any more than you. What we do have, I think, is a sense of dedication to our country, and all four of us are miltary, or in Loyd’s case a son of a miltary member. Three of us took an oath to uphold the constitution. I think Loyd is a firm beliver in that oath as well, even if he didn’t swear to it upon enlistment. That is what we are trying to do, uphold the constitution.
    I know you believe in the ‘IF.” On the other hand, you could join this group in a quest for the truth. I’ve done a lot of research based on your questions and assumptions. So far, every time I have done so, I find more and more questions, a few facts, but still not definitive answer.
    With regard to the electoral vote, my wife and I watched it in it’s entirety. Nice being retired. And there was no call for objections which clearly violates the law. So, did we have a valid election? Remeber the Miranda example. Forgot to do something and the entire case had to be rejected. And, I’m sure you know that has happened more than once.
    Just my thoughts.
    Time for me to watch a bit more of NCIS and then throw on another episode of Brisco County, Jr. And I may be the only one on this blog who knows about Brisco.

  1017. Sorry, Robert. You are right back on your old argument that BHO was born in Hawai’i, which neither you nor I can prove at this point.

    Whoops.
    Restated: IF (as I believe) BHO was born in HI, he is absolutely, by virtue of his birth, a US citizen.

  1018. Sorry, Robert. You are right back on your old argument that BHO was born in Hawai’i, which neither you nor I can prove at this point.
    Did you hear that there have been changes made to the FOIA law as of today?
    I didn’t catch all of it, but it sounded like the ability to use FOIA will be subject to whether some “harm” may come from disclosure. Same thing BHO’s herd of attorneys has been using to keep information from daylight.
    I came across another short item today that said that BHO (in one of his books, which I confess I have not read, nor do I intend to) found his original birth certificate in a book. Gee! Where is it?
    Let me put you into a supposed situation where you are an officer of the law (cop on the street). You have been sent by your dispatcher to an intersection where there was alleged to have been a very serious accident. No injuries, but property damage. You arrive there and find that there are only two people at the intersection. They both speak to you, but one states that there was a terrible crash that occurred within the past half hour. The other says that he and this other person have been standing there together for the past five hours and there has been no crash. Both are able bodied and sighted and able to hear. There are no skid marks. There are no car parts, No broken glass. You take both statements and each statement is signed by the individuals as factual.
    You proceed to all of the buildings within a four block area, but learn that all of the persons living in that neighborhood have been at work since eight hours before and will not return to their homes for another six hours. There are no other witnesses.
    So. Which witness is wrong?
    There is no other evidence, by the way.
    There is no possiblity that they are both providing factual reports.
    Next:
    If a law is not followed, what should be the consequence? If, as an officer of the law, you forget to Mirandize a suspect, and in spite of solid evidence, the case is dismissed because you failed to follow the law and a rapist is freed and their can be no new trial. Was the judge who tossed out the case correct? I’ll answer that with a yes. However, that does NOT diminish the fact that a crime was committed.
    This is not ranting. I only want to emphasize the problem of those looking for answers as well as the problem of breaking the law and escaping justice. It happens. I am still like that beat cop. Something is missing. I just don’t know what yet. But when I find it, I won’t mess up procedure.
    State fact. Or when you don’t have absolute proof, accept that as an area to be questioned.

  1019. Robert:
    I sent Attorney Stephen Pidgeon a question concerning your above quote. Here is his reply:
    Hugh:
    Yes, I have read many of the cases on the 14th Amendment citizenship status – which in fact is a blessing. It does not resolve the issue as to Natural Born Citizen. Further, BHO has not yet proved he was born in the USA, consequently, he has not demonstrated that he is in fact a US citizen.
    SP
    ——– Original Message ——–
    Subject: Looik Tin Sing 1884
    From: “HUGH HUDSON”
    Date: Tue, March 17, 2009 9:22 pm
    To:
    Stephen: I reread this! It appears only to speak of “citizen” and not natural
    born citizen.
    The leading case on the subject is In re Look Tin Sing, 1884. 10 [74] Sawy.,
    353, s. c. 21 Fed., 905, in which Field, circuit justice, held that under the
    fourteenth amendment a person born of alien parents who might not themselves be naturalized was, by his birth, a citizen of the United States, and that it was immaterial that the parents of such a person were not able to. become citizens under our naturalization laws. This case has been recognized and followed ever since its determination.
    Thanks!
    Hugh
    Now, I am giving you, Robert, independent confirmation that Look Tin Sing 1884 does not qualify Obama as a natural born citizen. Nor anyone else for that matter since the natural born citizen issue is not even dealt with in the case.
    Attorney Stephen Pidgeon deals with cases of international law. He knows more about this issue than you or me.
    Pidgeon does not find any reference to natural born citizen in your referenced paragraph. Nor do I. Being a naturalized citizen does not qualify a person to be President.
    So, I can only agree with Wild Bill.

  1020. Still an unresolved issue.

    Resolved, long before you or I were ever born… by your own provided link, which I quoted:
    The leading case on the subject is In re Look Tin Sing, 1884. 10 [74] Sawy., 353, s. c. 21 Fed., 905, in which Field, circuit justice, held that under the fourteenth amendment a person born of alien parents who might not themselves be naturalized was, by his birth, a citizen of the United States, and that it was immaterial that the parents of such a person were not able to. become citizens under our naturalization laws. This case has been recognized and followed ever since its determination.

  1021. Rander –
    Just FYI, if you will check my 17 Mar 11:44 am posting, you will learn that the electoral vote count process, which is dictated by Federal Law, was not followed.

    From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
    [wais.access.gpo.gov]
    [Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002]
    [Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
    January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002]
    [CITE: 3USC15]
    TITLE 3–THE PRESIDENT
    CHAPTER 1–PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
    Sec. 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress

  1022. Well, Rander –
    I guess we’ll just wait and see.

    This whole argument about his eligibility might have had teeth before he was elected, but now its just ridiculous.

  1023. Good God – are you guys still going on about this? President Obama is the president. Its not about to change.
    Good news is – he is doing a better job than the nut job we had the last 8 years.
    The last 8 years have been nothing but economic calamity (two recessions, one now coming close to depression). Death – yes 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. Millions dead in Iraq – most of them innocent civilians. Bin Laden still on the lose, and thousands of Americans lost in Iraq.
    He didnt do too good! Now we have someone who wants to do it differently. He has my support. McSame would have continued the horrors we have seen the last 8 years. The definition of insanity is doing the same but expecting different results.
    This whole argument about his eligibility might have had teeth before he was elected, but now its just ridiculous.
    Someone above commented that he did not accept President Obama as president. How funny is that comment? As if his personal acceptance matters?
    Rander

  1024. but in the end doesn’t mean much. As, BY US LAW Obama is a citizen of the US by virtue of his birth

    Still an unresolved issue.

  1025. Robert:
    In reply, you say:
    “‘Apart from the e-mail, my current understanding is that the Founders wanted no foreign allegiances so dual citizens fail to qualify.’
    Which is nowhere written in the Constitution.”
    “‘Also, Obama Sr. never naturalized so Obama II fails.’
    Untrue. At least, there is no case law that agrees with that statement.”
    I say:
    Let us start at the beginning. The Founders declared their independence and fought the British Empire. After their victory, the Framers wrote the Constitution. The Supreme Court was established and, as the need arose, lawsuits were bought before the Court and case law developed over time.
    At the very beginning there were no lawsuits concerning freedom of religion, property rights, voting issues, etc. The Supreme Court had to frequently deal with fresh difficulties, topics never approached from the standpoint of case law. As I understand it, lawsuits that courts have not dealt with before are known as “cases of first impression”.
    Now, the words “natural born citizen” have been in the Constitution from its framing and it meant something to the Framers and America at that time. The Framers had some intention for writing the words of the Constitution. They did not just put words on paper to confuse people. Of course, we cannot return to the 1790’s to 1800’s to speak to them concerning any topic. But we can read the writings and discern their intent. We can read The Law of Nations, the Federalist Papers and other books that greatly influenced their ideas—to discern their thinking.
    Case law is certainly a part of making legal decisions, but what does a judge do if there is no prior case law? It would be impossible for any judge to arrive at any decision concerning any “case of first impression” since, due to the particular facts of the litigation, no previous case law had be developed!
    Obama situation is greatly similar the Chester Arthur, but Arthur’s situation was never presented to a court. So, Obama’s case is one of first impression.
    So, you are the Judge, the Court is in Session, and you have to decide the case of first impression that is on your docket.
    Constitutional scholar that you are, tell me, how do you resolve this case?

  1026. Robert:
    You say:
    The Constitution is silent on the issue as it pertains to the qualifications to be POTUS.
    In Article II, Section I
    The Constitution states “No Person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen a Resident within the United States.”

  1027. New suit filed>
    http://theobamafile.com/ObamaLatest.htm

    On February 9, 2009, a New Jersey attorney, Mr. Mario Apuzzo, filed a lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiffs, Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James LeNormand and Donald H. Nelson, Jr.
    The lawsuit, Civil Action Number. 1:09 –cv-00253 was filed in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
    The defendants in this case are: Barrack Hussein Obama II, and Individually, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, United States of America, The United States Congress, The United States Senate, The United States House of Representatives, Richard B. Cheney (President of the US Senate, Presiding Officer of Joint Session of Congress, Vice President of the United States and Individually), Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House and Individually).
    All of the defendants have been served with a copy of the complaint and have 60 days to respond to the complaint. Will they stand up like honest citizens and answer the complaint, or will they hide behind high priced lawyers like Obama has been doing?
    Basically, the lawsuit says there is no verifiable proof that Obama is an American citizen and is therefore ineligible to be the President of the United States. It also points out that the United States Code of Federal Regulations was violated by the defendants, during the course of counting Electoral votes, by not asking any members of Congress if they objected to the counts. A normal counting of the votes takes approximately 2 hours. Obama’s took 36 minutes and it is on record that there was no call for any objections.

    More at the above site.

  1028. The dual citizenship issue is interesting, but in the end doesn’t mean much. As, BY US LAW Obama is a citizen of the US by virtue of his birth. The Constitution is silent on the issue as it pertains to the qualifications to be POTUS.

  1029. Apart from the e-mail, my current understanding is that the Founders wanted no foreign allegiances so dual citizens fail to qualify.

    Which is nowhere written in the Constitution.

    Also, Obama Sr. never naturalized so Obama II fails.

    Untrue. At least, there is no case law that agrees with that statement.

  1030. Well, Hugh, like I said, something isn’t right and someone is not telling the truth. You can’t have two conflicting stories about the same issue without one being false.
    Ask a cop. Been there, done that.

  1031. Greek and Wild Bill:
    This is the way life works!
    You know CNN has, I think it is called, a Situation Room. Well, let’s talk about Obama’s birthing room. Stanley Ann Dunham Obama is pregnant and her water breaks. She along with GrandMa Obama heads to the hospital or some kind of birthing house. Baby Obama is born. Life goes on!
    Obama’s parents die, but Kenyan GrandMa Obama is still lives on. Now, there is an audio tape on which GrandMa Obama says her grandson is born in Kenya.
    Consider that Proverbs 17:6 says “Grandchildren are the crown of old men, and the glory of sons is their father.”
    Now Obama II is a crown to his Granddad, and most likely a precious jewel to GrandMa Obama.
    It is inconceivable that GrandMa Obama would not accurately remember where her Grandson was born! Not only that, the Kenyan Ambassador has admitted the Obama was born in Kenya. Not only that Kenya is so proud of Obama. I am connecting the dots and for me the dots lead to Kenya.
    People can say “You don’t seen all the evidence”. This is true, but I know how life works.

  1032. Thanks, gentlemen.
    And, BTW, Donofrio came up with a great point. The SCOTUS has no authority to remove a sitting president. However, his plea to the US Attorney in DC has an interesting position, namely, that the US Attorney is an a position to utilize the Quo Warranto as a vehicle to determine the authority of BHO as POTUS.
    I don’t remember who it was that made the point, but all that is necessary is for discovery, and if it is found that BHO is NOT a natural-born citizen, then the solution rests with the Congress who are given the power to remove a sitting president by impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors (if I recall the language correctly). One of the definitions of “high crimes” is treason. The other is misdemeanor.
    Misdemeanor is defined as:

    MISDEMEANOR – A minor crime (as opposed to a felony). A crime – less serious than a felony – which is punishable by fine or imprisonment in a city or county jail rather than in a penitentiary.
    This term is used to express every offence inferior to felony, punishable by indictment, or by particular prescribed proceedings; in its usual acceptation, it is applied to all those crimes and offences for which the law has not provided a particular name; this word is generally used in contradistinction to felony; misdemeanors comprehending all indictable offences, which do not amount to felony, as perjury, battery, libels, conspiracies and public nuisances.

    I wouldn’t go for treason any more than I think that always going for Murder One is the right approach.
    But misdemeanor?
    Notice perjury? A lie?
    Like I’ve said, someone is not being truthful. Don’t know who, but some”one” – or more.
    Frankly, I’m not happy that the situation has not yet been resolved. And, from law and police work, no matter what the precident might be, a mistake does not HAVE to be repeated or accepted as the norm.

  1033. Guys……….
    Believe me, I’m following this with interest. I’m working day shift right now and have not been able to devote the time to research that I normally do. I agree with both Hugh and Wild Bill on the points they are bringing forward.
    Here is one point that has bothered me from day one on this matter, and it has been alluded to slightly here also.
    Let’s just say for instance (and for the sake of argument) that O was born in Hawaii as he claims. Now, O spent his young years in Hawaii with his Mother only seeing his biological father once it is reported. Since O spent all his time in Hawaii and then in Indonesia while his MaMa was married to the Indonesian fella, then back to Hawaii to be raised by his G’Mother (again, as reported).
    Let’s say all of this is TRUE, ok? Here’s my question…………………………
    WHY would Kenya have ANY documents relating to O that would have to be sealed?
    There is only ONE reason why Kenya would have documentation of any kind concerning O and that is if he were born there. There could be NO OTHER REASON!
    Yeah…..like Bill said,

    Something doesn’t pass the smell test.

  1034. Absolutely, Hugh.
    And, given the info from Hawai’i about the issuing of the COLB, it is possible that there is no birth certificate, but only the original of the COLB on file in Hawai’i. Not saying that is true, but maybe. Going a bit further, if Hawai’i accepts the COLB as a valid document, then BHO would have been able to obtain a drivers license in Hawai’i, and, as I think we are all aware, if you go from one state to another and have to get a drivers license, the license from the state you came from is sufficient documentation for the new state to issue. I can state that as fact since my original drivers license was issued in Oregon and I have had valid licenses in Washington and Virginia and didn’t have to have anything but my drivers license to get a valid one in the state I moved to.
    But as I said before, something is wrong. You’ve got the Kenyan government shielding documents of some sort, BHOs paternal grandmother and others saying that they were present at BHOs birth in Kenya, and then Hawai’i saying that he was born there but also shielding documents. Can’t be both – so someone is not telling the truth.

  1035. Wild Bill:
    Turn these comments and questions over in your mind:
    I am assuming the Kenya has no such regulations as Hawaii. So, Kenya is not hiding Hawaii documents. The Kenyan Government only has Kenyan documents, I would think.
    The Kenyan Government says it has sealed Obama’s records. If Obama’s records are Kenya, what are those records? Why would he have Kenyan records?
    Why does the Kenyan Government have any Obama documents, if Obama is American born. The fact that the Kenyan Government has any Obama documents under seal throws up red flags as to Obama’s natural born citizen status, as least potentially.

  1036. I’m back and I found the piece I was looking for. It can be found in a WND article dated 26 Oct 2008 by Jerome Corsi. A part of that article states:

    In a startling development, Obama’s Kenyan grandmother has reportedly alleged she witnessed Obama’s birth at the Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
    Friday, U.S. Federal judge Richard Barclay Surrick, a Clinton appointee, dismissed a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania attorney Phillip J. Berg who alleged Obama was not a U.S. “natural born” citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency under the specifications of the U.S. Constitution, under Article II, Section 1.
    Berg told WND last week he does not have a copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama that he alleges exists.
    In Kenya, WND was told by government authorities that all documents concerning Obama were under seal until after the U.S. presidential election on November 4.

    This is why I say that the actual birth location of BHO is not settled. His grandmother says he was born in Kenya and the government of Kenya had sealed his records until after the election. So we have two governments that are holding information. His half-sister says he was born in a hospital in Hawai’i, but not the one that BHO claims he was born in.
    Now here is another piece that makes this all the more blurry. From a site for researching Hawai’ian ancestry:
    http://www.hawaiian-roots.com/importantDocuments.htm

    2. Certificate of Hawaiian Birth – These forms were issued to people who did not have a birth certificate recorded at the time of their birth. In order to get a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth a person had to take witnesses that could testify to the circumstances of their birth. Those testifying were usually family members or family friends. These records include information such as:
    a. Name of parents
    b. Race of parents
    c. Death dates of parent
    d. Names of brothers and sisters.
    e. Remarriages of parents
    f. Hanai family members.
    g. A photo of the applicant (this photo can be ordered)

    Hawai’i stopped issuing the Certificate of Live Birth a few years ago and I have to assume that those were issued under the same circumstances as the Certificate of Hawai’ian Birth above. It could be that there isn’t an actual birth certificate in Hawai’i. Maybe yes, maybe no. It would seem that the records in Kenya would have to come to light of day as well as anything in Hawai’i.
    Something doesn’t pass the smell test.

  1037. Wild Bill:
    I am tracking with Donofrio concerning the natural born citizen issue. Please read my e-mail. Apart from the e-mail, my current understanding is that the Founders wanted no foreign allegiances so dual citizens fail to qualify. Also, Obama Sr. never naturalized so Obama II fails.

  1038. Robert:
    You say, replying:
    “‘So, a natural born citizen’s foreign born parents must still be naturalized before their child’s birth according to Donofrio.’
    True again. But you are exactly correct: it is “according to Donofrio.” AND the fact that, as you point out, Chester Arthur also served as US President, which is pretty strong precedent that both parents do NOT have to be US citizens for their child to be eligible to serve as POTUS.
    You can say that the Arthur issue was handled incorrectly, but no Court was willing to visit the matter then just as no Court is wiling to visit the matter now.”
    Let me turn to Donofrio again. He has discovered particular information concerning the non-qualification of Arthur, hidden from the American public’s view at the time. There was never any adjudication of Arthur’s situation before the Supreme Court or any other court.
    All other Presidents,absent the founders (and excluding Arthur and Obama) have met the strict requirement that foreign born parents must naturalize before their children’s birth for the children to qualify as natural born citizens, This clearly, in my mind, is the stronger precedent.
    So, any assertion that Arthur’s situation sets any historical precedent is a false assertion, which Donofrio fully dismisses and rebukes.
    Therefore, to say it happened once does not mean it should happen again. Your real argument is with Donofrio.

  1039. Robert –
    You are corrrect about the dual citizenship at birth. That we know.
    I, too, had a thought this morning about BHOs birth since, as I stated earlier, neither you nor I know absolutely where he was born.
    And the question of Indonesian citizenship is also part of the mix. I’m gonna go grab some breakfast and then see what I can dig up.

  1040. Wildbill.
    I was standing in the shower this morning (sorry for the info) and a lightbulb went off…
    You are NOT saying that BHO is not a US citizen, you are simply stating that he may be a DUAL citizen.
    Is that correct?

  1041. We can site Law & Cases all we want. It really never gives clear answers , but in fact creates more questions. This is the work of lawyers.
    The 1 fact in all of this, is that Obama isn’t putting his cards on the table , thus illustrating , he has something to hide. He is hiding what he knows will get his ass booted out of office. Now how can I trust a man like that?
    You may not beleive in the possibilty that our government has become corrupt, just take off your blinders and see for yourself.

  1042. After rereading your post Look Tin Sing 1884 appears to be dealing with a “citizen” only and not a natural born citizen.

    True.

    So, a natural born citizen’s foreign born parents must still be naturalized before their child’s birth according to Donofrio.

    True again. But you are exactly correct: it is “according to Donofrio.” AND the fact that, as you point out, Chester Arthur also served as US President, which is pretty strong precedent that both parents do NOT have to be US citizens for their child to be eligible to serve as POTUS.
    You can say that the Arthur issue was handled incorrectly, but no Court was willing to visit the matter then just as no Court is wiling to visit the matter now.

  1043. So, what happens if you have conflicting case law. I think you have to go back to the written Constitution and even the writings of the Founders/Framers to discover original intent.

    I don’t think that’s correct, Hugh. I believe that the most recent jurisprudence is the ruling.
    Take Brown v. Board of Education overturning Plessy v. Ferguson…

  1044. Ya know guys, I have been sittin here shakin my head over this because it is just inconceivable to me that there are some that say the birth certificate issue is dead or doesn’t matter.
    I just received an email from a friend of ours in Alabama where she is tellin me all about the upcoming cruise they are planning on taking to the Bahamas this April and all the headaches she is encountering concerning getting everyone to understand the importance of having all their required DOCUMENTATION in hand for boarding. They take a biannual cruise and she is talking about a problem encountered on their last cruise. Here is just an excerpt from that email……….

    I have a typed sheet to hand EVERYONE with a list of MUST HAVES (in your hand) BEFORE being able to board the ship… NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!! If ANYONE forgets ANYTHING then it’s NOT my fault…. With homeland security like it is, one can never be too careful, for sure……………I will never forget on our first cruise to Mexico in 2005… We (knowing we may not be able to do it the next morning) double checked to make certain our boarding information was readilly handy… Well… we doesn’t cover one person who upon rechecking her documents realized…. OOOPS!!!! She left something out… Her BIRTH CERTIFICATE…. It was under the visor of her car, carefully placed there byt her, so she wouldn’t forget it…. problem being… she rode to New Orleans with her boyfriend… in his car…. Her birth certificate was under the visor of her car in Alabama…. Not good…. So, trying to sober up as quickly as possible they took off for Alabama… to make a round trip back to New Orleans before the ship left the next day….

    Now, as I’ve stated prior, a certified copy of your ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE is REQUIRED before one can play tournament play in Little League baseball and also required as part of the documentation to play PERIOD!

    F. Birth Records: The team manager must carry photocopies (originals are not necessary)
    of the original birth documents that were used as verification of birth date in the
    preparation of this affidavit.

    http://www.aasports.net/ftp/ll_affidavit_2007_bb.pdf
    I find it utterly unbelievable that ANYONE could believe (with the above information available) that any American citizen is REQUIRED to produce copies of their ORIGINAL birth records in order to do something as mundane as take a cruise or play Little League baseball…………………but are still willing to give O a free pass on producing such documentation in order to PROVE his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States!
    UNBELIEVABLE!!

  1045. Robert:
    After rereading your post Look Tin Sing 1884 appears to be dealing with a “citizen” only and not a natural born citizen.
    So, a natural born citizen’s foreign born parents must still be naturalized before their child’s birth according to Donofrio.

  1046. Hugh –
    I came to the conclusion that IF BHO was born in Hawai’i, that he would be a natural-born citizen. But, since his father was Kenyan, he was, by British law, a subject of the Crown. Hence, dual citizenship – at least by some law. If he was born in Kenya, then there comes some other possibilities. As I read through some of the cases that had been decided, I found an occasional inference of ‘well, maybe if…’ and so even the natural-born might not, in fact, be applicable. More reseach needed.
    I have no doubt about the dual citizenship. The British law is quite clear about conferring said citizenship to a child born whose father is subject to British law. So we can put the idea that BHO has no other possible loyalty to rest – not that he has, but he could.
    Then comes the Indonesian factor. As you know, I have come up with information that says that BHO became a subject of Indonesia when he was adopted by his step-father, apparently true by virtue of his half-sisters statements.
    It still looks like BHO may be an Indonesian citizen. Can’t be sure, but it does look that way.
    I wonder if BHO got a student grant at Occidental College based on being a foreign national. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

  1047. Robert:
    I just saw your post. I will have to check how Donofrio handles this.
    The leading case on the subject is In re Look Tin Sing, 1884. 10 [74] Sawy., 353, s. c. 21 Fed., 905, in which Field, circuit justice, held that under the fourteenth amendment a person born of alien parents who might not themselves be naturalized was, by his birth, a citizen of the United States, and that it was immaterial that the parents of such a person were not able to. become citizens under our naturalization laws. This case has been recognized and followed ever since its determination.

  1048. Robert:
    Donofrio argues greatly against Chester Arthur’s eligibilty due to his father being naturalized after Arthur’s birth. There is a certain man named Hinman who challenged Arthur’s credentials, but he did not succeed. As I remember Arthur appointed Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray wrote (was part of ) United States vs. Wong Kim Ark decision.
    Wong Kim Ark arrives at the opinion that supports Arthur’s spurious position as President written by his own appointment, Justice Horace Gray. So, Wong Kim Ark seems to contradict previous cases concerning natural born citizen—-all this according to Donofrio who has done some incredible research.
    So, we have naturalization of foreign born parents before and after the 14th Amendment. Naturalization of foreign born parents to qualify their children as natural born is critical. I do not have case law to prove it. But Hinman, Arthur’s adversary, was fast on the scent, but lost it. So, Hinman’s actions are critical to the historical intent. If naturalization is unimportant in this sense, why was Hinman acting the way he was toward Arthur? (My question and my conclusion.)
    Justice Horace Gray reversed his decisions on Wong Kim Ark fourteen years later per Donofrio.
    So, what happens if you have conflicting case law. I think you have to go back to the written Constitution and even the writings of the Founders/Framers to discover original intent.
    So, as far as I can tell the 14th Amendment does not apply to the natural born citizen clause, but the 14th Amendment’s framers, no doubt, had their opinion.
    (Robert, I do want to thank you for linking me to the American Thinker article. My response to you then is replayed here somewhat.)
    Concerning Obama, I find the Hawaiian birth certificate/COLB issue’s application somewhat muted as to his eligibility for President due to Obama Sr’s status, but his birth certificate/COLB speaks very loudly concerning his rightful position as Senator past.
    The Donofrio issues are mostly from memory, although I did reference the names and the reversal of Justice Gray. I am actually more comfortable with the historical aspect then just the birth certificate and COLB. It is easier for me to see the big picture and that way I am more comfortable with the evidence, taken as a whole.
    Hence I deal better with Donofrio and Wrotnowski that Berg.
    This is how I am tracking!

  1049. No argument from me, Robert. But dual citzenship is quite clear. As to BHOs place of birth, that remains a clouded question.

  1050. Thanks for the link, WB. From the same link:

    The leading case on the subject is In re Look Tin Sing, 1884. 10 [74] Sawy., 353, s. c. 21 Fed., 905, in which Field, circuit justice, held that under the fourteenth amendment a person born of alien parents who might not themselves be naturalized was, by his birth, a citizen of the United States, and that it was immaterial that the parents of such a person were not able to. become citizens under our naturalization laws. This case has been recognized and followed ever since its determination.

    Seems pretty clear to me…

  1051. On the issue of natural-born citizen, there is a significant body of law.
    The information is just a part of the following site:
    http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/the-natural-born-citizenship-clause-updated.html#NBC_TA_DOS_1904

    Andrew C. McLaughlin & Albert Bushnell Hart ( Ed.), CYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT Vol. 2 (1914).
    [496]
    “NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. A natural-born citizen of the United States is one who is a citizen by reason of his place of birth or the citizenship of his father. The two classes of naturalized and natural born citizens are thus mutually exclusive, and together constitute the entire citizen body of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment (see) as construed in the case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 D. 8. 649) provides that every person born within the territorial limits of the United States, even though his parents be aliens, and of a race the members of which are by law excluded from naturalization, are natural-born citizens. Under certain circumstances persons born outside the territorial limits of the United States are demed natural-born citizens, as for example, children of American citizens visiting or traveling abroad. The father must, however, at some time have resided in the United States. Only natural-born citizens are eligible to the offices of President and Vice-President. See Citizenship In The United States; Naturalization, Law of. References: G. W. Garner, Intro, to. Pol. Sci. (1910), ch. xi; F. Van Dyne, Citizenship of U. S. (1904).”

    However, Britian confers citizenship to children born of a father who is a British subject.
    http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/britishsubjects/children/

    British subjects normally cannot pass on that status to their children if the children were born after 1 January 1983. But a child may be a British subject when he/she is born if:
    one of the parents is a British subject; and
    neither of the parents is a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen or a British overseas citizen; and
    the child was born on or after 1 January 1983 in the United Kingdom or a British overseas territory; and
    the child would be stateless without British subject status.

    Omaba Sr was a British subject at BHOs birth.

  1052. OK.
    Tell you what. Let’s give this a shake.
    Is there any Supreme Court decision or other Court interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that sets out three classes (for wont of a better word) of citizens?
    1. Natural Born;
    2. Natural; and
    3. Naturalized?

  1053. And it makes no distinction between a “citizen” born in the US and a “citizen” naturalized in the US.

    That’s incorrect, Lloyd. Indeed, that distinction is made in the Amendment’s very first sentence:
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
    Born OR Naturalized. TWO roads (and only two) to citizenship.

    Those who are trying to read such an interpretation into the 14th Amendment do so at the ignorance of Chief Justice Marshall’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison.

    Lloyd: as a first note, I would say that you need to give proper citation when you quote someone’s else’s ideas- when I first read the above, I thought they were your words. They’re not.
    Second: see my comment above regarding attempting to take a comment from a justice out and try to make it LAW. It doesn’t work.

  1054. I do not have case but here is the website of attorney Leo Donofrio who has studied and detailed the natural born citizen issue extensively.

    Thanks, Hugh. And, as you clearly and openly state- that’s not case law. I know- you are not claiming that it is case law. But even when you read the piece, the author is depending on one comment from one justice in a case that has nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment- and spinning away whole cloth. Donofrio states that the comment of Madison is an “elephant” in th room, and I have no idea why he believes that.

    What case law supports your position?

    None. Nada. Zip. But I’m not the one asking the courts for relief, so…

  1055. Wild Bill & Hugh,
    Hey Guy’s , Thank you for the Links. Very informative. It is a pleasure reading information that comes from someone that knows Law , and what the hell they are talking about.
    We know that the 14th Amendment only mentions the word “citizen”. It does not use the words “natural born citizen”. And it makes no distinction between a “citizen” born in the US and a “citizen” naturalized in the US. Under the 14th Amendment, they are equals. The 14th Amendment certainly does not state that being a “citizen” satisfies the qualification of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.
    Those who are trying to read such an interpretation into the 14th Amendment do so at the ignorance of Chief Justice Marshall’s landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison. Those cunning arguments would leave the “natural born citizen” clause without effect. Such a construction is inadmissible.
    I wonder , will Robert claim Donofrio a wacko nut job that hasn’t got a clue?

  1056. Hey Greek
    Found it!

    From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
    [wais.access.gpo.gov]
    [Laws in effect as of January 24, 2002]
    [Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
    January 24, 2002 and December 19, 2002]
    [CITE: 3USC15]
    TITLE 3–THE PRESIDENT
    CHAPTER 1–PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
    Sec. 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress

    In part:

    Upon such reading of any such certificate or
    paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.
    Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and
    concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed
    by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives
    before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any
    vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate
    shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the
    Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives
    shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of
    Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from
    any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose
    appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of
    this title from which but one return has been received shall be
    rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes
    when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given
    by electors whose appointment has been so certified.

    The entire procedure can be found at:
    http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title3/3usc15.html
    And note especially that the word “shall” is used in the text to indicate what the President of the Senate is to do.
    I think we can safely say that the law was not followed in the electoral process. Where do we go next?

  1057. Robert:
    I do not have case but here is the website of attorney Leo Donofrio who has studied and detailed the natural born citizen issue extensively.
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
    I assume that Donofrio knows more about the issue and related case law than any person on this blog.
    What case law supports your position?

  1058. Robert:
    My first paragraph need to read: You are right! I do not have any case law to point to. But there is the clear words of the 14th Amendment:

  1059. Robert:
    You are right! I do not case to point to. But there is the clear words of the 14th Amendment:
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
    I have looked many times and I cannot find “natural born citizen” in these words. I find the word “naturalized”. Does naturalized mean natural born?
    (I have a friend born in Indonesia who obtained a green card, met the citizenship requirements, took the oath, and became a citizen. He is not a natural born citizen. His father was born in Indonesia.)
    I read the 14th Amendment to say:
    All persons born in the United States are United States citizens. Naturalized is a process of a foreign born obtaining citizenship through oath-taking.
    Is “natural born citizen” found in Section 1401 of the U.S.Code?

  1060. Obama Sr’s birth in Kenya and his never naturalizing to the United States seals Obama II’s status.

    No. It doesn’t, Hugh. Sorry to rain on your parade, but a child born in the United States is a natural born US citizen. See the Fourteenth Amendment.
    I know- you disagree. But continually repeating it won’t change the fact that you have ZERO case law on your side.

    Furthermore, Robert, I am calling you to GROW UP or SHUT UP. We (Wild Bill, the Greek, Lil Lloyd and I) will not put up with you games of “Got Ya”.

    I understand, Hugh. On the other hand, CG’s constant refrain that I am a liar, and WB’s bringing family into this (!)- that is the high road for you?
    OK, then. Another laugh to start my morning.

  1061. Go back to square one. I’m done with you unless you decide to have a rational discussion, which clearly you do not wish to have.

    Sorry, WB. But there is nothing “rational” about arguing that US citizenship is decided by laws written in Indonesia.
    If asking for a basis for US citizenship (or lack therof) is irrational, it’s no wonder that this issue has went nowhere in the court system.

    So, go, live your life. Have children. Wish them well and sign them up for all of the benefits of living as ones with no desire to excel.

    Don’t get frustrated and start in on families, WB.

    Enjoy the reign of your annointed one.

    Is that sort of the default insult to the president whose election has so embittered you? The “saviour” routine?
    Enjoy the next few years, then.
    And let me know when you have some US law to back up your contentions…

  1062. Wild Bill:
    Concerning the Greek’s request:
    Is this not referring to Dick Cheney handling of the Electoral votes and whether there were pre-submitted written objections that Cheney would be aware of?

  1063. Wild Bill or Hugh…..can either of you verify this for me? I am working right now which leaves very little time for research. I had thought (and was really steamed about the possibility) that no member of Congress had objected to the count of the Electoral College, but now there is this…………………………
    “the United States Code of Federal Regulations was violated by the defendants, during the course of counting Electoral votes, by not asking any members of Congress if they objected to the counts. A normal counting of the votes takes approximately 2 hours. Obama’s took 36 minutes and it is on record that there was no call for any objections.”………………..
    information coming out.
    Can you check it out please?
    Thanks,
    CG

  1064. Robert:
    My first paragraph should actually read as follows:
    “Concerning Obama, even if he was born in Hawaii, Obama Sr. was born in Kenya and never naturalized.Therefore, Obama is not, nor will ever be a natural born citizen. This fact alone seals his ineligibility to be President.”
    I want my words to be totally clear.
    Obama Sr’s birth in Kenya and his never naturalizing to the United States seals Obama II’s status. There is nothing Obama can ever do to change that fact. The sealing of Obama II’s status is historically confirmed the naturalizations of the parents of James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover, releasing these men to Constitutionally be President—all historically confirmed by Leo Donofrio.
    It is quite difficult to argue with historical precedent.
    Furthermore, Donofrio and Wrotnowski’s positions as lawsuits are not diminished one bit, even if they failed due to SCOTUS refusal to hear the cases (but not on their merits) since they fully support my first paragraph.
    In fact, I obtained the logic of the first paragraph from those two lawsuits. The failure of the Donofrio and Wrotnowski lawsuits is a SCOTUS failure of some kind and not a lawsuit-merit failure.
    Furthermore, Robert, I am calling you to GROW UP or SHUT UP. We (Wild Bill, the Greek, Lil Lloyd and I) will not put up with you games of “Got Ya”.

  1065. Warren, if you would please, send my eMail address to Lil Loyd.
    We need to keep this group together.
    Thank you.

  1066. Robert:
    Concerning Obama, even if he was born in Hawaii, Obama Sr. was born in Kenya and never naturalized.Therefore, Obama is not and will be a natural born citizen. This fact alone seals his ineligibility to be President.
    I am almost 60-years old. Wild Bill and the Greek, both my senior, are Navy veterans. The Greek considers your positions laughable…that is just one of his descriptions. Wild Bill now brings up “goading” and lack of “rational discussion”.
    I find that I can present reasoned positions such as my response to the American Thinker article, and you make no reply. If you do reply do dismiss what we say out of hand.
    I can assume only that what I say in my first paragraph means absolutely nothing to you. I assume that you consider such statements to have no standing whatsoever. But the statements line-up with the lawsuits of Leo Donofrio and Cort Wrotnowski. But it makes no dent in your armor. Your arguments, taken as a whole, are not logical.
    I do not know your background, how old you are, and the fact that you live in Missouri makes no difference to me. If we were face to face we would sit down and have a conversation about a critical topic: Respect.
    If you are going to deal with me, Wild Bill or the Greek you will respect us. There are three witnesses in this matter and we all agree. This matter of respecting others is not so much a command, but it is for your own good. What you sow is what you are going to reap! It is simply the way life works.

  1067. Robert –
    Go back to square one. I’m done with you unless you decide to have a rational discussion, which clearly you do not wish to have.
    So, go, live your life. Have children. Wish them well and sign them up for all of the benefits of living as ones with no desire to excel.
    Enjoy the reign of your annointed one.
    As we used in the Navy to end conversations:
    Out.

  1068. You clearly enjoy goading people and not bothering to do any research on your own. So be it.

    Sorry, WB. If asking you for a basis for such an illogical claim (that US citizenship is determined by Indonesian law) is “goading you,” I think you need a thicker skin.

    What we do know is that, unless his half sister lied, that BHO was adopted by Soetoro and did, in fact, attend school in Indonesia and was listed as an Indonesia citizen and a Muslim.

    Who- don’t forget- was “listed as” born in HI. Which, any way you slice it, your protestations not withstanding, makes BHO an American citizen.

    So, according to you, his grandmother is a liar. And a few other members of his paternal family. Good for you. I’m glad you have taken a firm position.

    And according to you his father lied. Oh, and the HI state officials…

    We also know that he travelled to Pakistan in either 1980 or 1981, and we don’t know exactly how he did that; whether on a US passport, which seems unlikely, or an Indonesian passport.

    “Seems unlikely” to who?

  1069. Robert –
    You clearly enjoy goading people and not bothering to do any research on your own. So be it.
    I’m of the position that BHO may or may not have been born in Hawai’i. In either case it may not be relevant.
    What we do know is that, unless his half sister lied, that BHO was adopted by Soetoro and did, in fact, attend school in Indonesia and was listed as an Indonesia citizen and a Muslim. We also know that his paternal grandmother has said he was born in Kenya. So, according to you, his grandmother is a liar. And a few other members of his paternal family. Good for you. I’m glad you have taken a firm position.
    We also know that he travelled to Pakistan in either 1980 or 1981, and we don’t know exactly how he did that; whether on a US passport, which seems unlikely, or an Indonesian passport. And, since we don’t know where he was born – and don’t start again because you don’t either, but then, if you have PROOF – given all of the other known requirements for passports…

  1070. This is directly from the United States Department of State. It specifically referenced exactly what I did earlier about the laws on dual citzenship in Indonesia being changed in July 2006.

    Again, WB. You are quoting Indonesian law.
    Can you find anything IN US LAW wherein the United States is bound by laws other than US laws to decide who is and who is not a US citizen?
    Again: please don’t quote the laws of other nations- I’m sure you must see how ridiculous it would be if the US had to sort through the laws of other countries to make our own citizenship decisions.
    Thanks in advance!

  1071. First things first: I think this shows IN ABSOLUTE SPADES why BHO has no reason to allow release of his original birth certificate- it could be released and proven beyond shadow of a doubt to be genuine, and Fallback Conspiracy Theory #2 would simply come to the fore: under Indonesian law, his citizenship would be null and void,

    ROFLMFAO
    Now THIS is about the BEST example I’ve ever seen of why the TRUTH should not ever be allowed to come out……..well, if you are O or one of his supporters, that is!
    Oh NO..let’s not look for the TRUTH cause someone will say “blah, blah, blah” if it’s found to be true.
    LAUGHABLE!!!!!!!!!!
    My question, to anyone who would care to venture an answer, is………..what happens if it is found to PROVE that O is LYING?
    Utterly RIDICULOUS!!!!!

  1072. Hugh –
    Don’t worry about the confusion. I’m quite sure I understand your point. Just hope Robert does.

  1073. Excuse me, Wild Bill, and excuse me, Robert!
    I did mis-read the above posting from Wild Bill to Robert.
    Warren, please remove my post to Robert dated March 16, 2009 at 04:34 PM.
    Thanks!

  1074. Robert:
    I have read the Indonesian dual citizenship information.
    You say Obama II is born in Hawaii. Right?
    Obama II is adopted by his step-father, Soetoro. So, is Obama II an Indonesian citizen? Now, you note specifically above that “a child legally adopted by an Indonesian citizen;”
    If Obama is an Indonesian citizen and an American citizen, then he holds a dual citizenship! Right?
    The dual citizenship information indicates the necessity of the dual citizen to obey the laws of the dual countries. So, it follows that the dual citizen would have dual allegiances. Right?
    The thing I cannot figure is how a natural born citizen (who you think Obama is) can have a dual citizenship and dual allegiances.
    Please advise! Thanks!

  1075. Robert –
    This is getting tiring, but…

    ACT NO. 3 YEAR 1946nCONCERNING
    THE CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF THE STATE
    OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
    Indonesia citizen is:
    an autochthon residing within the territory of the Indonesian State;
    a person who does not fall under the abovementioned. group, but is a descedant of a person out of that group, born and resided within the territory of the Indonesian State as well as a person who is no descedant of a person of the meant group, born and resided within the territory of the Indonesian State for the last 5 consecutive years, already 21 years of age or already married, unless he declares to have objections against becoming an Indonesian citizen due to the fact that he is a citizen of another country;
    a person who acquires the Indonesian citizenship by way of naturalization;
    a legal or legitimated child or a child legally acknowledged by his father who at the moment of its birth, that father had the Indonesian citizenship;
    the child born within 300 days after his father, who had the Indonesian citizenship, died;
    the child legally acknowledged only by his mother, who at the moment of its birth, had the Indonesian citizenship;
    a child legally adopted by an Indonesian citizen;
    a child born within the territory of the Indonesian State, who has not been legally acknowledged by his father nor by his mother;
    a child born within the territory of the Indonesian State, of whom the parents are unknown or of whom the parents’ citizenship is unknown.

    Notice, please,

    a child legally adopted by an Indonesian citizen;

    And before you tear into another of your Hawai’ian birth stances, read the entire following piece:

    Dual Nationality: Indonesian law does not recognize dual nationality for adults over 18 years of age. Because of this law, U.S. citizens who are also documented as Indonesian nationals may experience difficulties with immigration formalities in Indonesia and furthermore, holding dual citizenship may also hamper the U.S. Embassy or Consulate’s ability to provide consular protection to dual national Americans. In addition to being subject to all Indonesian laws affecting U.S. citizens, dual nationals may also be subject to other laws that impose special obligations on Indonesian citizens. In July 2006 the Indonesian Parliament passed new legislation allowing children under age 18 to maintain a foreign nationality as well as Indonesian citizenship. Parents whose children hold both Indonesian and U.S. citizenship may experience difficulties with entry and exit immigration procedures until the new law is fully implemented.

    This is directly from the United States Department of State. It specifically referenced exactly what I did earlier about the laws on dual citzenship in Indonesia being changed in July 2006.
    Don’t believe me? Check it out:
    http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_2052.html
    Next?

  1076. Robert:
    Article II, Section I states that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President…”
    To be a natural born a person must be born of two American citizens at the time of his birth. A natural born citizen must be born in the United States and his parents, if foreign born, must naturalize to the United States prior to his birth.
    Since Obama Sr. was born in Kenya and never naturalized, Obama II is disqualified. If Obama II ever held citizenship in Indonesia, Kenya or any other
    county (dual or otherwise) he is disqualified.
    The 14th has not, does not, nor ever shall qualify a person as a natural born citizen. It does serve to naturalize foreign born parents, enabling their America born off-spring to be natural born citizens.
    We the People still need to see Obama’s original vault copy birth certificate.

  1077. By Indonesian law at the time young BHO was there, it was necessary to be an Indonesian subject to attend school, and dual citizenship was not accepted by Indonesia.

    Thanks, WB. Two questions:
    1. You obviously know quite a bit about Indosian Law- can you quote me the Indonesian Law that states that?; and
    2. So what? To suggest that the US does not decide the citizenship of its own people is ridiculous.

    To return to Hawai;i BHO would have had to be in posession of an Indonesian passport regardless of his place of birth, which may or may not, in fact, be Hawai’i.

    Really? I’m not sure I follow: is this according to US law or Indonesian Law?

    And if you haven’t read about the Master Nationality Rule. It speaks to dual citzenship.

    I read it. And it has no application here. It states how a country (e.g. Indonesia) can treat citizens with dual nationality- it says nothing at all about relinquishing citizenship in one nation.
    But your entire argument seems to rest on two facts that I find beyond belief:
    1. That the US cannot decide who is and who is not a citizen of the US; and
    2. Indonesian laws (or even foreign treaties) trump US laws whenever the two are in conflict.
    Sorry, no.

  1078. First things first: I think this shows IN ABSOLUTE SPADES why BHO has no reason to allow release of his original birth certificate- it could be released and proven beyond shadow of a doubt to be genuine, and Fallback Conspiracy Theory #2 would simply come to the fore: under Indonesian law, his citizenship would be null and void,

  1079. Prior to 14 November 1986, the physical presence requirement in this case was ten years (instead of five) — including five years (instead of two) spent after the parent’s 14th birthday. The requirement was reduced in 1986, but the change did not retroactively make US citizenship available to people born previously who did not meet the old requirement. (Congress’s intent not to make this change retroactive was affirmed in 1988 with the passage of Public Law 100-525, § 8(d), 102 Stat. 2619).

  1080. Its about time for Robert to spit out — Occams Razor. Or maybe She said that she Said.. Or how about Conspiracy , Tin foil Hat , Black Heli stuff. C’mon Robert , I can’t wait to read your rebuttle.
    TICK TOCK TICK TOCK
    ROFLMAO

  1081. Robert –
    I fail to see what is germane about the 14th Amendment in this discussion, but it is interesting that the fact remains that not until recently did Indonesia finally recognize dual citzenship.

    Dual Nationality
    November 22nd, 2006, in News & Issues, by Patung
    Children born of mixed Indonesian and foreign parentage can now obtain dual nationality.
    As one of the first examples of the implementation of the new citizenship law, on the 21st of November in Jakarta the Law and Human Rights minister, Hamid Awaluddin, officiated at the granting of dual nationality papers (SK Kewarganegaraan Indonesia) to thirteen children of mixed Indonesian/foreign parentage, at the Mandarin Oriental hotel on Jalan M.H. Thamrin.

    By Indonesian law at the time young BHO was there, it was necessary to be an Indonesian subject to attend school, and dual citizenship was not accepted by Indonesia. Therefore, BHO must have become a “naturalized” citizen of Indonesia, something that his half-sister has stated as fact. To return to Hawai;i BHO would have had to be in posession of an Indonesian passport regardless of his place of birth, which may or may not, in fact, be Hawai’i.
    So lets stick with Article II , Section 1.
    And if you haven’t read about the Master Nationality Rule. It speaks to dual citzenship.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Nationality_Rule

  1082. Wild Bill,
    Robert just don’t get it. ———The 14 Amendment ——
    The relevant part reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This Amendment was meant to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling as unconstitutional the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (which granted citizenship to former slaves). Nothing in the 14th Amendment, however, changes the requirement that a President must be a “natural born citizen,” rather than simply a “citizen” or a “naturalized citizen.”
    Lifes Tough , It’s even tougher when you’re Stupid

  1083. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy’s religion as Islam.

    OK. So that is yet ANOTHER piece of evidence that Obama was born in Honolulu, HI.

    Obama was legally adopted by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, which made Obama an Indonesian citizen, according to Indonesian law. Because Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Obama thus lost his U.S. citizenship when he became an Indonesian citizen, in or about 1967.

    So Obama lost his US citizenship due to an Indonesian law. I guess I find it incredible that another nation’s laws would impact US citizenship, but there you go…

    Indonesia’s policy of not allowing dual citizenship must be respected by the United States in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1930.

    Sorry, a non starter. Nothing in the Hague Convention overrides the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
    I do find it interesting that this entire mental exercise accepts as fact that BHO was born in Honolulu, though…

  1084. Robert –
    Thank you. The “battleship” was a Navy metaphor.
    Okay, let’s review some evidence here:

    This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy’s religion as Islam.(AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana)
    http://www.daylife.com/photo/01u33pL9Ns06D

    BHO was registered in Indonesia as an Indonesian and Muslim.
    Next, and you can go to LilLoyd’s reference to check the citations:
    http://www.colony14.net/id41.html
    Obama was legally adopted by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro, which made Obama an Indonesian citizen, according to Indonesian law. Because Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Obama thus lost his U.S. citizenship when he became an Indonesian citizen, in or about 1967. At that point Obama also ceased to be a Kenyan citizen, according to both Indonesian and Kenyan law. Indonesian law would also have required Ann Dunham to renounce her U.S. citizenship for her marriage to Lolo Soetoro to have been considered legal. If, after Obama returned to Hawaii, he applied for and was granted American citizenship, he would be a naturalized citizen (like California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger) and not a natural born citizen, and would therefore be ineligible to serve as President of the U.S. It is possible that Obama did not even bother to become a naturalized citizen of the United States, and remains an Indonesian citizen even today. Appropriate federal records would exist if Obama made application for naturalization. If they exist, they have not been made public. [258,300,305,492]
    Indonesia’s policy of not allowing dual citizenship must be respected by the United States in accordance with the Hague Convention of 1930. Further, Obama, as a child, was not required to personally renounce his U.S. citizenship – that would have been an automatic result of his adoption by Lolo Soetoro. [492]
    According to Indonesian legal experts, it is extremely difficult for non-Indonesian citizens to enroll in public schools in that country. That was especially true during the 1960s, when Indonesia was a police state, and Indonesian immigration employees and the police performed weekly checks on public schools to confirm citizenship compliance. This further supports the assumption that Obama was adopted by Soetoro. (Some argue that he was not adopted by Soetoro.) Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, has stated that Obama was adopted by their father, Lolo Soetoro. [329,801]

    So before I go any further with this, please review, analyze and tell me what about this you can say is absolutely incorrect. Perhaps we can go from there.
    Over to you, Robert.

  1085. Most of what I posted is factual. You are running on pure speculation and have provided nothing to refute me.
    You made me laugh this morning WB. Thank you.
    Give me “factual” as opposed to “pure speculation” on your belief that BHO traveled on an Indonesian passport, please…

    And “kid?” Grow up. I have made no offensive comments about you. Don’t do it to me. It really makes you a much smaller person.

    My apologies: “kid” is much less mature than “you lost your battleship.” (You know, as I type that meaning to be sarcastic, I find that I actually do agree with it. “Kid,” etc. won’t happen again.)
    Anyhow: something beyond pure speculation on Indonesian passport, please…

  1086. The second official is declaring as true something that the first official is not even saying.

    Who to believe regarding what Dr. Furkino is saying? Hugh, or the spokesperson of the same Dr. Furkino:

    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

    If that is NOT what Dr. Furkino meant, what cabal of sinister characters is keeping Dr. Furkino from correcting her own spokesperson?

  1087. Robert:
    The words—-
    “…have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,”
    —–do not mean that the original birth certificate shows Obama birth as in Hawaii.
    There are no words in the statement that truly indicate such information. “…has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record…” can only indicate “the possession of the document”.
    The second official is declaring as true something that the first official is not even saying.

  1088. Summary:
    Despite what you might have heard, no definitive proof that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii has been provided. The supposed “fact checkers” have not provided definitive proof, and neither has Obama himself.
    That does not mean that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. All it means is that we don’t know for sure. Those who claim that his birthplace has been definitively proven are basing it on faith and not on facts.
    The FACT ,that Obama doesn’t want anyone to see his records IS NOT , Speculation. And That , you can take to the bank.

  1089. Robert,
    have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,”
    All that this statement eludes to is that they have his BC, NOTHING ELSE.
    It Could be His BC from Mombasa Kenya.
    By the way – Robert, Where do you get your information? Straight from the Horses Mouth? Or maybe the internet? Think About It.

  1090. Robert –

    Occam’s razor, also Ockham’s razor,[1] is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (“law of parsimony”, “law of economy”, or “law of succinctness”): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates “plurality should not be posited without necessity.” [2]

    Your citations, please.
    Most of what I posted is factual. You are running on pure speculation and have provided nothing to refute me.
    And “kid?” Grow up. I have made no offensive comments about you. Don’t do it to me. It really makes you a much smaller person.
    I told you before, I have spent time in the business of police work and a lot of time with attorneys. I don’t make statements that I can’t back up unless I say that they are speculation. I can speculate and I have done so. But I have used documented things no of my own mind. To make a point, your entire argument is based upon words used by a few people that IF YOU WOULD READ THEM WITHOUT PREDJUDICE you would see what Greek, Hugh, Loyd and I and others are saying.

  1091. Since neither you nor I know of any other travel except since he became an elected official, have you got a good explanation that trumps this one?

    Occam’s Razor, kid.
    As a citizen of the United States, BHO traveled on a US passport.
    Consider yourself trumped.

  1092. I was referring to the first Hawaiian official saying Hawaii is in possession of the COLB.

    The first official said no such thing.

    This may not make sense to you, but there is a clear distinction in my mind between simply being in possession of a sealed document, and the actual verification of the details on that particular document.

    Lucky for you, the official in question “verified” it…
    Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,
    And, of course, to explain in clear unambiguous terms for the suspicious and the disingenuous, we have the clear, concise statement of the second HI official:
    Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

    Independent forensic document examiners say the the original vault copy document must be disclosed.

    So says NO ONE with the exception of a very very few internet posters…

  1093. OK, Robert, let us deal with it!
    I said:
    “The Hawaiian response is contradictory in nature! Two different officials are saying two different things.”
    You said:
    That’s incorrect.
    I posted the link earlier:
    I say:
    I was referring to the first Hawaiian official saying Hawaii is in possession of the COLB. Then a second Hawaiian official said in reply to a question as to what the first Hawaiian meant and the answer was “Yes, Obama was born in Hawaii.”
    This may not make sense to you, but there is a clear distinction in my mind between simply being in possession of a sealed document, and the actual verification of the details on that particular document.
    The two Hawaii officials are actually saying two different things. To equate the the nature of the two statements is not logical.
    This is the crux of the matter!
    Independent forensic document examiners say the the original vault copy document must be disclosed.

  1094. Robert –
    Let’s go back to the passport issue with a bit of a history lesson.
    BHO born 1961.
    Obama’s divorce in 1964.
    Stanley Ann married Soetoro in 1966 or 67.
    Family goes to Indonesia in 1967.
    BHO is adopted and attends grade school in Indonesia where attendance requires Indonesian citizenship.
    BHO sent to Hawai’i in 1971 or 72 at age 10 or 11 and would need a passport due to his Indonesian citizenship. Can’t get a US passport because of his citizenship and he doesn’t have a valid Hawai’ian Birth Certificate, or if he does he has never shown it to anyone that we know of.
    BHO attends school in Hawai’i 1971 to 1979.
    Travels to California in 1979 to attend Occidental College and goes through 1981.
    Soetoros divorce in 1980.
    BHO may have travelled to Kenya in 1980, but did travel to Indonesia in 1981 to visit his mother and half-sister.

    According to Indonesian legal experts, it is extremely difficult for non-Indonesian citizens to enroll in public schools in that country. That was especially true during the 1960s, when Indonesia was a police state, and Indonesian immigration employees and the police performed weekly checks on public schools to confirm citizenship compliance. This further supports the assumption that Obama was adopted by Soetoro. (Some argue that he was not adopted by Soetoro.) Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, has stated that Obama was adopted by their father, Lolo Soetoro. [329,801]
    Indonesia today still does not allow dual citizenship. Under Indonesia law, once Obama became a naturalized citizen by virtue of adoption, he could not lose that status without relinquishing his citizenship in writing, under oath. If he did that, the government of Indonesia would have those records. If he did not do so by age 21, Obama is to this day still an Indonesian citizen. His place of birth or the nationality of his mother is irrelevant; Indonesian law takes precedence under “The Master Nationality Rule of Article 4 of the Hague Convention on 1930.” The United States accepts dual nationality only if the other country does; Indonesia does not. [801]

    For BHO to have gotten to Hawai’i from Indonesia would have required a passport. So let’s call it 1971 when he was ten. Indonesian passports have to be renewed every five years, so say 1976. That passport would have been good through the time he went on travel in 1981.
    Since he entered the US via Hawai’i, once there, moving to California would not have required a passport since he was already on US soil.
    Since neither you nor I know of any other travel except since he became an elected official, have you got a good explanation that trumps this one?

  1095. Swamppolitics? Sounds kind of murky to me! The name should tell us something!

    LOL, the Chicago Tribune’s website posting a direct quote from an HI official!
    Smart move, Hugh, addressing your comment to CG rather than to me.
    Anywho: I wonder why this HI official isn’t sreaming to high heaven if she has been misquoted?

  1096. THIS is precisely the reason we MUST get this usurper out of the Oval Office!
    From The Federal Register………………..
    http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2009-02-04-E9-2488

    Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009
    Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related To Gaza
    Memorandum for the Secretary of State
    By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the “Act”), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
    You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
    (Presidential Sig.)
    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    Washington, January 27, 2009
    [FR Doc. E9-2488
    Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
    Billing code 4710-10-P

    If ANYONE is crazy enough to believe for one minute that O has the best interest of the United States or it’s citizens in mind…they had better think again!
    I noticed on this thing that O is quoting the power granted him by the United States Constitution……maybe this is just what is needed to get him into court…to PROVE that he is CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE to hold the office of President!
    Just a thought…………………

  1097. So have we researched Judge Kenney (sp?) from Sacramento yet?
    Is he being bribed by the same people who have apparently bribed about 20 other judges, justices, and HI state officials?
    OCCAM’S RAZOR, fellas!

  1098. Wrong. My exact point is that as far as I know, and as far as youi know, he hasn’t travelled except way back than, and currently on what I have to believe is an official passport.
    I think you just lost your battleship.

    LMAO, sure.
    You admit he traveled outside the counrty prior to having an official passport.
    So unless you have some sort of proof of this mysterious Indonesian passport (you don’t – internet innuendo doesn’t count), you never had a battleship to begin with.
    So when are you going to trot out his never before seen Irish passport?

  1099. Oh wait…….I’m sorry Bill…that “transparency thing” was just something O PROMISED during his campaigning, designed to get his blind followers to vote for him……………..now that he is in office, it don’t mean what he said it should mean. Ya know……kind like that crap “Anything that comes to me desk for signing, the public will have 5 days to look at it before I sign it into law” statement.
    The “5 days” promise (just like any other “promise” O has made) hasn’t seen the light of day YET, so I wouldn’t put too much faith in that “transparency” thing either if I were you Bill.
    You CAN put faith in THIS though………IF O’s lips are moving….he’s LYING!!~
    ROFLMFAO

  1100. Yeah Bill….I saw that!
    I also saw where there are SOME in our government that are mad as hell that this bill is being introduced!
    I wonder why THAT is? I mean, this was SUPPOSED TO BE the administration of TRANSPARENCY, right?
    I sometimes think the Dems favorite song to describe THEIR meaning of transparency is……..
    SMOKE ON THE WATER!!
    ROFLMFAO

  1101. Hey Hugh….yeah……there ya go…….Swamppolitics……the same old thing that is always pointed to…problem is, that ‘same old thing’ STILL doesn’t state anywhere on it that O was born in Hawaii, now does it Hugh?
    LAUGHABLE!!
    My question is still the same however………….we have a Dr. that is the head of the records department for the State of Hawaii. AS OF THIS DATE, that Dr., who one would think smart enough and capable enough to speak for herself, has YET to come forward and state “Yes, that is what I meant…that the birth certificate we have on file CLEARLY SHOWS that O was really born in the State of Hawaii.”
    She HAS NOT YET come forward to state her case!! PERIOD!!
    Oh yes, WE do HAVE one instance where another person (who WAS NOT listed as being physically present when this Dr. and another person with the State of Hawaii says they verified the PRESENCE of that birth certificate being on file, says that this is what the good Dr. meant……….and then more or less RETRACTED that statement with the “State of Hawaii cannot confirm what is on birth certificate….”issued statement, but we are now (according to some) supposed to take this one statement as gospel?
    Yeah Hugh…………………you gonna buy THAT ONE?
    ROFLMFAO

  1102. Not that it is intended to solve the question today, but at least for the future.

    BORN IN THE USA?
    Eligibility bill hits Congress
    Representative files law requiring candidates show birth certificate
    ——————————————————————————–
    Posted: March 13, 2009
    3:09 pm Eastern
    By Drew Zahn
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily

    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91649

  1103. OF COURSE there is NO REASON to look at that vault copy of O’s birth certificate….he’s already posted HIS version……………..RIIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTTT!!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJILWXNyie0&eurl=http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/2442810129/show/992504&feature=player_embedded
    Yep……..no reason at all!
    This is just how EASY it is to DO a birth certificate in order to get a passport…….OR ‘prove’ yourself to be a natural born citizen in order to be elected POTUS!
    Why in the world would ANYONE want to see a HANDWRITTEN copy of an ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE that has been locked away by the State of Hawaii since the day it was filed?
    Better question………..why would ANYONE NOT WANT TO SEE IT?
    Hummmmmmm…….sure makes ya wonder, don’t it?
    ROFLMFAO

  1104. Robert –
    You said

    I don’t know anywhere else, but it’s irrelevant… if he can travel to one country on the Magical Indonesian Passport, he can travel to all of them on the Magical Indonesian Passport.

    Wrong. My exact point is that as far as I know, and as far as youi know, he hasn’t travelled except way back than, and currently on what I have to believe is an official passport.
    I think you just lost your battleship.

  1105. What a shocker. Keyes had a day in court, and it went NOWHERE.
    My money is on the appeal! LOL.

  1106. You still haven’t answered the question of where else BHO has travelled.

    I don’t know anywhere else, but it’s irrelevant… if he can travel to one country on the Magical Indonesian Passport, he can travel to all of them on the Magical Indonesian Passport.

  1107. Crazy Greek,
    You have got to be kiddin. Only members of Congress , on the 6th day of January following the meeting of the Presidential electors, at the session of Congress where the vote of the Electoral College is counted and the results announced.
    That is total BS. The leaders of this country are all in in League with the Devil himself.

  1108. Keyes v. Bowen UPDATE……..You had to figure it would go this way….interesting how NO ONE is responsible…first it’s one, then the other……….would be funny if this weren’t so serious……….
    Look at the bright side….at least we are seeing out TAX DOLLARS (in the form of law firms representing O) at work!!
    Hon. Michael P. Kenny presided and upheld his Tentative Ruling.
    Gary Kreep, Esq. represented Plaintiffs.
    Peter Kraus Esq. represented defendant Secretary of State Bowen.
    Michael J. Strumwasser, Esq. represented defendant Barack Obama.
    Pro Hac Vice Robert F. Bauer, Esq. was a no show.
    Proceedings began about 9am at the Superior Court of California, Dept. 31 as scheduled.
    Kreep, Kraus and Strumwasser all spoke. Kreep made the argument that it’s the SOS’s job to qualify Presidential candidates and Strumwasser and Kraus argued that it wasn’t the SOS’s job to qualify federal candidates that it was the U.S. Congress’s job to qualify the POTUS.
    Judge Kenny obviously agreed with this agrument from looking at his ruling. Kenny made a comment in court along the lines of ‘a state SOS does not have the power to overturn a ruling of POTUS qualification by the U.S. Congress.’ (not a direct quote) This brings us back to the argument that the SOS’s should have checked qualifications before placing POTUS candidates on the ballot. If the SOS does not do the investigation of a candidate and the U.S. Congress does not do the investigation of candidate then any person qualified or NOT can be appointed POTUS by the U.S. Congress, to include illegal aliens under 35 y.o. that had just migrated to America
    Kreep is already working on the appeal!

  1109. Robert –
    You still haven’t answered the question of where else BHO has travelled.

  1110. “We is gonna have TRANSPARENCY in MY administration”……………..
    Obama has lived for 48 years without leaving any footprints — none! There is no Obama documentation — no bona fides — no paper trail — nothing.
    Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released
    Certificate of Live Birth — Released — Counterfeit
    Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
    Obama/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)
    Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
    Soetoro adoption records — Not released
    Soetoro/Dunham divorce — Released (by independent investigators)
    Fransiskus Assisi School School application — Released
    Punahou School records — Not released
    Selective Service Registration — Released — Counterfeit
    Occidental College records — Not released
    Passport (Pakistan) — Not released
    Columbia College records — Not released
    Columbia thesis — Not released
    Harvard College records — Not released
    Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
    Baptism certificate — None
    Medical records — Not released
    Illinois State Senate records — None
    Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
    Law practice client list — Not released
    University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
    Transparency………yeah….RIGHT!!
    TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK
    But hey, O shouldn’t be questioned at all…about ANYTHING…….you just gotta BELIEVE!!
    ROFLMFAO

  1111. Anyway, this is a big day!! Keyes is in court today, and I’m sure we’re all on tenterhooks.
    After all, with such obvious questions about Obama’s birth, I hope Judge Kenney is not part of The Conspiracy!!
    Stay glued to the news for a huge announcement!

  1112. The Hawaiian response is contradictory in nature! Two different officials are saying two different things.

    That’s incorrect.
    I posted the link earlier:

  1113. Since it is suspected that the travel to Pakistan was done with an Indonesian passport, I wasn’t going to use that as any of the argument.

    “Suspected” by whom?
    And what difference would it make if I produced a raft of countries beyond Pakistan- he could have traveled to those countries on the “suspected Indonesian passport” as well.
    And, of course, if anyone DID produce absolute iron clad proof (of course impossible) that Obama never had an Indonesian passport, the internet crowd would quickly change “Indonesian” to “Kenyan” or some other…

  1114. Robert, you say
    So it IS a massive conspiracy, involving the state of HI!! (Need I correct you on your assertion that HI has been “mum,” when in fact an HI official verified that BHO was born in HI, in answer to a reporter’s direct question).
    I say:
    The forensic document examiners say that the vault copy must be disclosed. The Hawaiian response is contradictory in nature! Two different officials are saying two different things.
    Do you really think that the COLB serves as sufficient and competent evdience?

  1115. Good link Loyd!
    That’s gonna take a bit of quiet time readin for sure! Thanks.

  1116. Looks like O’s gotta get his lawyers busy again…….Keyes v. Bowen in Sacramento Superior Court today, Friday 13th!
    Oh yeah….O’s got his ‘team’ ready for their usual stunt…trying to get the judge to throw the case out……….

    Obama’s attorneys Strumwasser, Woocher, LLP and a D.C. Pro Hac attorney Robert F. Bauer prepared a 167 page document to try to get the case thrown out.

    Strumwasser, Woocher charges $600/Hour. Wonder WHO’S PAYING this time? LOL
    It will be interesting to see if Judge Michael P. Kenny will have what it takes to order O to provide pertinent documents regarding his citizenship……….
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/8980887/Keyes-v-Bowen

  1117. Loyd –
    Thanks for the link. I hadn’t gone there until now. Lots of information and all in one place. I’m addiing the site to my favorites list.
    There are still a lot of things that are yet to be cleared up, eligibility being the most important.
    For everyone, save Robert, the United States Justice Foundation
    http://www.usjf.net/
    is apparently going to court tomorrow on the eligibility issue. USJF is part of Gary Kreep’s efforts.
    It’s nice to know that the pressure isn’t letting up.

  1118. Robert –
    Since it is suspected that the travel to Pakistan was done with an Indonesian passport, I wasn’t going to use that as any of the argument.
    So now, what other travel?

  1119. Thanks for the link, WB!
    Here’s a good howler from it:
    That is why Hawaii is in collusion with Barack Obama. ”
    So it IS a massive conspiracy, involving the state of HI!! (Need I correct you on your assertion that HI has been “mum,” when in fact an HI official verified that BHO was born in HI, in answer to a reporter’s direct question).
    Of course- I have to admit that the vast reaches of this conspiracy make that answer null and void, as the HI state official is IN on the massive conspiracy!

  1120. And I am ignoring his travel to Pakistan, etc, in his college years.

    Why ignore that?

  1121. Robert –
    You said

    So- why no answer to my question: tell us how BHO traveled outside the country before he ever ran for elected office? Did he have an “official passport” then?

    My question to you is when did he travel and to where? And I am ignoring his travel to Pakistan, etc, in his college years.

    Washington, D.C., January 21, 2009 – On his first full day in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order and two presidential memoranda heralding what he called a “new era of openness.” Announcing a Presidential Memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act to reestablish a presumption of disclosure for information requested under FOIA, President Obama said that “every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known.”
    The FOIA Memorandum articulates a presumption of disclosure for government records and a hostility to the use of secrecy laws to cover up embarrassing information. It directs the Attorney General to issue new guidelines governing FOIA and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to improve information dissemination to the public.

  1122. Robert: In replying to the Greek:
    Therefore, it is the ONE document that no one could really argue with over it’s authenticity……….can you understand that simple concept?
    You say
    You got it wrong AGAIN, CG. My question about “why would anyone care about such a thing” was in regard to whether or not Crazy Greek recognizes BHO as the rightful president. Seriously: even within the minute confines of this forum, no one cares.
    Are you saying “no one cares whether Obama is the rightful President? If this is a correct evaluation of the above, then it is absolutely absurd.
    And Robert you say:
    “Thanks, WB- see my answer to CG. If he did release it, the TIn Foil Hat Brigade would claim photoshop, etc., etc.”
    I say
    A properly presented vault copy would be welcome and there would be no need to claim photoshop. Forensic examiners have said that the vault copy must be examined to determine the truth of the matter. What has been presented to support Obama’s position has been doctored.
    Robert:
    After reading your posts, I can only conclude that you are very naive concerning the examination of Obama’s birth certificate evidence.

  1123. I’m not confused Robert…I have YOU perfectly pegged…….you are nothing but a troll and I don’t have time left in my life for people like you………………and NO, I didn’t need any help from anyone to come to that conclusion.
    Go bother someone else, ok?

  1124. And, of course, if he HAS an official birth certificate, then why hasn’t he just shown it?

    Thanks, WB- see my answer to CG. If he did release it, the TIn Foil Hat Brigade would claim photoshop, etc., etc.
    So- why no answer to my question: tell us how BHO traveled outside the country before he ever ran for elected office? Did he have an “official passport” then?

  1125. Therefore, it is the ONE document that no one could really argue with over it’s authenticity……….can you understand that simple concept?

    You got it wrong AGAIN, CG. My question about “why would anyone care about such a thing” was in regard to whether or not Crazy Greek recognizes BHO as the rightful president. Seriously: even within the minute confines of this forum, no one cares.
    And- you gave me a twofer! The quote from you above is also patently false in its point, and shows one very good reason why BHO should not release the cert: the minute something is released, the Tin Foil Hat Brigade will start simpering and whining that it must be photoshopped, and there we go again.
    Internet conspiracy theories don’t go away- the best thing to do is ignore them.

    The Sun example was simply brought up as an example to your query of ‘why would Hawaii allow such a thing’ (or words to that effect….go look up thread for a direct quote of what you wrote). It has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with O or anyone else for that matter.

    I think you are getting confused, CG, and in your confusion you are getting frustrated. Let’s try this again, and take your time to think things through before you attempt an answer:
    BHO is using his COLB to gain a benefit from his HI birth. Therefore, HI state officials have every right and even responsibility to verify that BHO was born in HI. Not neccessarily release the cert, but verify that BHO was born in HI.
    Is that correct, CG? (You don’t have to answer right away!! This is an internet forum, so no one will know if you get a friend to help you read through the question! Take your time.)

  1126. Robert wrote:

    I’ve said it before on this thread and please let me say it again…..IF O’s vault copy is opened, examined and his Hawaiian birth verified THEN I will support him as President….but NOT UNTIL!
    Why on earth would anyone care about such a thing?

    You have really got to be kidding with this question Robert!
    Let me see if I can explain a simple concept to you…..the ‘vault copy’ has been sealed away from ANYONE since the day it was filed with the State of Hawaii….hence, it is the ONLY document that one can say may stand a chance of having NEVER BEEN TAMPERED WITH! Therefore, it is the ONE document that no one could really argue with over it’s authenticity……….can you understand that simple concept?
    Robert wrote:

    Does this explain my “thought process” clear enough for you?
    Not entirely. I really can’t see ANY relevance to the BHO case. Consider:
    1. You have freely admitted that such a document can be photoshopped and posted on the internet- as you claim is the case with the BHO certificate. And now we are to accept that this internet version from “scribd.com” is valid?
    NOW- when the Sun Yat Sen cert is backed up by the statements of HI state officials that they have SEEN Sun’s birth cert- let me know. THEN you have relevance.
    2. Let me know when Sun (or anyone else for that matter) claims some sort of benefit (eg running for president) from that birth, and a NUMBER of courts refuse to hear the case against the Hon. Sun Yat Sen’s candidacy, and THEN you will have relevance.

    Man, you REALLY DON’T GET IT, do you? Robert….come on….are you purposely trying to appear totally STUPID?
    The ease of using a program like photo shop is PRECISELY why the vault copy should be examined!!!!
    The Sun example was simply brought up as an example to your query of ‘why would Hawaii allow such a thing’ (or words to that effect….go look up thread for a direct quote of what you wrote). It has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with O or anyone else for that matter.
    Yet, for one who says he is perfectly willing to accept O’s explanation of his place of birth WITHOUT VERIFICATION provided by the one certificate that is locked away in a vault, you now want some sort of statement by Hawaiian officials regarding this Sun character!
    Man…..exactly what drug are you on?
    Someone as inconsequential as Sun and YOU want verification and relevance but when it comes to something as IMPORTANT as our CONSTITUTION and the President of the United States you require nothing more than O’s word?
    You have GOT to be KIDDIN!!
    Once again, you have opened your fly and shown this whole board the ineptitude of your thinking………….please don’t bother me again………….you’re LAUGHABLE!

  1127. To all bloggers but in particular to Robert:
    I do not understand why you feel it is necessary to slip insulting remarks in your “argument”. What the heck is the tin foil hat brigade for one example. Why do you question CG’s ability to read?
    Just had to say this because the trash talk is becoming more prominent than the everything else going on. I am still on the fence on this matter but as time passes I am leaning more and more to the belief that something is rotten in DC.

  1128. At one point in this dialog, faith came up. I just ran across this a couple of minutes ago, and while it may seem off-point, I think it is not. BHO claims to be a Christian, but seems to forget what it is to practice that committment, so here it is:

    John 14 (New International Version)
    John 14
    Jesus Comforts His Disciples
    1″Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God[a]; trust also in me. 2In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4You know the way to the place where I am going.”
    Jesus the Way to the Father
    5Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
    6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
    8Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
    9Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
    Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit
    15″If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.”
    22Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”
    23Jesus replied, “If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
    25″All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
    28″You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, 31but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
    “Come now; let us leave.

    Prayer is a good response every day.

  1129. For everyones info, from Orly Taitz’ site

    To Eric Holder- A petition with 324,000 signatures. Hear the case.Attorney General Holder:
    Recently, Dr. Orly Taitz has sent you a great deal of information about Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to be president, including a quo warranto request. I am just writing to let you know that many of us are well aware of this matter. A petition at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550 demanding the truth has over 324,000 signatures. This issue isn’t going to go away and considering all of the evidence, the public concern and the repercussions of such a weighty matter, it is your duty to accede to the quo warranto request and appoint an independent counselor to immediately and publicly investigate the issue. America is watching to see what you will do.
    Sincerely,
    redacted

  1130. Robert –
    Question: Why do you not want to answer my question from

    Wild Bill ~ Mar 10, 2009 at 8:04 pm
    Robert –

    ?
    Since we seem to be unable to convince you that there MIGHT be a VERY BIG problem, and you clearly aren’t changing our positions, why is it that you don’t at least answer questions to which I have tried to provide answers and you seem to ignore?
    And I have another question: Have you researched Quo Warranto? If you haven’t, you might want to.

  1131. However, I suspect that what he has is and official passport as defined below.

    Thanks, WB.
    How did he travel out of the country on that “official passport” before he even ran for office?

  1132. I’ve said it before on this thread and please let me say it again…..IF O’s vault copy is opened, examined and his Hawaiian birth verified THEN I will support him as President….but NOT UNTIL!

    Why on earth would anyone care about such a thing?

    Does this explain my “thought process” clear enough for you?

    Not entirely. I really can’t see ANY relevance to the BHO case. Consider:
    1. You have freely admitted that such a document can be photoshopped and posted on the internet- as you claim is the case with the BHO certificate. And now we are to accept that this internet version from “scribd.com” is valid?
    NOW- when the Sun Yat Sen cert is backed up by the statements of HI state officials that they have SEEN Sun’s birth cert- let me know. THEN you have relevance.
    2. Let me know when Sun (or anyone else for that matter) claims some sort of benefit (eg running for president) from that birth, and a NUMBER of courts refuse to hear the case against the Hon. Sun Yat Sen’s candidacy, and THEN you will have relevance.

    …but, after multitudes of questions regarding the WHY of your opinions, you have yet to come up with a viable answer.

    Untrue. Fact is, you just don’t like the answer.
    Let me repeat: I find the release of the COLB, WITH the statements of HI state officials, WITH a number of USSC justices and lower court judges opinions that there is nothing there, sufficient.

  1133. Thanks for the link Loyd!
    I took a look at it and right off the bat, I have reservations about it. Isn’t that the same people (African Press) that was so adamant they had Michelle Obama on tape and was going to release said tape..but never did?
    Not sure on this, but if so I wouldn’t put too much credence in what they say….IF these are the same people I am thinking about.
    IF NOT, this could be very interesting indeed.
    Thanks again for you quick response……now I can go to bed and get some sleep without thinking too much about it until verified. 😉

  1134. LilLoyd…how about a little “friendly fire” here……………;-)
    LilLoyd wrote:

    A confirmation to the effect will now be forthcoming. A Mombasa Mosque Imam
    has decided to release documents of birth that will indicate Barack Obama
    was born in Mombasa
    , given his middle name on the day he was born and
    blessed by the Imam of the day.

    Can you supply us with a link for this information? This is definitely something new ole buddy.
    Just thought I would do the asking before anyone else got the chance this time….He He He…….;-)

  1135. Robert wrote:

    CG, at this point I feel badly picking on you, but I wonder if you can parse out your thought process for me:
    You brought up the fact (?) that Sun Yat Sen had some sort of certificate?
    What was that about?

    I would be more than happy to Robert.
    Earlier up thread, you had made this comment……………….

    THINK!!! Do you really think a state government could not act to prevent someone from claiming to be born there who wasn’t in fact born there??
    I read your statement and took it to mean that you are of the feeling that the State of Hawaii would NEVER let someone have a birth certificate who was not ACTUALLY BORN in Hawaii. In response, I simply pointed out the FACT that indeed Hawaii does so with the one simple link to a birth certificate generated by the State of Hawaii for one Sun Yat Sen, a Chinese National born in CHINA.
    Here’s the link again should you choose to examine said birth certificate of one person born someplace OTHER THAN the State of Hawaii but having a BIRTH CERTIFICATE issued by the Hawaii in their name.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii
    Robert, surely you do understand that it is PRECISELY the State of Hawaii’s known propensity for issuing these certificates to people NOT BORN IN THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS that is driving this discussion, correct?
    Given this, I have to ask AGAIN, why are you so against having the vault copy of O’s birth certificate opened for public inspection and verification?
    I’ve said it before on this thread and please let me say it again…..IF O’s vault copy is opened, examined and his Hawaiian birth verified THEN I will support him as President….but NOT UNTIL!
    This is really a very simple request being made of this man. At present, the ONLY REASON for his non compliance with the request is the possibility that there is information contained on that certificate which would support the truth that he WAS NOT BORN IN HAWAII as claimed and is therefore ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States, since he would have been born in another country to a Mother who, at the time of his birth, DID NOT meet the qualifications in force at that time to convey her United States citizenship on him.
    Does this explain my “thought process” clear enough for you?
    Now, please explain for me, and the rest of us on this forum YOUR thought process as to why you feel the vault copy of O’s birth certificate should not be examined for consistency with what he has publicly said…PLEASE?
    BTW……..I do not consider you to be “picking” on me by any means. I really do consider your opinions to be valid (in your eyes at least…otherwise why would you so state) but, after multitudes of questions regarding the WHY of your opinions, you have yet to come up with a viable answer. Please think about this and give it your best shot…how’s that?

  1136. Sniper 1
    Check this out.
    We have stated earlier that Barack Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya.
    A confirmation to the effect will now be forthcoming. A Mombasa Mosque Imam
    has decided to release documents of birth that will indicate Barack Obama
    was born in Mombasa, given his middle name on the day he was born and
    blessed by the Imam of the day.”
    All other documents pertaining to his registration of birth in Kenya have
    been sealed and categorised confidential. The Imam is the grandson of the late Imam who blessed Barack Obama when he
    was born in Mombasa on the 4th of august 1961

  1137. Sniper 1 check this out.
    We have stated earlier that Barack Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya.
    A confirmation to the effect will now be forthcoming. A Mombasa Mosque Imam
    has decided to release documents of birth that will indicate Barack Obama
    was born in Mombasa, given his middle name on the day he was born and
    blessed by the Imam of the day.”
    All other documents pertaining to his registration of birth in Kenya have
    been sealed and categorised confidential. The Imam is the grandson of the late Imam who blessed Barack Obama when he
    was born in Mombasa on the 4th of august 1961

  1138. Robert –
    As far as BHO having a passport, he probably has a US passport now, but what class of passport would be the question.
    Again, if BHO has a valid certificate of live birth, not a certification of live birth, then getting an ordinary passport would not be a problem, assuming that the birth certificate proves US citizenship. However, I suspect that what he has is and official passport as defined below. Greek and I both used the word “diplomatic,” which is probably wrong, but the intent was correct. Neither and official passport, nor a diplomatic passport has the same requirements as and ordinary passport.
    And, of course, if he HAS an official birth certificate, then why hasn’t he just shown it?

    The terminology related to passports has become generally standardized around the world. The typical passports include:
    Ordinary passport, also called tourist passport
    Issued to ordinary citizens.
    Official passport, also called service passport
    Issued to government employees for work-related travel, and to accompanying dependents.
    Diplomatic passport
    Issued to diplomats and consuls for work-related travel, and to accompanying dependents. Having a diplomatic passport is not the equivalent of having diplomatic immunity. A grant of diplomatic status, a privilege of which is diplomatic immunity, has to come from the government of the country in relation to which diplomatic status is claimed. Also, having a diplomatic passport does not mean visa-free travel. A holder of a diplomatic passport usually has to obtain a diplomatic visa, even if a holder of an ordinary passport may enter a country visa-free or may obtain a visa on arrival.
    In exceptional circumstances, a diplomatic passport is given to a foreign citizen with no passport of his own, such as an exiled VIP who lives, by invitation, in a foreign country.

  1139. It’s painfully obvious that he doesn’t do that, or if he does, has no comprehension of what he reads!

    CG, at this point I feel badly picking on you, but I wonder if you can parse out your thought process for me:
    You brought up the fact (?) that Sun Yat Sen had some sort of certificate?
    What was that about?

  1140. No, a COLB is NOT sufficient. As I posted before, which you apparently didn’t read

    Sorry, WB- you DID say “…or a COLB and a whole bunch of other stuff. [paraphrase]. So you are correct, you never said a COLB in itself is sufficient.
    So: How DID Obama get his passport, then?

  1141. And Hawaiian officials have not revealed what information the certificate contains

    Well, except for the HI state official who directly answered a direct question from a reporter. OTHER than that particular state official, right?
    LOL.

    Law firms representing Obama have been hired around the country to fight to keep all of his documentation away from the public.

    THAT is interesting. Credible link, please?

  1142. Law firms representing Obama have been hired around the country to fight to keep all of his documentation away from the public.
    Now, I wonder why that would be?
    Hawaiian officials have confirmed they have a birth certificate on file for Obama, but it cannot be released without his permission. He has refused that permission. And Hawaiian officials have not revealed what information the certificate contains.
    Gee , this doesn’t make anything appear to be suspicious.
    It’s clear that Obama has something in the documentation of his history, including his birth certificate, college records and other documents that “he does not want the public to know.”

  1143. Robert wrote:

    Is there anything posted on the internet that you won’t believe, CG.

    Well yes Robert, actually there IS quite a bit of stuff posted on the internet that I do not believe…….or at least have a problem believing my eyes when I see it posted.
    Most of that comes from a guy named Robert on this forum!
    Robert wrote:

    Look up “irrelevance” and let me know what you find.

    I did………………………..it said “irrelevance – See Robert”…………………….

  1144. Wild Bill……
    You don’t REALLY expect Robert to have actually ready something you posted above, do ya? It’s painfully obvious that he doesn’t do that, or if he does, has no comprehension of what he reads!
    ROFLMFAO

  1145. Robert –
    No, a COLB is NOT sufficient. As I posted before, which you apparently didn’t read

    If you do not have a previous U.S. passport or a certified birth certificate, you will need:
    Letter of “No Record” issued by the State with your name, date of birth, which years were searched for a birth record and that there is no birth certificate on file for you and
    As many of the following as possible:
    baptismal certificate
    hospital birth certificate
    census record
    early school record
    family bible record
    doctor’s record of post-natal care
    Note: These documents must be early public records showing the date and place of birth, preferably created within the first five years of your life. You may also submit an Affidavit of Birth, form DS-10, from an older blood relative (i.e. parent, aunt, uncle, sibling) who has personal knowledge of your birth. It must be notarized or have the seal and signature of the acceptance agent.

    Okay?

  1146. Robert,
    Youll’e Probably be here too. Cause you enjoy misery. Oh,thats right, you are from Missouri. You are irrelelavant , Robert.

  1147. No, actually Robert, it most definitely shows that YOU seem to migrate toward those that have a problem proving their citizenship!

    Is there anything posted on the internet that you won’t believe, CG.
    Here’s a prediction: In three years, BHO (successful or not) will be running for re electon. And most of the people on this board today will still be here then, chortling and giggling that “the sweater is about to unravel,” and “this is about to get interesting,” etc. etc.
    Meanwhile, in the Real World, not a single serious media outlet or court of law will have taken anything you say seriously.
    Look up “irrelevance” and let me know what you find.

  1148. Sorry, WB- I accidentally posted mid stream.

    If that is true, why not just present it and end the discussion?

    As I have said- about a dozen times now- that would not “end the discussion.” Just as the Tin Foil Hat crowd now tickles themselves silly over ways the COLB may have been altered (LOL- “A guy on Youtube did it!!!”), the same would happen with the cert.
    The COLB is good enough for all involved, except the Tin Foil Hat crowd.

  1149. It takes, again, and according to the United States Department of State, EITHER a valid birth certificate, or a COLB and a whole bunch of other stuff.

    So according to what you write above, Wild Bill, a COLB is sufficient to prove US Citizenship and receive a passport.
    So why isn’t it good enough for you?
    LMAO. “Cat got your tongue?”

  1150. Robert wrote:

    YOU have a neighbor AND an Aunt that has a problem providing necessary documentation to prove their United States citizenship……AMAZING….
    Yeah, kinda shows how meaningless your question was, doesn’t it.

    No, actually Robert, it most definitely shows that YOU seem to migrate toward those that have a problem proving their citizenship!
    Which, in and of itself, says VOLUMES about YOU!
    You’re a JOKE and a TROLL………………verified herein by your OWN ADMISSION!
    Please….go bother someone else…perhaps your neighbor or your aunt…….I’m done with you.

  1151. YO!! Robert!!!
    What documentation did BHO provide to get his US Passport? Go back to my earlier questions that you can’t answer.
    It takes, again, and according to the United States Department of State, EITHER a valid birth certificate, or a COLB and a whole bunch of other stuff.
    Now, let’s suppose that you are right and that BHO HAS a US passport. Therefore, one has to assume that he is also in possession of a birth certificate that proves his identity. Am I making sense so far?
    If that is true, why not just present it and end the discussion?
    So? Cat got your tongue?

  1152. YOU have a neighbor AND an Aunt that has a problem providing necessary documentation to prove their United States citizenship……AMAZING….

    Yeah, kinda shows how meaningless your question was, doesn’t it.

  1153. Robert wrote:

    Huh? What kind of a ridiculous question is that??
    Here is your list:
    My neighbor John Smidlap
    My aunt Polly Perkins
    ???
    Now- if anyone asked ME to prove my US citizenship, I would produce my US passport. Barack Obama has a US passport.

    LAUGHABLE……let’s see…YOU have a neighbor AND an Aunt that has a problem providing necessary documentation to prove their United States citizenship……AMAZING….now I am really gettin a clue as to where you are really coming from on this thing.
    Go reread all the above Robert………you just don’t get any of this, do ya? Try taking a course in reading comprehension…….it might help ya out.
    When you come up with something logical, I’ll pay attention.
    ROFLMFAO

  1154. My, my, my………NOW someone has to DO something in order for the State of Hawaii to “care about” in order for them to refuse to issue a birth certificate?

    Um. Yeah. I’m embarassed for you again, CG. Look at what I said above (that YOU quoted):
    THINK!!! Do you really think a state government could not act to prevent someone from claiming to be born there who wasn’t in fact born there??
    Sun Yat Sun? What did HE do to claim HI citizenship that the state of HI would care about?
    And you now ask me about HI “refusing to issue a birth certificate????”
    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT???
    What I DID say is that a state is not going to do much about someone who claims that he or she was born there, but never tries to claim some benefit (eg presidential candidacy) from that birth.

  1155. Please, IF it wouldn’t be too much trouble for ya, could you please list for us any actual U.S. citizen that if their citizenship was challenged, they wouldn’t provide the necessary documentation to prove otherwise?

    Huh? What kind of a ridiculous question is that??
    Here is your list:
    My neighbor John Smidlap
    My aunt Polly Perkins
    ???
    Now- if anyone asked ME to prove my US citizenship, I would produce my US passport. Barack Obama has a US passport.

    Other than your idol O, that is?

    I know you are getting frustrated by the lack of progress in your “case,” CG- but get ahold of yourself and stop the silly references to my opinion (and anyone else who dares to disagree with you) of Obama. In point of fact, I think Obama is wrong about plenty of things, and I do not support his economic policies.
    CONCENTRATE!

    Care to give this one a try? I think we might find your answer quite interesting…

    Face it. The question was completely ludicruous.

  1156. Now here’s something interesting from WorldNetDaily:

    Wikipedia scrubs Obama eligibility
    Mention of citizenship issues deleted in minutes, ‘offending’ users banned
    ——————————————————————————–
    Posted: March 08, 2009
    6:54 pm Eastern
    By Aaron Klein
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily
    From Wikipedia’s Barack Obama page
    Wikipedia, the online “free encyclopedia” mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama’s presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned.
    A perusal through Obama’s current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama’s most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year.
    Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama’s eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief.
    Where’s the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 300,000 others and sign up now!
    Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days.
    In one example, Wikipedia user “Jerusalem21” added the following to Obama’s page:
    “There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts.”
    As is required on the online encyclopedia, that entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com
    The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against “fringe” material.
    (Story continues below)
    According to Wikipedia rules, however, a “fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.”
    The Obama eligibility issue has indeed been reported extensively by multiple news media outlets. WorldNetDaily has led the coverage. Other news outlets, such as Britain’s Daily Mail and the Chicago Tribune have released articles critical of claims Obama may not be eligible. The Los Angeles Times quoted statements by former presidential candidate Alan Keys doubting Obama is eligible to serve as president. Just last week, the Internet giant America Online featured a top news article about the eligibility subject, referencing WND’s coverage.
    When the user “Jerusalem21” tried to repost the entry about Obama’s eligibility a second time, another administrator removed the material within two minutes and then banned the Wikipedia user from posting anything on the website for three days.
    Wikipedia administrators have the ability to kick off users if the administrator believes the user violated the website’s rules.
    Over the last month, WND has monitored several other attempts to add eligibility issues to Obama’s Wikipedia page. In every attempt monitored, the information was deleted within minutes and the user who posted the material was barred from the website for three days.

    Read the entire article at WND.com

  1157. Robert…here’s a question for ya……see if you can come up with a reasonable answer for this one.
    Please, IF it wouldn’t be too much trouble for ya, could you please list for us any actual U.S. citizen that if their citizenship was challenged, they wouldn’t provide the necessary documentation to prove otherwise?
    Other than your idol O, that is?
    Anyone at all?
    I realize from reading your post that this question might pose a problem for SOME in your inner circle….I was just wondering HOW MANY people you personally know that would have the same problem O obviously has?
    Care to give this one a try? I think we might find your answer quite interesting…especially given the FACT that I personally have NEVER met ANYONE who would have a problem doing so….ESPECIALLY IF their citizenship was brought into question….EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST!

  1158. Robert wrote:

    Once again, CG, I am embarassed for you.
    Sun Yat Sun? What did HE do to claim HI citizenship that the state of HI would care about?

    Awwww….shucks Robert…ain’t no reason for you to be “embarrassed” me. I”M not the one that is just sittin here willing to suck up everything O says as gospel, now am I? I think that would be YOU Robert.
    YOU clearly stated above……..

    THINK!!! Do you really think a state government could not act to prevent someone from claiming to be born there who wasn’t in fact born there??

    Now suddenly it’s……………………….

    Sun Yat Sun? What did HE do to claim HI citizenship that the state of HI would care about?

    My, my, my………NOW someone has to DO something in order for the State of Hawaii to “care about” in order for them to refuse to issue a birth certificate?
    TOTALLY LAUGHABLE!! Your argument just bit the dust ole buddy and clearly shows your irrational thinking!
    Man, I am just rolling around on the floor laughing myself silly over THIS one! One of the BEST examples yet of just how screwed up your thinking is……..a mind like concrete Robert………thoroughly mixed up and firmly set!
    UNBELIEVABLE……………………I think you need to go re-read some of the crap you have been posting Robert. Half of it wouldn’t make sense to any rational person.

  1159. Really? How do you explain THIS then?

    Once again, CG, I am embarassed for you.
    Sun Yat Sun? What did HE do to claim HI citizenship that the state of HI would care about?

  1160. And while I’m at it, if you would carefully read again those things that you say are proof, and I mean read, and carefully, you would begin to realize that no person has said they have actually cast their eyes upon the actual birth certificate.

    LOL, sure WB. So the statements of Okubo and Furkino about the statement were cleverly worded misdirections? They obviously KNOW what is being asked, yet they prefer to mislead?
    Makes them part of your conspiracy, doesn’t it?

  1161. Robert wrote:

    THINK!!! Do you really think a state government could not act to prevent someone from claiming to be born there who wasn’t in fact born there??

    ROFLMFAO…..this is TOTALLY LAUGHABLE!!
    Why of course not Robert……..certainly NOT the State of Hawaii! Why, glory be….the State of Hawaii (“a state government could not act to prevent someone from claiming to be born there who wasn’s in fact born there”) would NEVER stoop this low, now would they?
    Really? How do you explain THIS then?
    State of Hawaii……..CERTIFICATE OF HAWAIIAN BIRTH…….for Sun yat Sen….the man considered to be the father of CHINA………………….
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9830547/Sun-Yatsen-Certification-of-Live-Birth-in-Hawaii
    But WAIT………it’s a KNOWN FACT that Sun yat Sen was REALLY BORN IN CHINA!
    Yeah Robert, guess you are right….Hawaii would NEVER do something like this!
    ROFLMFAO

  1162. Robert –
    Your statement

    THINK!!! Do you really think a state government could not act to prevent someone from claiming to be born there who wasn’t in fact born there??

    doesn’t even make sense. What are you trying to say? Please enlighten all of us.
    And BTW, there are a lot of folks still very interested in this issue. It is very much alive.
    And isn’t it interesting that your own state government (Missouri) has introduced legislation which, if passed, would be another means of settling the issue.
    And while I’m at it, if you would carefully read again those things that you say are proof, and I mean read, and carefully, you would begin to realize that no person has said they have actually cast their eyes upon the actual birth certificate.

  1163. As I pointed out earlier (and was also a comment some time ago), it may be as simple as those involved fearing that if they say too much that they might put their job in jeopardy.

    Ah, yes. The sinister and all powerful cabal has the power to silence Those Who Know…
    LOL.
    THINK!!! Do you really think a state government could not act to prevent someone from claiming to be born there who wasn’t in fact born there??

  1164. State officials cannot reveal what is on a birth certificate. If there is conspiracy they are most probably unwilling participants.

    I see. Even though they have seen the birth certificate, and obviously now know what is on it, they are being held back from telling the world what they MUST know.
    THAT is your preferred explanation, over the clear statement (in response to the reporter’s question) from the HI state official?
    Have it your way, but don’t wonder why this issue has sunk out of sight…

  1165. Hugh –
    As I pointed out earlier (and was also a comment some time ago), it may be as simple as those involved fearing that if they say too much that they might put their job in jeopardy. Whistle blowers can get some pretty rough treatment, including job loss, which may translate into loss of medical coverage, retirement potential, and probably chances for future employment.
    The Quo Warranto process may be the real solution to all of this. And that is being pursued by both Orly Taitz and Donofrio.
    We’ll just have to wait and see.

  1166. Robert:
    The question needed to be directed to the first official to get an explanation. To me “One said (ONLY) that she had personally seen Obama’s certificate” does not tell anyone what information is on the vault copy. The first official is saying I have witnessed the vault copy. And that seems to be all she is saying.
    Likewise, if I say that I witnessed and accident to a policeman, that is not the same as me saying who is at fault in the accident. So, the fact that I have witnessed the accident does not determine who is at fault.
    To me, the COLB does not prove Obama was born in Hawaii, nor does it make Obama a natural born citizen. In my American Thinker comments I spoke about Obama Sr. being born in Kenya and never naturalized. That is key to Obama II’s status. I do not think that the 14th Amendment gives people natural born citizen status.
    State officials cannot reveal what is on a birth certificate. If there is conspiracy they are most probably unwilling participants.
    Do you think the 14th Amendment and US Code Section 1401provides to natural born citizens?

  1167. What authority do the Hawaii officials have to actually tell us what information in on Obama’s vault copy birth certificate?

    No idea.

    What have the state officials said and not said?

    One said (ONLY) that she had personally seen Obama’s certificate. Later, in response to a direct question from a reporter (“was the first official saying that Obama was born in HI?”), another state official replied “Yes, that is exactly what she was saying.”
    So- he was either born in HI or the state officials are willing participants in the conspiracy.
    Which do you think it is?

  1168. Robert:
    What authority do the Hawaii officials have to actually tell us what information in on Obama’s vault copy birth certificate?
    What have the state officials said and not said?

  1169. Now, you go on to say that the COLB “shows” this to be a fact. Really?

    Well, ALMOST correct. The already released COLB, paired with what HI state officials have AND have not said. I know you’re entire house of cards depends on it, but don’t you get even the SMALLEST logic tingle when you consider the fact that HI state officials must be willing participants if such a charade exists…?

    ALL the State of Hawaii has said is that they are in possession of a birth certificate which supposedly belongs to O.

    Not “supposedly.” They have said it DOES. And see above- if your little idea is true, these very same state officials would have to be active participants in fraud.
    By the by- THANK YOU for the laugh!! The entire line you put out about what you demand HI officials state was pretty funny. I live in Missouri, by the way… let me know if you have anything you want state officials here to say, and the words you want them to use!
    LMAO.

  1170. Greek –
    He can’t. He has not a scintilla of a clue. He doesn’t respond to the question of a passport. He thinks that because BHO has travelled abroad that he is unquestionably a NBC. Opps.

    The terminology related to passports has become generally standardized around the world. The typical passports include:
    Ordinary passport, also called tourist passport
    Issued to ordinary citizens.
    Official passport, also called service passport
    Issued to government employees for work-related travel, and to accompanying dependents.
    Diplomatic passport
    Issued to diplomats and consuls for work-related travel, and to accompanying dependents. Having a diplomatic passport is not the equivalent of having diplomatic immunity. A grant of diplomatic status, a privilege of which is diplomatic immunity, has to come from the government of the country in relation to which diplomatic status is claimed. Also, having a diplomatic passport does not mean visa-free travel. A holder of a diplomatic passport usually has to obtain a diplomatic visa, even if a holder of an ordinary passport may enter a country visa-free or may obtain a visa on arrival.
    In exceptional circumstances, a diplomatic passport is given to a foreign citizen with no passport of his own, such as an exiled VIP who lives, by invitation, in a foreign country.

    And I will point out again that a COLB WON’T get you a US Passport prima facie. Funny, but I just had a conversation with a very good friend who had nothing but a COLB and she COULDN’T USE IT AS PROOF to renew her drivers license.
    Oops, again.

  1171. Robert wrote:

    Hmmm… let’s review YET again, huh, CG?
    It is NOT just O who says this. It is what the posted COLB shows. It is what the state of HI says (no matter how much you try to deny it), AND it is what the courts have found acceptable by their refusal to review.
    In other words: stop dissembling.

    Robert…Robert…Robert,
    Looks to me like YOU are the only one here guilty of your “dissembling” charge.
    You say O says it…..I say O is a LIAR. You have your opinion and I have mine..to which we are both entitled.
    Now, you go on to say that the COLB “shows” this to be a fact. Really?
    Please explain to me (and the others) on here why you are putting so much faith into a document that the State of Hawaii itself says is NOT ENOUGH PROOF for a person to even claim homestead land in Hawaii?
    Got any explanation for THAT one? The State of Hawaii itself doesn’t think that much of a COLB!
    As for the courts finding anything “acceptable”, that is simply NOT TRUE! The courts have simply decided to rule “no standing” as an easy way to get out of not hearing a case……………yet!
    For any court to find anything ACCEPTABLE, they must first and foremost HEAR ALL THE EVIDENCE………and that hasn’t been presented to one court that I know of….not one!
    You seem to want others to think you knowledgeable regarding court procedures, I suggest you ‘bone up a little’ on those procedures. Any case NOT HEARD is a case NOT RULED ON!
    Simple really. Pretty basic.
    ALL the State of Hawaii has said is that they are in possession of a birth certificate which supposedly belongs to O. Please site for us you source that says the State of Hawaii has stated….”We are in possession of a birth certificate belonging to Barack Hussein Obama II and it is CLEARLY WRITTEN ON THIS CERTIFICATE that Mr. Obama was BORN IN THE STATE OF HAWAII at ____________HOSPITAL and DELIVERED BY ____________________, M.D. and the birth was witnessed by ___________________________.”
    Now, I don’t care how much YOU try to deny it, this is the information that is listed on BIRTH CERTIFICATES.
    Come on man…I think you are smarter than this. You do realize that you are in effect saying that you don’t really want ALL THE EVIDENCE to be made public…….even if that evidence SUPPORTS your contention that O is indeed a natural born citizen.
    Again……just what is it EXACTLY that you are afraid of being on the original vault copy of O’s birth certificate Robert?
    Will you at least answer this ONE SIMPLE QUESTION?

  1172. Robert< you wanted a link on January 18, 10:47 PM:
    ‘To be a natural born both of your parents must be American citizens and you must be born in America’
    Link, Hugh?
    Robert:
    I do not have a link, per se! But both American parents must be born in America, or naturalized before the birth of a child for that child to be a natural born citizen.
    But I do have the logic that I presented to you in response to the America Thinker article.

  1173. Robert:
    The Greek and Wild Bill has repeatedly bought evidence to you that the officials in Hawaii have only confirmed the existence of the birth certificate under seal. The Greek, Wild Bill, and I can find no evidence as to their claiming actually what is on the vault copy. Forensic document examiners say that the original vault copy must be examined. The COLB does not establish actually where Obama was born.
    You seem to only consider one part of the evidence. Playing an one string guitar does not make for good music.
    What did you think of the American Thinker article and my response?
    I am assuming the you hold to Rich’s response to me on January 18, 7:21 PM, as follows:
    ‘I don’t know anyone who has “dismissed” the fact that Obama’s father was born in Kenya. Everyone knows that is a fact. What I have “dismissed” is the notion that it means anything. Anyone born in the United States is a “natural born citizen.” That’s what the 14th Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court cases have established.’

  1174. Snopes.com is now the arbiter of who is and isn’t qualified to be president,”
    They say he is qualified. There, thats it , I feel so much better now.
    Now we can all relax.
    So,what s next?

  1175. From the tone of your retort, you seem to be another (along with Robert) that is willing to just blindly go along with whatever O says……………………..since Robert has failed to come up with a satisfactory reason as to why, maybe you will try to explain that for us.

    Hmmm… let’s review YET again, huh, CG?
    It is NOT just O who says this. It is what the posted COLB shows. It is what the state of HI says (no matter how much you try to deny it), AND it is what the courts have found acceptable by their refusal to review.
    In other words: stop dissembling.

  1176. One more thing…I am NOT “having fun” with this discussion. Truthfully, I really wish we weren’t having it, but because ONE PERSON chooses to be, let’s say, less than completely honest, this discussion is necessary..I DO believe that….HONESTLY!
    If we were talking about a person wanting to hold the office of ‘dog catcher’, I might tend to agree and think this “fun”. However, that is not the case here because the ramifications of what could come BECAUSE of a willing disdain of our Constitution on the part of this man is simply unfathomable!
    Fun? Hardly!

  1177. And from your tone CG, you seem all too ready to blindly dismiss him – we have nothing to talk about – it would be a futile, drawn-out effort, and the election is done – anyone who wants to continue talking about this issue has that right – I have better things to do with my time 🙂 I won’t be back to this thread – but, um, good luck?

  1178. Jayhuck wrote:

    Oh CG – I wouldn’t presume to tell you anything 😉 Have fun fun with the discussion – Tick Tock – Tick Tock – Indeed 🙂

    Hey Jay…let me ask you a question here. From the tone of your retort, you seem to be another (along with Robert) that is willing to just blindly go along with whatever O says……………………..since Robert has failed to come up with a satisfactory reason as to why, maybe you will try to explain that for us.
    Not trying to get smart here or anything, cause I would REALLY LOVE TO HEAR what it is about O that has people so enthralled that they are willing to believe anything he says without so much as a thread of proof that what he says is true. I truly do not understand that.
    What is it…lack of curiosity? Fear?
    Maybe you can help us to understand this Jay…..willing to give it a try?
    Thanks in advance.

  1179. Oh CG – I wouldn’t presume to tell you anything 😉 Have fun fun with the discussion – Tick Tock – Tick Tock – Indeed 🙂

  1180. Hey Jayhuck…….Just ‘where’ would it be that the”rest of the world” moved on to?
    Since lawsuits are now coming out of the woodwork and State legislatures are filing Sovereignty Acts, you aren’t really expecting anyone to believe that you think this has gone away, now are ya? 😉
    Did you REALLY believe that this would just be swept under a rug somewhere and verification not demanded?
    Time to take the blinders off me thinks.
    TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK

  1181. LOL – are you guys still talking about this? The rest of the world moved on a LONG time ago 🙂

  1182. TICK TOCK ……..TICK TOCK……TICK TOCK……TICK TOCK

    Crazy Greek,
    Love this! 🙂

  1183. Hummmmmm….looks like the State of Missouri has just recently passed the following resolution within it’s legislature…………………

    The secretary of state shall verify the qualifications of any elected officeholder who was previously placed on a Missouri ballot. Should any elected officeholder fail to provide the required documentation or birth certificate within thirty days of the request by the secretary of state, the secretary of state shall turn the matter over to the attorney general who shall within twenty days file suit to obtain the required documentation.

    Looks like the state of Missouri is gonna try to pry loose Obama’s birth certificate!
    TICK TOCK ……..TICK TOCK……TICK TOCK……TICK TOCK

  1184. Greek:
    No person can prove you wrong. Obama has no honesty or integrity. It is not a matter of having one failure or a few, then repenting, getting up and doing the honest thing! The birth-certificate avoidance is just one part of the issue.
    To repeat, the Founders and the Framers would not put with Obama and his crowd for 15-minutes.

  1185. Here is my letter to my Congressman concerning this matter. At this point in time, I am hoping against hope that there is at least ONE member of Congress willing to take up the fight and see it though to the end.
    Mr. Ron Paul,
    Thank you so much for taking the time to read my letter Mr. Paul.
    First, I have to say that I have always been proud to say that Ron Paul is my representative in Washington! I have always felt you to be a man of integrity and honesty and have voted for you at every opportunity.
    However, this nation recently elected a man President, who I feel is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office. The election was held and Obama won the popular vote. Congress was then brought to session in order to proclaim this man our new leader, with the possibility of any member being able to object.
    You said nothing Mr. Paul and I have to ask “Why?”.
    This nation has elected a man that I feel has run on a platform of nothing by lies and who still refuses to release any documentation to support his claim of who he is. As far as I know, no records are open for public scrutiny concerning his birth certificate, social security record, passport application record or any of his records pertaining to any school or university he has ever attended.
    It is my contention that if Obama is who he says he is, why is he not releasing this information rather than attempting to have every inquiry thwarted in regards this matter? Why would this man want this information hidden if it were true?
    There can be only one answer…….Obama is LYING! There is something contained in his documentation that he knows would disqualify him from holding the office of President of the United States!
    Mr. Paul, I am asking you to stand up and take action. I am asking you to represent me in trying to find out the truth in these allegations. I am asking you to fight for America.
    Thank you so much for your time Mr. Paul. May God bless you, your family and may God Bless America!

  1186. Excellent points LilLoyd and an interesting observation……….

    Why would Obama release his BC. He didn’t have to in order to become POTUS.

    Why indeed?
    I would say it would have something to do with HONESTY and INTEGRITY……….two qualities which, until O comes forth with either, I personally don’t believe he possesses!
    We are talking about a man who has been elected the LEADER of our country and yet, we still cannot get him to come forward and simply say “Look….my fellow Americans……here is the vault copy of my birth certificate….examine it….see for yourself that what I way is true.”
    What DO we get? Lawyers who’s only job, it would seem, is to file motions to dismiss in regards any lawsuit attempted to be filed requesting validation and verification of O’s birth place!
    WHY IS THAT? Well, me being just a good ole boy with no Ivy League edumacation, but a whole lot of ‘skool of hard knocks’ upbringing……..I call that LYING!
    NOTHING else makes any sense, other than there is something on these documents O doesn’t want seen (I’m not only talkin BC here….but ANY document of his past) that would PROVE that he is NOT who he says he is! NO OTHER EXPLANATION passes any kind of test!
    Make no mistake here…..it’s simple………………..IF there is PROOF out there that what O has said is true, OBAMA HIMSELF would be waving it from the rooftop of the White House…complete with Pelosi and Reid by his side……….Barney Frank and Maxine Waters singing in chorus……………and probably spending another few millions in taxpayer money for a lavish production that would depict him descending from the clouds with the documents cradled in his arms like the O version of the Ten Commandments…………………………..
    but…………………………..THAT AIN’T HAPPENIN!
    Ergo, there is ONLY ONE REASON WHY it ain’t happenin………………OBAMA IS A LIAR!
    SOMEONE PLEASE……………….PROVE ME WRONG!!!!!

  1187. In Obamas Declaration Of Candidacy, there were no documents required, It was done in Good Faith. When asked ” what documents did you use to verifiy Obamas eligibilty” the DNC, FEC , SoS ,at state and national levels admitted that Obama verified himself in Good Faith as required .
    I have contacted over 50 representatives and not even 1 , stated that the BC was required. When asked ” Who is resposible for verification”, SoS says ‘ Its the DNC” they in turn will tell you ” It’s the FEC” , FEC will tell you ” It’s the SoS’s job” .
    No Suprise there. Thats kinda how the Gov. runs the show.
    Check out the 2nd part of line 2 , instructions for completing the DOC form.
    INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE DECLARATION OF CANDIDACY
    Line 1. Print your name as you are registered to vote.
    Line 2. Print the address at which you are registered to vote. Each candidate is responsible for ensuring that he or she meets all the qualifications of the office sought at the time he or she files the declaration of candidacy.
    Why would Obama release his BC. He didn’t have to in order to become POTUS.

  1188. Robert: Concerning your post:
    The certificate was verified , nothing on the certificate was mentioned. That is of cource their own policies.
    Which is the same thing for my point. They HAVE “verified” the certificate, and are either:
    1. Being coy and not saying that BHO was not born in HI, even though that is the case; or
    2. Being coy and having the whopper of all time on their hands, that BHO was NOT born in HI, and they are simply not admitting that.
    Which is it?
    Due to Obama refusal-actions, I think that choice #2 is the best answer. As to being “coy”, the officials are not being coy (shy, bashful or demure). The officials can only admit to what is in the legal scope of their authority as officials, rightfully so. That is, to admit to having the document sealed and in their possession.
    Therefore, what the websites have provided for the COLB is inconclusive at best and fraudulent at worst. This is the reason that the COLB is simply insufficient evidence to establish Obama’s eligibility for President.
    Forensic document experts have said the original vault copy must be examined to clear up this matter.

  1189. Robert –
    Having no idea what you do for a living, I’ll tell a bit about myself.
    I retired from civil service after 31 years and 8 months. Part Navy, most Army. I also know about “Whistle-blowers” and the general fate that they are given. And it ain’t good. Ergo, why put your butt on the line? I’d also bet that most of the people you have cited as authoritarian have never served in the military, but I could be wrong. I’ve been shot at. You?
    So, forget the conspiracy theory for a few seconds and ask youself if YOU would put your career on the line? I doubt it. Generally, those who speak out are given the bum’s rush. Remember the Clinton years? Or are you too young? Been in the military? Or just years in various schools?

  1190. Robert wrote:

    The certificate was verified , nothing on the certificate was mentioned. That is of cource their own policies.
    Which is the same thing for my point. They HAVE “verified” the certificate, and are either:
    1. Being coy and not saying that BHO was not born in HI, even though that is the case; or
    2. Being coy and having the whopper of all time on their hands, that BHO was NOT born in HI, and they are simply not admitting that.
    Which is it?

    That’s an EXCELLENT question Robert…….one of the best I’ve heard out of you yet!
    Which is it indeed!
    Now here’s a novel idea…..why don’t we open that vault copy up, take a look see and find out EXACTLY WHICH IT IS?
    Hey………..I don’t have a problem with that! Yeah…Let’s do it.
    Oh wait………..you and O don’t want that to happen, do you? Pray tell…….WHY?
    I think I know WHY O don’t want it….it YOUR reluctance I just can’t quite figure out here.
    I am perfectly willing to admit that O was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen and is qualified in every respect to be President of the United States………IF that vault copy, which btw NO ONE has had a chance to tamper with that we know of, CLEARLY DEFINES (it IS handwritten after all) the attending physician, witnesses and the PLACE (which no one can seem to agree on even in O’s own family, and which NO hospital in Hawaii as of this moment is willing to admit that O or his MaMa were EVER patients in ANY of them) OF BIRTH listed………
    THEN, you could say that O would have my total support and that I could in all good conscience refer to him as President…………………………………..until then, it’s Put Up Or Get Outta Dodge!
    BTW…I notice that you never did answer my last to you. Any opinions?

  1191. Good grief. If you are so saavy about the law, what is it that you don’t understand about non-disclosure unless…

    Riiiiiiiggggghhhtttt. “Non disclosure laws” would prevent the state from stopping someone from lying about their birth….
    LMAO

  1192. Robert –
    Good grief. If you are so saavy about the law, what is it that you don’t understand about non-disclosure unless…
    Yes, it’s going to require an action of the courts, or BHO himself, to get this thing dislodged, but…
    As my friend the Greek says, and I do, too…
    Tick Tock Tick Tock…
    Somehow, IMHO, there is a flaw in the sweater. Ooops…
    Time is running out.

  1193. The certificate was verified , nothing on the certificate was mentioned. That is of cource their own policies.

    Which is the same thing for my point. They HAVE “verified” the certificate, and are either:
    1. Being coy and not saying that BHO was not born in HI, even though that is the case; or
    2. Being coy and having the whopper of all time on their hands, that BHO was NOT born in HI, and they are simply not admitting that.
    Which is it?

  1194. Greek –
    Nope.
    Loyd –
    Lotsa leg work, true, but no new posts which tells me that there is no new information. Or is there is? Wish it were more positive.

  1195. Hey Wild Bill……..Obama/Holder and their Blair Holt BULLSHIT doesn’t REALLY surprise ya, does it? 😉

  1196. Just for everyones information

    03/02/09: PRESS RELEASE – Berg States Obama is Destroying “our” U.S. Constitution by “not” following Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and “limiting” the 2nd Amendment re “guns”
    (Contact information and PDF at end)
    (Lafayette Hill, PA – 03/03/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of Constitutional “qualifications/eligibility” to serve as President of the United States and his cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, et al announced today that he is concerned that in addition to Obama not following the Constitution, Article II, Section I, by not being Constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President now Obama is “limiting” the 2nd Amendment through his Attorney General Eric Holder who has quietly introduced legislation to curtail ownership of guns by individuals throughout our United States.
    Berg stated, “Wake up America! Obama is attempting to limit your gun ownership rights by secretly introducing legislation through Attorney General Eric Holder, said legislation to curtail gun ownership!”
    Berg continued, “ It is very important to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009. [I learned about this from the Peter Boyles radio program.] Even gun shop owners didn’t know about this because it is flying under the radar. To find out about this – go to any government website and type in HR 45 or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009.
    Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm – any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:
    •It is registered
    •You are fingerprinted
    •You supply a current Driver’s License
    •You supply your Social Security #
    •You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
    •Each update – change of ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 – Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.
    •There is a child provision clause on page 16, section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18.
    They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and violations are punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.
    Listen to Peter Boyles – on KHOW 630 AM in Colorado in the morning. He suggests the best way to fight this is to tell all your friends about it and spring into action. Also he suggests we all join a pro-gun group like the Colorado Rifle Association, hunting associations, gun clubs and especially the NRA.
    Remember – If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes individuals less safe.”
    Berg continued, “The Obama candidacy is the biggest ‘HOAX’ perpetrated on the citizens of the United States in 230 years, since our nation was established. Obama must be legally removed from office.
    I believe that 10 to 15 million people are aware of the Obama ‘HOAX,’ and we must make 75 million people aware. When people are made aware of the Obama ‘HOAX,’ that Obama has not proven he is constitutionally ‘qualified/eligible’ to be President; that Obama has not produced his original (vault version) ‘Birth Certificate;’ that Obama has not produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from his ‘adopted’ name of ‘Barry Soetoro’ from Indonesia; they will demand Obama be removed from his office of President of the United States.”
    Berg concluded, “I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ forefathers and for the tens of thousands of men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution, with our legal fight to prove that Obama is not constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President.”
    The following is an update on my three [3] pending cases regarding my challenge to Obama’s lack of qualifications/eligibility to be President.
    Also, I am preparing to file a 4th case – Quo Warranto [challenge person in office – that does not meet the qualifications].
    As you know, I was the first to legally raise the issue – having filed my lawsuit on August 21, 2008, before the DNC Convention
    Status of Cases:
    Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
    Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09
    Response Briefs from Obama, DNC and FEC filed on 2/17/09 (Appellees)
    This is the case that was dismissed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of PA
    Judge Surrick dismissed for lack of “standing” by Philip J. Berg
    This is the case that I bypassed Third Circuit Court to U.S. Supreme Court – where U.S. Supreme Court denied several Injunctions and to hear case.
    However, case is still alive in Third Circuit.
    Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court
    Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed
    Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama,
    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-02254
    Berg filed 1st Amended Complaint for Hollister on 2/09/09 after Soetoro/Obama and Biden filed Motion to Dismiss
    Berg also filed Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
    This is the case of retired Air Force Colonel Hollister who is on lifetime Presidential recall.
    Hollister needs to know if recalled by Soetoro/Obama – must he obey an Order by legal President or disobey the illegal Order by a constitutionally ineligible/unqualified “Usurper” President.
    For copies of all Press Releases and Court Pleadings, go to:
    obamacrimes.com
    For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com
    For Further Information Contact:
    Philip J. Berg, Esquire
    555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
    Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
    (610) 825-3134
    (800) 993-PHIL [7445]
    Fax (610) 834-7659
    Cell (610) 662-3005
    [email protected]

    Not good.

  1197. LilLoyd –
    Good job on the Ancestry search. However, I just looked at it and noticed that the source is the Robinson Family Tree, i.e., posted by someone with ties to Michelle Obama nee Robinson. Ergo, may or may not reflect any reality.

  1198. Robert: I am actually referrng to the American Thinker article!
    “What is do think of my last post? Does it pass legal muster with you? Do you consider my position logical?”

  1199. Robert:
    What is do think of my last post? Does it pass legal muster with you? Do you consider my position logical?

  1200. LilLoyd wrote:

    CG , Sorry but I went to the website you left and found an entry for Barack H 2 Obama . Not the first search , but the second.

    Well Glory Be! Congratulations Loyd……..you did better than I did on that one (not always the hardest thing to do..especially at 2am…LOL) I tried and tried and couldn’t come up with ANY mention of Jr.!
    I was thinking it extremely funny that I was able to find something on quite a few older records and then absolutely nothing from the year 1961.
    Thanks for settin that straight………but I STILL would like to see that vault copy since the link you provide does NOT ACTUALLY SHOW (would have been surprised if it had) an image of that vault hand written copy that O doesn’t want seen. 😉
    Could it be that the one referenced is just the Certification of Live Birth which has already been published by the O camp? Who knows?
    Well………we KNOW O knows…but then again…he ain’t exactly havin a bout of diarrhea of the mouth regarding this, now is he?
    ROFLMFAO

  1201. Robert:
    The fact of the matter is that nobody but Barrack knows for sure what is on the vault copy of his original birth certificate. Your reliance on a statement, that you seem to think verifies that he was born in HI, by an Official who would be violating HI policy if they made such a statement is ridiculous. The only way to settle this is to let that vault copy see the light of day.
    Now, as to your annoying and continuing reference to tin foil hats and grand conspiracy I say GROW UP. You do not win an argument with such nonsense but with facts and logic. I have been reading the blog for awhile and finally had to address your style of discussion.

  1202. CG , Sorry but I went to the website you left and found an entry for Barack H 2 Obama . Not the first search , but the second.

  1203. Robbert,
    Show me where HI officials prove O was born in HI. All I have ever seen was admission that there is a certificate , The certificate was verified , nothing on the certificate was mentioned. That is of cource their own policies.

  1204. I hold him Ineligible anyway and have seen no solid Legal Rebuttal of my view from any source,

    Thanks for my Laugh of The Day Lloyd.
    Please: skip over your ludicruous series of “If’s” (“If he was born in Kenya”) and give us your solid legal reasoning for denying Obama’s status as a natural born citizen IF he was born in HI, as HI state officials have confirmed…. well, unless the state officials are part of the conspiracy…

  1205. It’s funny……I was just playin around on the puter and decided that I would go to a link that searches birth records.
    Now, one would think that the older a record is, the harder it would be to find.
    I was born in 1946 in Texas……when I typed in the required information (or as much of the information that I knew) for myself…WHAM…there was the record of my birth, along with my Father’s name, my Mother’s name, my place of birth…etc. etc. etc.
    So I figured, hey, this is a pretty informative site……….heck, I even cross checked it for my Mother’s records, My Father’s records….born in Arkansas and Texas in 1915 and 1913 respectively and WHAM….there was the record of their births.
    Hey, this site has got the information…..I thought.
    So, I typed in Barack Hussein Obama, born 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii with both his Mother’s and Father’s name listed…………….
    This is what I got for my efforts………………………………………………..

    We didn’t find any strong matches, but these still might be helpful.

    The site DID have pictures of Obama, Sr. and his wife Stanley……but NOT ONE MENTION of a child, Obama, Jr. being born to either in Hawaii.
    The site is……………
    http://search.ancestry.com
    Tried the same thing on a couple of different sites…same results…NOTHING!
    Add to this the fact that my Mother, I believe, was born at HOME in rural Arkansas in 1915!
    Now, given this, doesn’t it seem just a little bit STRANGE that absolutely NOTHING is shown for a man supposedly born in a hospital on the Island of Oahu in the State of Hawaii in 1961?
    There’s a fungus among us here folks…BELIEVE IT!

  1206. It has been asserted by a number of sources, including Andy Martin, that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya and not in Hawaii. Philip Berg’s Latest Motion to the Court is more explicit since it gives an exact Place of Birth. I must assume that Berg did not simply pluck the Location out of thin air, Mombasa has more than one Hospital, though Coast Provincial General was the best in 1961.
    British Birth Certificates have a Standard Format which has been more or less the same since 1837 and they can only be challenged in a British Court. Kenyan Law is explicit and can only be challenged in a Kenyan Court. Indonesian Law is explicit and can only be challenged in an Indonesian Court. Be clear, if Obama was born in Kenya this is not simply a matter for the US Courts, or US Law.
    If he was born in Kenya, and his parents were Legally Married [which on the Preponderance of Evidence they were, his father’s first “Marriage” being a Tribal, or Village, Marriage, which was not Legally Recognized] due to the age of his mother he would NOT have been a US Citizen. The Immigration and Nationality Act 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1401. Sec. 301 (g) [Effective November 14, 1986] does not apply, nor does Title III, Immigration and Nationality Act Section 309. [8 U.S.C. 1409].
    Unless he has taken the Oath of Allegiance as a Naturalized Citizen since he was 18 years old, and if he was born in Mombasa, Kenya, Barack Hussein Obama II would not be a US Citizen, period. The issue of whether or not he was Natural Born under Article II of the Constitution of the United States would cease to matter and he would need to be Deported as an Illegal Alien.
    Impeachment as a Senator would seem not to be necessary since he would never Legally have been one, but Diane Feinstein and the members of the Senate Ethics and Rules Committee would be liable to Impeachment. So would their opposite numbers in the Illinois Senate and the appropriate officials of the Illinois State Supreme Court and Bar, so far as I can see.
    If Senator Barack Hussein Obama II was born in The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7.24 PM on August 4th 1961, or at any other time, he is not a Natural Born Citizen of these United States and he never was. Philip J Berg, Esq, is correct, under the Nationality Act of 1940, as Revised June 1952 and in accord with United States of America vs Cervantes-Nava 281 F 3d 501 (2002) and Drozd vs INS, 155 F 3d 81, 85-88 (2d Circuit 1998) Senator Barack Hussein Obama II would not ever have been a Legal US Citizen at all, unless he was Naturalized.
    If he was born in The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya any Certificate, or Certification of Live Birth, issued for him by the State of Hawaii is a Fraudulent and Illegal Document. At Birth he would have been a UK and Colonies Citizen and in accord with the Kenyan Constitution he would have become a Kenyan Citizen in December 1963. He would not have been a US Citizen.
    Alternatively, his UK and Colonies Birth Certificate issued in Mombasa in August 1961 could be a Fraudulent and Illegal Document. The two BCs would need to be compared. By this I mean the Original Vault Copy of the Hawaiian Birth Certificate and not the Amended, Post Adoption, Copy, Legally available to the Senator, assuming he was, as indicated by the Preponderance of Evidence, Adopted by Lolo Soetoro. This case might also need to go through the UK and Kenyan Courts and becomes a Matter of International Law and Controversy.
    If Barack Hussein Obama II was born at The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7:24 PM on August 4th 1961, or at any other time, it is certain that he is not Eligible to hold the Offices of POTUS or VPOTUS and highly probable that he is not Legally entitled to hold the Office of Senator either and that he was not Eligible to be an Illinois State Senator.
    In that event the Senate Ethics and Rules Committee, Chair Diane Feinstein, have a problem because they are responsible for the Certification of a Candidate’s Compliance with Constitutional Requirements, a job they would have conspicuously failed to do. Should he be Elected the poisoned Chalice would pass to Nancy Pelosi because as Speaker of the House she, and the House, have the Responsibility to ensure that the President Elect can Effectively be Sworn In and Legally Assume the Office and Duties of the President.
    Be very clear here, if Barack Hussein Obama II was born at The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7:24 PM on August 4th 1961, or at any other time, Diane Feinstein’s Committee have already failed in their Duty, as has every Secretary of State in the Union.
    Let me repeat myself, if Barack Hussein Obama II was born in The Coast Provincial General Hospital at Mombasa in Kenya at 7:24 PM on August 4th 1961, or at any other time, he is not a Natural Born Citizen of these United States and he never was, he is not even a Citizen by Birth. I had assumed ab initio that Obama was born in Hawaii and that his Hawaiian Paperwork was basically “on the up and up”, I could not conceive that a lie of this magnitude was possible, I thought that the INS would have caught on long since. If he is a US Citizen under these circumstances his Oath of Allegiance must be on Record somewhere. If it isn’t he is not a US Citizen.
    Hawaii may Legally be able to Issue a Birth Certificate under these circumstances, according to their own Code, but it would breach of International and Federal Law if they have. It would breach Hawaiian Law if the Place of Birth is spurious.
    “[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
    (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.”
    So by that section he could get a certificate claiming Hawaiian birth even if he was physically born outside the US but the Place of Birth would need to be correctly recorded.
    Understand, the Hawaiian Authorities may be able to Issue a Hawaiian Birth Certificate under these circumstances but they cannot make you a US Citizen. A child born in Kenya to and underage US Female and a UK and Colonies Citizen in 1961 was not born a US Citizen under any US Federal Law, under British Law, or International Law. The only way such an Individual could be a US Citizen in terms of the XIVth Amendment, or any Statute, or Code of US Federal Law is by Naturalization.
    Under Common Law no Person can Testify as to their own Place of Birth, this is established Law upheld by stare decisis. Therefore it would be possible, even given the he was born in Kenya, for Obama to claim that he believed a Hawaiian Birth Certificate made him a US Citizen under the XIVth Amendment and that therefore he was acting in Good Faith running for an Office which he was Constitutionally Incapable of Holding. Unfortunately for him, his actions in regard to the Admission of his UK & Colonies and Kenyan Citizenships and his Indonesian Citizenship by Adoption, his frequent apparent Breaches of the Logan Act, his probable breaches of the Hobbs Act, the Hatch Act, USC Title 18 Part One Chapter 63 § 1346 and the RICO Statute make this Defense wholly Untenable, especially when one considers the fact that he holds a JD from Harvard Law. One may throw in the Misprision Statute for good measure. It is difficult to find any action or statement of Obama’s since 1992 that could be used to suggest Good Faith could be used as a Defense in this Case. I am not saying that Obama is Guilty of any of these Felonies or High Misdemeanors, only that his actions and pronouncements are such as to lead to a reasonable suspicion that he may be.
    Under INA §349 “2. taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof after having attained the age of eighteen years.” This is an “Expatriating Clause”, if you hold Dual Citizenship and do this you void your US Citizenship. Well Obama campaigned actively for Odinga in Kenya and apparently also took some kind of Luo Tribal Loyalty Oath. He may also have joined Odinga’s party. Of course his Dual Nationality lapsed in 1982 but INA §349 could, perhaps, still apply here, if he was born in Mombasa. It might even be concluded that Obama was providing grounds to restore his Kenyan Citizenship by Prime Ministerial Decree, which is Legal under the Kenyan Constitution. That would certainly look Expatriating to me, but I do not know how a Court would react.
    There is indirect reason to believe that this may be true. “2d Session S. RES. 511: Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.: In the Senate of the United States.” was Sponsored by Senator McCaskill and co-sponsored by Senators Leahy, Obama, Coburn, Clinton and Webb. Why? Why were Democratic Senators trying to pass a Resolution making Senator McCain undoubtedly Legally Eligible when this issue had already been cleared up in 2000 and again in 2004? And why did Senators McCaskill and Obama reportedly insert the following Clause?
    “Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President;”
    This Clause has no particular relevance to McCain and the following Clause, which it is reported McCaskill and Obama attempted to REMOVE shows that:
    “; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:”
    It seems clear that McCaskill and Obama were attempting to create a blanket Resolution covering ALL Foreign Born candidates. Why do that if not to benefit a Foreign Born Democratic Candidate, who did not have a US Military background?
    McCain did not need this resolution, Richardson did not need this Resolution, so far as I can see nobody needed this Resolution unless somebody in the race was born outside the USA and was “Covering his/her Ass” and the only individual in the race that that could apply to was Senator Obama! This in turn would show that the Senator is a liar who has been peddling untruths about his birth for at least 16 years!
    Likewise it would explain why Michelle Obama tried trawling the “very single mother” canard. Were he illegitimate there is precedent and Statute that says if his parents were unmarried at the time of his birth he would have become a Citizen of the USA at Birth under Title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act Section 309. [8 U.S.C. 1409]. However, as Miller v Albright, 523 US 420 (1998) demonstrates there is, and was, a split in the Supreme Court as to whether this Law is in fact Constitutional under the XIVth Amendment. A new case might change the precedent. For now it stands.
    I do not insist that any of this is true and to me it makes little difference if it is, I hold him Ineligible anyway and have seen no solid Legal Rebuttal of my view from any source, but if he was born in Kenya he has, and can have, no defense of any description and any Document he has from Hawaii is Fraudulent on several levels. To hold the Office of POTUS one must be a Natural Born United States Citizen, if he was born in Mombasa Obama probably isn’t even a United States Citizen much less Natural Born. He would be guilty of Fraud and a list of other offenses and any and all persons who had aided him would be guilty of Misprision, in all probability

  1207. The US President-Elect, Barack Hussein Obama II, seems to have been born on 4 August 1961 in the Coast Provincial Hospital of Mombasa, Kenya.There is not a hospital in Hawaii that has any record of a Stanley Ann Dunham as a parent or of Barack H Obama a a child.
    The Queen’s Medical Center – Honolulu, Hawaii Obama claims as his birth hospital- No Record
    Kapi’ olani Medical Center Obama’s sister claims Barack Obama born here
    Honolulu Shriners Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Straub Clinic & Hospital Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Hawaii Health Systems Corporation – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Cancer Institute of Maui – Wailuku, Hawaii No Comment ???
    Kuakini Hospital – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Rehabilitation Hospital of the Pacific – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    St. Francis Healthcare System of Hawaii – Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Straub Heatlh – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Tripler Medical Center – Honolulu, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Wahiawa General Hospital – Wahiawa, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama
    Wilcox Memorial Hospital – Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii Never a patient Mom or Obama.
    It does appear that Dunham had gone to HI after her sons birth to obtain a COLB.
    I believe , according to the US Constitution, that Obama should not have been able to run for POTUS let alone become POTUS.
    Obama is very well educated , an excellant speaker , charismatic and believable.
    He had me fooled . Then, I ran across this site and started reading and reading , searching for information , cross referencing , with help from others. I think he had better prove us all wrong quick,Before this whole thing gets out of hand.

  1208. Robert,
    Please try to understand something here. What I am talking about, yes even railing about, is MY country…OUR country……AMERICA! This nation has long had the reputation of being governed by the Supreme Law Of The Land…our Constitution. That law applied to EVERY MAN, WOMAN or CHILD who is fortunate enough to be able to call themselves AMERICAN!
    It is MOST IMPERATIVE that it apply to EVERY ONE! It is especially VERY CLEAR when it comes to what the founding fathers felt was most important when it came to electing and seating a person in the highest office in the land. Should we then just turn our heads away and NOT question when doubt has been brought forth over something that is listed as one of ONLY THREE qualifications for a person to ascend to the office of President?
    I say NO! Quite the contrary, THAT IS THE TIME for complete disclosure of a persons qualifications to lead this country!
    Take a look at this………….maybe it will help you understand WHY it is so important to question and yes, even DEMAND answers that will bring about TRUST and FAITH in the person who should lead our Nation.
    ANYTHING LESS, I say, is UNACCEPTABLE!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk

  1209. Hugh –
    Right on.
    And, in looking around last night, I came across a site that uses the definitions from the Old English Dictionary, which is often found useful in legal proceedings. And in accordance with the OED, there is a distinct difference between a natual born citizen and a natural citizen. Sorry I don’t recall the site, but I’d guess that it could be found using a Google search.

  1210. Robert:
    I do have a comment concerning the COLB and the Hawaiian officials. The Hawaiian officials are operating in their capacity as officials. They certainly have Obama’s vault copy under seal. Only Obama or a relative, absent a court order, are authorized to obtain the vault copy. So, in their official capacity, the people securing the vault copy have no legal authority to confirm or disavow the actual details of the vault copy. They do have the authority to verify its existence.So, how can what they say about the birth certificate be relied upon to verify the facts of the document?
    I do not understand this! Please advise.

  1211. Ann wrote:

    I just think if I was POTUS and my eligibility was in question, I would take any and all measures to clear up that which was being questioned and put it to bed once and for all.

    Ah yes Ann…and therein lies the difference in you, me, Wild Bill and Hugh in our questioning vs. the covering up of information that O and his supporters would like to see happen.
    For a guy that ran on a platform of change and transparency, the man elected is now about as far away from being ‘transparent’ (especially when it comes to ANYTHING have to do with him personally) as anyone could be!
    You are correct Ann……..an HONEST MAN would have NO PROBLEM at all of FULL DISCLOSURE…………………..a DISHONEST MAN, on the other hand, would FIGHT FULL DISCLOSURE tooth and nail!
    Therefore, I submit that O is a DISHONEST MAN, and anyone who would be willing to go along with his DISHONESTY is about as close to a fool as you can find!
    JMHO, of course. 😉 (I do believe that to still be a right granted me under the free speech amendment…at least for now!)

  1212. Robert said

    LOL, VERY interesting WB. Tell us how Obama possesses a US passport then, Bill.
    Or- is there some Super Secret Hidden Indonesian Passport?

    Apparently, Robert, you don’t read any further than where you want to read. My last lines in the earlier post were as follows:

    And while I’m on the subject, I am unaware of any travel made by BHO out of the country except his adventures in Indonesia, Pakistan, etc. Maybe he has been to Canada or Mexico, but nowhere else that I know of. And until recently one could go freely to Canada or Mexico without a passport, but even that is changing now.
    I doubt that BHO has ever had a US passport except for a diplomatic one because of his elected position(s).
    What say you?

    Diplomatic passports are issued on the basis of a position in government – not by application of a citizen. And, in case you aren’t aware, passports either need to be renewed before expiration or you have to go through the entire process again – with a valid birth certificate – OR a COLB with a WHOLE bunch more proof.
    Now, other than repitition of hearsay evidence on your part, I find nothing in your argument that convinces me that there isn’t a problem. Stop with the hearsay and come up with some factual information.
    Again I ask: What say you?

  1213. Ok Robert…let’s put this to rest once and for all…………..
    Robert wrote:

    And still no estimate from you on the number of participants in The Grand Conspiracy?

    I can’t give YOU that estimate Robert because that is YOUR “Grand Conspiracy” notion…..not MINE!
    Robert wrote:

    If HI state officials have “seen” his Birth Certificate, they know the truth.

    Robert….NEWS FLASH FOR YA………………here’s is EXACTLY what those Hawaiian State Officials (Dr. Fukino) said………………………………………………….

    ……..have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Please Robert….if you would be so kind…..point out to us EXACTLY WHERE in this statement does it SAY that this original birth certificate they have on file states that Obama was born in Hawaii? Exactly where? I don’t seem to be able to find that mentioned in the above.
    Also, these statements made by Hawaiian State Officials…………………………

    Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo (see Chicago Tribune, 10-31-08). Citing Hawaii state privacy laws, and guidance from the state attorney general, she said she, “was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.”

    This statement………………………

    Thank you for your inquiry. Hawaii State law protects the birth records of all individuals born in our state under all circumstances. State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS-338-18(b)
    Aloha,
    vr-info
    Department of Health
    State of Hawaii
    Honolulu, Hawaii”

    Now Robert……I IMPLORE you…PLEASE if you would be so kind…….point out EXACTLY WHERE, in the above statements by the Hawaiian State Officials you so love to allude to, does ANY OF THEM SAY that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii or ANYTHING ELSE that would be information contained on said birth certificate they DO CLAIM is in their possession?
    Robert wrote:

    Why do these obvious and inescapable facts make you so uncomfortable?

    It would appear Robert that I and NOT the one “so uncomfortable” in this….but rather it is YOU!
    I am perfectly willing to let this document said to be in the possession of Hawaii to be looked at and verified!
    Why, again, are YOU so UNWILLING to have this document scrutinized Robert? Afraid there might be something on that document not to your (and every other O supporter’s) liking?

  1214. Robert:
    Concerning the strong or weak definition of natural born citizen, one of the controlling questions I need to ask is what were the motives of the Framers and what did they say about the term? What were the conditions in their hearts that compelled them to put the natural born citizen? What does the historical evidence show that the Framers allowed for eligible qualification for President?
    It seems imperative that the Framers wanted to resist, renounce and defeat every form of tyranny, foreign or domestic as we can glean from the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers. The Office of the President is the most important office in the United States. The President ranks first in civilian authority and in the military, being the Commander-in-Chief. Because of the position I think the Framers required, as should we, the strongest possible definition of natural born citizen. To settle for less weakens the Office, and a weakened Office weakens the Constitution, our governing document. So, I cast away any “weak” interpretation of natural born citizen. Foreigner or others not meeting the requirement cannot qualify.
    Although a totally clear definition may be lacking, it seems fair to say that a natural born citizen, subject to exception for the Framers, means at least a person born on American soil with parents who are citizens at the time of the birth.
    Then also, and I stand corrected on this point, the parents of the natural born citizen could be foreign born. However, their foreign birth requires their naturalization to the United States as qualifying parents to present their son as natural born before his own birth.
    Why am I saying this as a qualifier? Presidents James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover all had foreign born parents who were correctly naturalized before the birth of their sons, each on American soil. These cases are explained on Leo Donofrio’s Natural Born Citizen website. (http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com) Only Chester Arthur failed to actually meet the test since his foreign born father naturalized after Arthur was born. So, we have historical precedence as to how the natural born citizen clause is to work. I am sure that you noted that Woodrow Wilson and Herbert Hoover held the Office after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Yet to hold the Office, these men’s parents had to rightfully qualify as American citizens for their sons to hold the Office. Andrew Johnson held Office during the time the 14th Amendment was ratified on July 28, 1868. Therefore, we have Presidents, before and after the ratification, with citizenship issues and those issues were resolved in like-manner over a long period of time.
    But, the 14th Amendment provides in Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
    Since this is true, I can only conclude that according to the 14th Amendment Section 1, all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens…but not all citizens are natural born citizens.
    Where does this leave Barack Obama II? I can only conclude that Barack Obama II is ineligible to hold the Office of President and that he is a usurper due to the fact Barack Obama Sr. was of Kenyan birth and never naturalized to the United States.
    I think Barack Obama II is also born in Kenya, but I cannot prove it. Since all Branches of the Federal Government has given Obama a pass as to his credentials till now, I can only conclude that America has been seized in a coup d’état, and that it is conspiracy.
    Obama’s place of birth may not be so important in view of the natural born citizen clause. It is can be critical to his proper holding of his United States Senate seat. If Barack Obama is foreign born he may not even be a citizen since no naturalization papers have be found. Therefore he may only be an illegal alien, as such, may have held his Illinois and United State Senate seats illegally.
    Robert, there is no great victory for me to write out these words. You are welcome to challenge my conclusions.

  1215. Crazy Greek,
    Thanks for the response – yes, you are right about the privacy laws – sorry I forgot that. I just think if I was POTUS and my eligibility was in question, I would take any and all measures to clear up that which was being questioned and put it to bed once and for all. The dismissal of our concern from him and his representatives exhibits such contempt and is indicitive of a man who considers himself the “exception to the rules” .

  1216. It is simply amazing that you are willing to accept this and yet have the nerve to call anyone who doesn’t part of a “Tin Hat” movement.

    And still no estimate from you on the number of participants in The Grand Conspiracy?
    You can’t have it both ways, CG: If Obama is hiding the truth, he can’t be the only one that knows that truth.
    If HI state officials have “seen” his Birth Certificate, they know the truth.
    Why do these obvious and inescapable facts make you so uncomfortable?

  1217. Going back to my Mar 1, 2009 at 11:43 am post to Robert about requirements for a US passport, which, as I pointed out will not be issued on the strength of a COLB, isn’t it interesting that Robert has never answered that?

    LOL, VERY interesting WB. Tell us how Obama possesses a US passport then, Bill.
    Or- is there some Super Secret Hidden Indonesian Passport?

  1218. Ann,
    Believe me, trying to contact the hospitals has been attempted. NEITHER of the hospitals listed (one by Obama and a different one by Obama’s step sister) as the hospital of Obama’s birth (LOL..they can’t even seem to agree on THAT one little bit of information when it comes to O) claims to have ANY records of Obama OR his Mother ever having been a patient.
    However, IF they DID have those records, they would be CONFIDENTIAL and the information they contained would not be for public dissemination due to privacy laws.
    Having said that, let me say this………..I can fully understand how information regarding a persons medical history would be considered private….NONE OF US would want it otherwise…….however, I FAIL TO SEE how the information on a birth certificate of ANYONE could be considered medical history…..it is simply the record of a persons coming into this world with the attending physicians name and the name of witnesses to said birth. Unless of course you could consider a persons weight and length at birth to be “medical history” by some stretch of the imagination.
    Unfortunately however, this is the cloak they will try to hide under in order to suppress ANY information regarding Obama.
    Sad, ain’t it?

  1219. why doesn’t someone contact the hospital in Hawaii where he says he was born and get the records? It would indicate who the attending physican was and the records the nurses kept of his mother during and after labor and delivery. They would have the documentation of his first feeding, shots, his mother’s stay in the hospital, etc. Really, why is any or all of this being withheld? Why isn’t anyone stepping forward with this information?

  1220. Naw Bill…not “interesting”…….I would say TYPICAL, would be a more appropriate word……..and not at all surprising.
    ROFLMFAO

  1221. Greek –
    Going back to my Mar 1, 2009 at 11:43 am post to Robert about requirements for a US passport, which, as I pointed out will not be issued on the strength of a COLB, isn’t it interesting that Robert has never answered that?

  1222. Robert wrote:

    Stop asking the same question over and over. I don’t have an “aversion” to anything- I am simply satisfied by what has already been released.

    I would say that this statement in and of itself explains the fact that you have your blinders firmly in place and that you mind is like concrete…….throughly mixed up and firmly set!
    Thanks for the explanation, but I don’t really care to hear anything else you have to say since you are most definitely averse to wanting to explore every avenue available to get at the TRUTH. But hey, THANKS for clearing your position up for us.
    You know Robert, just because someone has a position that is different from yours does not mean that said position is wrong…just simply means that someone is willing to go just a bit further than you are and not willing to simply accept any bone thrown out as gospel….especially when that ‘bone’ comes from the Obama camp.
    It is simply amazing that you are willing to accept this and yet have the nerve to call anyone who doesn’t part of a “Tin Hat” movement.
    LAUGHABLE!!

  1223. It’s simple Robert…I thought I had covered this with you……..YOU seem to be the only one on here claiming some kind of “Grand Conspiracy”, as you call it.

    Um, yeah. Sure CG. That ‘s because I’m the “only one here” not trying to argue that Obama and HI state officials are lying.

    Since I DON’T BELIEVE there is such a conspiracy

    Incorrect. You may DENY what you believe, but your theory that Obama was not born in HI absolutely REQUIRES a conspiracy. Otherwise, the HI state officials would not be – at a minimum- avoiding the truth, and USSC justices would have agreed to hear the case.

    exactly what is your aversion to having the vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate looked at and verified as to what is EXACTLY on it?

    Stop asking the same question over and over. I don’t have an “aversion” to anything- I am simply satisfied by what has already been released.

    …would more than set your case in concrete.

    Hardly. NOTHING would do that where the Tin Foil Hat Crowd is concerned.

  1224. Robert wrote:

    Except for the fact that he was born in HI…

    Again Robert…PROVE IT! {HINT: A Certification of Live Birth proves NOTHING….anyone can get one from Hawaii}
    Robert also wrote:

    If what you posit is correct, that people are keeping the truth of BHO’s birth from us, then there MUST be a conspiracy.
    So why won’t you answer the question?

    It’s simple Robert…I thought I had covered this with you……..YOU seem to be the only one on here claiming some kind of “Grand Conspiracy”, as you call it.
    Since I DON’T BELIEVE there is such a conspiracy, but rather DO BELIEVE that Obama is not, shall we say, laying ALL his cards on the table…oh what the heck…LYING……..I don’t see how I can answer your question regarding something I do not believe to be true.
    Your turn to answer………..exactly what is your aversion to having the vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate looked at and verified as to what is EXACTLY on it?
    That information, in and of itself (IF it contained information which did indeed state that Obama was truly born in Hawaii…remember, we are talking the ORIGINAL here…hand written, not computer generated…the one with the attending physician’s name and witnesses to the birth name attached) would more than set your case in concrete.
    I would think you, of all people, would WANT this revealed. Why is it that you are fighting so hard for it NOT TO BE SEEN?

  1225. …and a lot of the facts about the mother and the birth of BHO under the earlier code make his citizenship suspect.

    Except for the fact that he was born in HI…

  1226. Robert:
    I have never seen an article comparison on this subject. I have bookmarked it and I will be back to you with my observations.

  1227. Robert –
    If you will check your American Thinker article, you will see that the reference to USC 1401 states that the current code is cited. Not the Code that existed before 1986, which was the code in effect when BHO was born.

    1986–Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 99-653 substituted “five years, at least
    two” for “ten years, at least five”.

    That line comes from
    http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title8/8usc1401.html
    and a lot of the facts about the mother and the birth of BHO under the earlier code make his citizenship suspect.

  1228. Please explain all so I can understand your position!

    I’m speaking of the Fourteenth Amendment, Hugh.

  1229. Apparently you watch a lot of crime drama on television where crimes are solved by taking a flashlight into a darkened room and VIOLA!! Crime solved.

    I know, I know. The members of the Grand Conspiracy are
    a) Lying about what they do or do not know about BHO’s birth certificate (the HI state officials); AND
    b) Simply refusing to do their sworn duties to defend the Constitution (in the case of numerous judges and justices).
    OR there is no Grand Conspiracy because
    There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that BHO was born anywhere but HI, and the state officials have done their duty…
    Hmmm… I wonder which it is…

  1230. It’s laying in a records vault in Hawaii!

    LMAO!! I know, CG!!! And the people who have SEEN the proof are “in” on the Grand Conspiracy!!!
    Curse Them!! lol

  1231. Robert…you seem to be the only one on here touting this “Grand Conspiracy” theory.

    If what you posit is correct, that people are keeping the truth of BHO’s birth from us, then there MUST be a conspiracy.
    So why won’t you answer the question?

  1232. And:

    Quo Warranto today
    In the United States today, Quo Warranto usually arises in a civil case as a plaintiff’s claim (and thus a “cause of action” instead of a writ) that some governmental or corporate official was not validly elected to that office or is wrongfully exercising powers beyond (or ultra vires) those authorized by statute or by the corporation’s charter.

  1233. This coming out just now. Course, we all know that no one really cares (according to O supporters naturally), but it will be interesting to see if O’s appointee Holder has the huevos to do his job, won’t it? 😉
    One thing is for sure…..this AIN’T gonna just go away anytime soon!!!!!
    Attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr.
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington , DCÂ 20530-0001Â USA
    March 1, 2009
    Honorable Attorney General Holder
    Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Re:Â Request a Special Assistant for the United States to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama, II to Test His Title to President before the Supreme Court
    Relators, Major General Carroll Childers, Ret; Lt. Col Dr. David Earl-Graef; Navy and Police officer Mr. Clinton Grimes; Lt. Scott Easterling, currently serving in Iraq; Major James Cannon, US Marine Corps, Ret; New Hampshire State Representative Mr. Timothy Comerford; Tennessee State Representative Mr. Frank Nicely, State of Alabama 2008 electoral college elector Mr. Robert Cusanelli bring information for Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama, II, testing his title to President per attached relation. Relators include:
    Robert Cusanelli, Elector for 7th District, State of Alabama , in the 2008 Electoral College;
    Â Frank Nicely, State Representative of Tennessee in his official capacity;
    Timothy Comerford, State Representative of New Hampshire in his official capacity;
    Major General Carroll Childers, 29th Infantry Div VA retired, lifetime subject to recall; Numerous decorations
    1st Lt. Scott R. Easterling OD LG US Army on active duty in Iraq ;
    Clint Grimes, Sergeant Long Beach Police Officer & CDR/0-5 US Navy (Active Reserve). Numerous decorations, including two National defense medals, two Navy commendation medals
    Dr. David Earl-Graef, Lieutenant Colonel Air Force MC, Military Surgeon- Active Reserve. Numerous decorations including Air Force outstanding unit with valor.
    James Cannon Major US Marine Corps, Ret, lifetime subject to recall. Numerous awards, including Bronze Star with combat V and two Purple Hearts
    Relator’s oath of office grants standing. Relators are affected by actions of Respondent Obama and the outcome of this Quo Warranto, and thus have interest above citizens.
    Information on Quo Warranto against a Federal Officer is normally related to the Attorney General to raise on behalf of the United States in U.S. District court of the District of Columbia per DC Code 16-3502. However, the Attorney General defends the office of President and is appointed by the President. For the Attorney General to bring Quo Warranto on the President raises an intrinsic conflict of interest. USAM 3-2.170 Historically, a Special Prosecutor or Independent Counsel was appointed to eliminate such conflicts of interest, e.g., Attorney General Elliot Richardson appointed Archibald Cox as the Watergate Special Prosecutor over issues touching on President Nixon.
    This information on Quo Warranto includes action between the United States ex rel. and the State of Hawaii over original birth records of Barack H. Obama II being withheld per Hawaii ’s privacy laws. Hawaii ’s action obstructs the constitutional duties of election officers to validate or evaluate President Election Obama qualifications to become President under U.S. CONST. art II – 1 and Amend. XX – 3.
    As President Elect, Respondent Obama failed to submit prima facie evidence of his qualifications before January 20, 2009 . Election officers failed to challenge, validate or evaluate his qualifications. Relators submit that as President Elect, Respondent Obama failed qualify per U.S. CONST. Amend. XX – 3.
    Such negligence and misprision threaten to nullify these essential safeguards. Thus Relators request this Quo Warranto be related to the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction.
    Enclosed is a summary motion for leave to file Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II aka Barry Soetoro, with the Supreme Court. The list of Questions Presented is attached. A full brief supporting this motion is in preparation.
    1) Relators respectfully pray that the Attorney General recuse himself over bringing this Quo Warranto for the United States on Barack H. Obama II, by reason of intrinsic conflict of interest.
    2) Relators pray the Attorney General appoint a Special Assistant (prosecutor) of Archibald Cox’s reputation and expertise, to relate this Quo Warranto to the Supreme Court per 28 USC 543.
    3) Relators request that their attorney, Orly Taitz, ESQ DDS, assist in relating this Quo Warranto, being recognized at bar before the Supreme Court.
    4) Relators further request the assistance of Patrick Fitzgerald, United States Attorney General for the Northern District of Illinois, as having familiarity with issues involving Barack H. Obama II while Senator from Illinois and as President Elect.
    5) Relators request guidance from the Attorney General, within one week of receipt of this information, regarding his decision on whether to appoint such a Special Assistant.
    With respect, in absence of such guidance, Relators will proceed to request leave from the Supreme Court to relate information for this Quo Warranto on Mr. Obama to test his title.
    Yours Sincerely,
    Orly Taitz, ESQ
    Attorney for Relators
    26302 La Paz
    Mission Viejo , CAÂ 92691
    949-683 5411
    Encl. Motion to Supreme Court for leave to relate Quo Warranto on Barack Hussein Obama II, testing his title to the Federal office of President.

  1234. Robert said

    Same answer, WB. If there were true evidence, you could bring it to court.

    Apparently you watch a lot of crime drama on television where crimes are solved by taking a flashlight into a darkened room and VIOLA!! Crime solved.
    It might work that way once in a while, but not generally. And that, sir, is why there are cold case units all over the country.

  1235. Robert:
    Thanks for your response:
    I said:
    “If your proof is valid why is Obama Sr. Kenya birth without merit? Why does it not have anything to do with the situation? Would it not be absolute proof that Obama II is not a natural born citizen?”
    You say:
    Because Obama was born in HI. End of story. BOTH of his parents could have been foreign nationals, and with only rare exceptions (later actively choosing the citizenship of parents, parents were diplomats) BHO would be a natural born US citizen.
    Questions:
    Are you speaking of US Code 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth? Does anything in 1401 allow for natural born citizen status? I see “nationals” in it but I do not see the words “natural born citizen”.
    1401 does not apply to Obama II since he is born in Hawaii. Do you consider this true?
    What is a foreign national?
    What is a naturalized citizen?
    Must a person’s father be a naturalized US citizen before his son is born in the US for the son to be a natural born citizen? If not, why not?
    Please explain all so I can understand your position!

  1236. Robert wrote:

    Back on target, CG: how many people would need to be “in” on The Grand Conspiracy to make it work?

    Robert…you seem to be the only one on here touting this “Grand Conspiracy” theory. All we are asking for is for the vault copy of the birth certificate to be released and the information contained on it be verified with the COLB that Obama has had placed on his website.
    I fail to see your revulsion and reluctance at having this looked at. You seem to know quite a bit about law and it’s proceedings in the various courts. What BETTER PROOF could you possibly obtain than a copy of an original birth certificate that has been LOCKED AWAY FROM ANY POSSIBILITY OF HAVING BEEN TAMPERED WITH IN ANY WAY?

  1237. Robert wrote:

    Same answer, WB. If there were true evidence, you could bring it to court.

    There IS true evidence Robert. It’s laying in a records vault in Hawaii! Just because you, and the rest of the O supporters (up to and including your Mesiah) don’t want it seen does not mean that TRUE EVIDENCE (your words) does not exist!
    As you are so fond of saying……………”End of story!”

  1238. Robert wrote:

    Because Obama was born in HI. End of story.

    PROVE IT…..beyond a reasonable doubt Robert!
    DEMAND that the ONLY ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE (NOT certification of live birth) that has NO POSSIBILITY AT ALL OF EVER HAVING BEEN TAMPERED WITH be released!

  1239. In law enforcement, you try to get the bad guys off the street and sufficient evidence to provide to an attorney in a government office to ensure that the attorney can convince a jury and get a conviction.

    Same answer, WB. If there were true evidence, you could bring it to court.

  1240. if ANYTHING I have said to you has seemed offensive in my quest to point out to you what I believe to be a (shall we say) lack of curiosity on your part in finding the WHOLE TRUTH regarding this matter, I apologize to you also.

    I have no idea what was deleted, but I will avoid the examples you provided of my own attacks. Sorry, Warren.
    Back on target, CG: how many people would need to be “in” on The Grand Conspiracy to make it work?

  1241. If your proof is valid why is Obama Sr. Kenya birth without merit? Why does it not have anything to do with the situation? Would it not be absolute proof that Obama II is not a natural born citizen?

    Because Obama was born in HI. End of story. BOTH of his parents could have been foreign nationals, and with only rare exceptions (later actively choosing the citizenship of parents, parents were diplomats) BHO would be a natural born US citizen.

  1242. A COLB isn’t even acceptable to get a passport to go into Canada.
    I know for a fact , I have tried.

  1243. Robert: You said the Greek:
    ‘I’m starting to become embarassed for you, CG. The law you are ham handedly trying to quote does not apply to children born IN THE UNITED STATES.
    For a primer, read the Fourteenth Amendment, and see the current controversy around “anchor babies” conceived by illegal aliens.
    Sheesh. Some people will believe ANYTHING.!!!’
    #
    Then Robert in replying to the Greek:
    Don’t you want UNDENIABLE PROOF to be established or are you just willing to go along with that ‘truth’ according to Obama and the DNC?
    You say:
    For me the “UNDENIABLE PROOF” you are chattering on about is the COLB already provided, as well as the statements of the HI officials and the positions of various courts.’
    I want to make two points.
    Point number one: You certainly think my ascertain concerning a natural born citizen is without merit.
    I said to you:
    ‘Let me repeat: To be a natural born citizen one must be born of two American parents on America soil. This is the true and only condition of a natural born citizen.’
    You respond:
    LOL. Just curious, Hugh. Where did you get this cockamamie idea?
    Please tell me, the Greek and Wild Bill what the definition of natural born citizen is.
    Point number two:
    You stated above what undeniable proof is to the Greek, as follows:
    “For me the “UNDENIABLE PROOF” you are chattering on about is the COLB already provided, as well as the statements of the HI officials and the positions of various courts.”
    You reply to me on February 28, 9:01 AM:
    “What you say above, regarding Obama’s father and his lack of naturalization, is pure 100% inescapable fact.”
    Now, Robert, this was about Obama Sr. Kenya birth.
    If your proof is valid why is Obama Sr. Kenya birth without merit? Why does it not have anything to do with the situation? Would it not be absolute proof that Obama II is not a natural born citizen?

  1244. Robert said

    BASIC PREMISE in law enforcement… bring it to Court.

    Apparently, Robert, you haven’t had a lot of experience in the area of “Law and Order.” In law enforcement, you try to get the bad guys off the street and sufficient evidence to provide to an attorney in a government office to ensure that the attorney can convince a jury and get a conviction. Just bringing it to court isn’t the same thing.
    And it is quite clear to me, at least, that there are a lot of folks who are still concerned about the authenticity of BHO. And I’ll say it again, we just want an answer.

  1245. Warren wrote:

    (Remainder of comment deleted due to violation of commenting rules)

    Sorry Warren….I do apologize. I didn’t realize that ANYTHING I wrote was in any way a “violation”, especially since you have let the following comments made by Robert toward me go without the same ‘rules’ applying……………………..
    Robert wrote:

    You are doing alot of dancing to avoid looking like a paranoid fool Cg. Why?

    Robert wrote:

    LOL, now you can’t even remember what YOU posted from moment to moment, CG… let me quote YOU [emphasis added]:

    Robert wrote:

    Let me know if you need help understanding that concept, and I can provide samples.

    ….and others too numerous that have been placed on this board.
    Rest assured, it won’t happen again.
    Call it a flaw in my upbringing that I was always taught when attacked…..counter!
    I also would like to submit that I have pointed out during this conversational thread that I do umpire baseball, all the way up to and including the semi-pro level of play. As such, we are always taught, from LITTLE LEAGUE on up to call em the same way for both sides!
    I would have thought that you would do this….obviously, I was mistaken. NOT A PROBLEM on this end. Once the ‘rules’ are plainly enforced so that all can see exactly how they are enforced, the game can continue.
    Again…..my apologies! 😉
    Oh yeah…Robert……if ANYTHING I have said to you has seemed offensive in my quest to point out to you what I believe to be a (shall we say) lack of curiosity on your part in finding the WHOLE TRUTH regarding this matter, I apologize to you also.
    Fair enough?

  1246. BASIC PREMISE in law enforcement….

    BASIC PREMISE in law enforcement… bring it to Court.
    Oh, that’s right. Your issues HAVE been brought to Court!!!
    LMAO.

  1247. Little insight for ya…maybe if you can figure this out, you can take those blinders off.

    So you’re not even going to hazard a guess as to the number of people that would need to be “in” on The Grand Conspiracy to make your theory work?
    Didn’t think so… lol

  1248. Robert….Ahhhhhh…so it IS just as I suspected with you…you ARE AFRAID of what is on that vault copy.
    Little insight for ya…maybe if you can figure this out, you can take those blinders off.
    BASIC PREMISE in law enforcement….when someone gives you their story, and it don’t smell right, or something they have said is brought into question, you then start asking for more proof of their contentions. The LONGER more proof IS NOT forthcoming, the more unbelievable their story becomes.
    (Remainder of comment deleted due to violation of commenting rules)

  1249. Robert –
    You wrote:

    For me the “UNDENIABLE PROOF” you are chattering on about is the COLB already provided, as well as the statements of the HI officials and the positions of various courts.

    Okay, fine, but there are some agencies that would disagree with your statement about the COLB. Notably, the Department of State which issues passports to US Citizens after review of submitted material proving the individual is, in fact, a US Citizen.
    Note below that a COLB does not qualify as proof. To obtain a passport WITHOUT an original birth certificate, one needs a letter stating “No Record.” Since both Kenya and Hawaii have indicated that there is, or are, birth certificates, there couldn’t be a “No Record” letter issued.
    Note, too, that the birth cerficate requires the signature of the attending physician. I guesss that means that the COLB is really just a piece of paper that says someone was born, but that’s about all.

    Passport requirements – proof of US citizenship
    You can prove your US citizenship with one of the following:
    Original Birth Certificate (if born in the United States);
    or Old (undamaged) passport;
    or Original Certificate of Citizenship or FS-240, DS-1350 ( if born outside the US );
    or Original Certificate of Naturalization issued by the Immigration and Naturalization Office.
    Note: A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth.
    A Delayed Birth Certificate filed more than one year after your birth may be acceptable if it:
    Listed the documentation used to create it and
    Signed by the attending physician or midwife, or, lists an affidavit signed by the parents, or shows early public records.
    If you changed your legal name by way of marriage or otherwise you will need to provide evidence of the name change: a certified copy of either
    – A marriage certificate, or
    – A name change court decree.
    If you do not have a previous U.S. passport or a certified birth certificate, you will need:
    Letter of “No Record” issued by the State with your name, date of birth, which years were searched for a birth record and that there is no birth certificate on file for you and
    As many of the following as possible:
    baptismal certificate
    hospital birth certificate
    census record
    early school record
    family bible record
    doctor’s record of post-natal care
    Note: These documents must be early public records showing the date and place of birth, preferably created within the first five years of your life. You may also submit an Affidavit of Birth, form DS-10, from an older blood relative (i.e. parent, aunt, uncle, sibling) who has personal knowledge of your birth. It must be notarized or have the seal and signature of the acceptance agent.

    And what defines a birth certificate?

    An official certificate of every birth should be on file in the locality where the event occurred. The Federal Government does not maintain files or indexes of these records. These records are filed permanently in a State vital statistics office or in a city, county, or other local office.
    To obtain a certified copy of any of the certificates, write or go to the vital statistics office in the State or area where the event occurred. For information on how and where to apply directly please visit Where To Write For Vital Records or for expedited services you can use VitalChek’s express certificate ordering service.
    The following documents are NOT ACCEPTABLE for passport applications:
    Notarized photocopies of Birth Certificates
    Hospital birth records or certificates
    NOTE: Applicants born in California MUST submit a Long Form Birth Certificate. Short Form or abstract Birth Certificates are NOT ACCEPATBLE.
    All originals will be returned to applicants with the new passport
    If you do not have a Birth Certificate click here for more information

    And while I’m on the subject, I am unaware of any travel made by BHO out of the country except his adventures in Indonesia, Pakistan, etc. Maybe he has been to Canada or Mexico, but nowhere else that I know of. And until recently one could go freely to Canada or Mexico without a passport, but even that is changing now.
    I doubt that BHO has ever had a US passport except for a diplomatic one because of his elected position(s).
    What say you?

  1250. What is it that you are so afraid of seeing on that vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate?

    Don’t you want UNDENIABLE PROOF to be established or are you just willing to go along with that ‘truth’ according to Obama and the DNC?

    For me the “UNDENIABLE PROOF” you are chattering on about is the COLB already provided, as well as the statements of the HI officials and the positions of various courts.
    There you go. Asked and answered. Now- why don’t you give me an answer, and stop dancing? Give me an estimate of the number of people who must be “in” on the Grand Conspiracy in order to have it work

  1251. One has to apply the law as it was written at the time of Obama’s birth….

    I’m starting to become embarassed for you, CG. The law you are ham handedly trying to quote does not apply to children born IN THE UNITED STATES.
    For a primer, read the Fourteenth Amendment, and see the current controversy around “anchor babies” conceived by illegal aliens.
    Sheesh. Some people will believe ANYTHING.!!!

  1252. Tell ya what Robert……until you decided to answer the question that has been posed to you, please don’t bother trying to ask me anything cause you will be ignored…fair enough?

  1253. Robert wrote:

    You are doing alot of dancing to avoid looking like a paranoid fool Cg. Why?

    Answer – Tryin to keep from steppin in all the s**t you seem to be throwing about with all YOUR dancing around not answering the one simple question put to you time and time again….now for the LAST TIME…..
    Robert,
    What is it that you are so afraid of seeing on that vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate? You AFRAID there may be something on there that DOES NOT go along with your contention of Obama’s birth place? You AFRAID of having POSITIVE PROOF of what your guy is saying?
    WHY WON’T YOU ANSWER Robert?
    Don’t you want UNDENIABLE PROOF to be established or are you just willing to go along with that ‘truth’ according to Obama and the DNC?
    I would think you would want that proof SHOWN…if for no other reason than to have the satisfaction of rubbin our nose in it! ROFLMFAO

  1254. oops….I was just finishing when the puter puked it’s guts out….andyway…THAT was the law at the time of Obama’s birth…..it’s undeniable! Obama was around 3 years old by the time that law was changed!
    Now, just how this ‘change’ would have affected Obama’s claim to be eligible is where the rub is.

  1255. One has to apply the law as it was written at the time of Obama’s birth. Quite simply, the law at the time of Obama’s birth simply DOES NOT allow him to be eligible for the office of POTUS!
    Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. Natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986. Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents. If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of Obama’s birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16. Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after* . In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship.
    Now….THAT

  1256. Naturalized in the 14th Amendment does not mean “natural born citizen.”

    Of course it doesn’t. Who suggested otherwise?

  1257. There is something dated later than October and IS MOST DEFINITELY a R E T R A C T I O N!!!!!

    LOL, now you can’t even remember what YOU posted from moment to moment, CG… let me quote YOU [emphasis added]:

    Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo (see Chicago Tribune, 10-31-08). Citing Hawaii state privacy laws, and guidance from the state attorney general, she said she, “was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.”

    See?? November 3 is AFTER 10-31.
    In any case, why are we arguing about this particular fact? Think about it:
    If Okubo DID say what was quoted in the Trib, and then RETRACTED it (as you say), that makes her PART OF THE GRAND CONSPIRACY TO HIDE THE TRUTH.
    You are doing alot of dancing to avoid looking like a paranoid fool Cg. Why?

  1258. Robert: I guess you already have given us your 14th Amendment definition.
    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
    Naturalized in the 14th Amendment does not mean “natural born citizen.” Could it be possible that Article II, Section I natural born citizen clause means something entirely different than the 14th Amendment naturalization?
    So, the Constitution is written by the framers in the 1780’s and the 14th Amendment in c.1868. What did the framers and the others constitutional judges do in the intervening years? How did they establish who was an eligible President at the founding and the intervening years? I think they looked to Article II, Section 1. Were the framers and other constitutional scholars confused as to a definition? Did the judges change the definition in the 1860’s? The definition of natural born citizen has not changed. The 14th Amendment did not alter it.

  1259. Robert:
    Well, by all means tell us, what is the true meaning of natural born citizen? Since you are the Constitutional expert please give us the definition. We would like to hear it.

  1260. Robert…..you are totally laughable!
    Robert wrote:

    You’re more confused than I thought, CG. Of what relevance are you (or any ot the other Tin Foil Hat Brigade) that either Obama or anyone else would care to provide anything beyond the COLB that has already been provided???

    It’s called V E R I F I C A T I O N…..ever heard of the concept?
    Also, I see you STILL have your tap dancin shoes on……….what’s the MATTER Robert………are you AFRAID of what might be found on that vault copy of Obama’s original birth certificate? WHY WON’T YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION. I must assume from your reluctance, that you are just TOTALLY don’t believe in VALIDATION or VERIFICATION because what might be found would be injurious to your stance!
    Typical of you Obama supporters!
    You want to talk DATES? You just brought the fact that what I had posted from Okubo was October 31 rather than November 3 in order for it to be a retraction…however you choose to ignore the above posted item also.
    Read it again Robert………………………TAKE YOUR BLINDERS OFF for a minute and try to understand………….we simply WANT THE TRUTH and that truth will NEVER be known unless and until that vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate is produced!
    From the thread above, dated Feb 24, 2009 at 9:26 am……………………..

    The question…………………..
    The Chicago tribune published the following on Nov 3rd:
    “Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”
    Can you please confirm the accuracy of this statement?
    Is Dr Fukino categorically stating that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?
    The answer from the State of Hawaii……………….
    Subject: Re: Alleged statement by Janice Okubo
    Thank you for your inquiry. Hawaii State law protects the birth records of all individuals born in our state under all circumstances. State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS-338-18(b)
    Aloha,
    vr-info
    Department of Health
    State of Hawaii
    Honolulu, Hawaii”

    There is something dated later than October and IS MOST DEFINITELY a
    R E T R A C T I O N!!!!!
    One last time……what is YOUR aversion to seeing that vault copy produced Robert? Think you could get by with your “other than the document made available by the Obama camp, we don’t have to produce anything else to support our contention that Obama was born in the State of Hawaii” theory in a court of law?
    L A U G H A B L E!!!!! Nice try Robert, but NO CIGAR!!

  1261. Sorry to post three in a row like this, but to me the Fourteenth Amendment seems pretty clear, and that it has nothing to do with the citizenship of father or mother:

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

    Commence to twisting the words. But when you do, present current case law!

  1262. Let me repeat: To be a natural born citizen one must be born of two American parents on America soil. This is the true and only condition of a natural born citizen.

    LOL. Just curious, Hugh. Where did you get this cockamamie idea?

  1263. Do you consider that SCOTUS can be in serious error in Constitutional matters. Or do you consider them infallible, incapable of error in all matters, including Constitutional ones?

    200% irrelevant, Hugh. I can disagree with them all I want, on any number of many and varied issues. Guess what? I don’t get to rule!! They do.
    So- you disagree with the Court on their interpretation of “natural born citizen.” Maybe someone on the far left would say the same thing on McCain’s birth. SO WHAT? We are a nation of laws, and the justices rule on matters of interpretation, not you or I.

    That ‘pure 100% inescapable fact’ is ground zero in Obama territory. SCOTUS is quite aware of the issue and refuses to deal with the it for whatever the reason.

    LMAO! Because they are IN on the Grand Conspiracy!

    Let me repeat: To be a natural born citizen one must be born of two American parents on America soil.

    Repeat it as often as you wish. It still won’t be true.
    And guess what: the law is on my side.

  1264. …when it has CLEARLY been pointed out to you that she, in effect RETRACTED THAT STATEMENT (IF she ever really made it) with this…

    Um, no. Check your dates, If the above would have been a “retraction,” it would have been dated later than the November 3 headline of the link I provided- not the October 31 date you provide. FYI, a “retraction” is when someone makes a statement, and then they LATER take it back. Let me know if you need help understanding that concept, and I can provide samples.
    http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html
    See the date? November 3 vs. your October 31?
    Quick!! Change your story, CG!!!! LMAO.

    Now, how about YOU and your Obama PROVE ME WRONG?

    You’re more confused than I thought, CG. Of what relevance are you (or any ot the other Tin Foil Hat Brigade) that either Obama or anyone else would care to provide anything beyond the COLB that has already been provided???
    I still note your refusal to even conjecture a wild guess at how many people would need to be “in” on the Grand Conspiracy to make it work…
    Why is that? Are you afraid that counting up the judges, justices, and various HI state officials will make you look paranoid??
    Got news for ya, buddy…

  1265. Robert…….you are really unbelievable. You keep going back to your one Hawaii official that YOU seem so sure ACTUALLY SAID “Yes, that’s what she means..Obama was born in Hawaii” (this official would be Janice Okubo) when it has CLEARLY been pointed out to you that she, in effect RETRACTED THAT STATEMENT (IF she ever really made it) with this……………………………………

    Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo (see Chicago Tribune, 10-31-08). Citing Hawaii state privacy laws, and guidance from the state attorney general, she said she, “was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.”

    Are you this easily led around blindly by the nose by your Obama and the DNC? Obviously, you are because you also keep tap dancing around this little obversation I made earlier…………….
    Crazy Greek wrote:

    If it were otherwise, and that document could prove beyond ANY DOUBT that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and should be considered a ‘natural born citizen’, you can bet that both Obama AND the DNC would be shouting that FACT from the rooftops……..complete with a parade and spending MILLIONS of dollars of the taxpayers money to rub that fact into the noses of ANY who would DARE question the Mesiah………………but, THEY AREN’T DOING THAT, now are they?

    Add to ALL this, you STILL are refusing to answer the question which has been asked of you again and again……..”What are you so afraid of that you, like your little God Obama, don’t want anyone to see on that vault copy of his BC? WHAT? Think maybe your God might have actually LIED to YOU and the rest of the folks in this nation to get your/their vote? Hummmmmmm???
    Robert, the ONLY conspiracy here is Obama REFUSING TO RELEASE THAT VAULT COPY OF HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE……………I think you KNOW it…….I think you DREAD what is going to happen when it IS released and I think you are in DENIAL of the possibility that you could have been so easily drawn in by Obama!
    That’s what I think. Now, how about YOU and your Obama PROVE ME WRONG?
    Oh yeah……one more thing…………care to answer the question of why you are so afraid to have that vault copy of the BC seen by ANYONE?
    We’re waiting on your answer Robert……..NOT REALLY EXPECTING ONE mind you…..but waiting just the same.
    Until, and unless you do, address that question, nothing more you have to say is of much interest to me really.

  1266. Yes, Robert! There is a conspiracy. SCOTUS has failed to rule in the matter of the matter of the birth certificate and natural born citizen.
    If you are correct there is simply no problem for America or any of her citizens in this matter! If you are wrong there are great problems!
    Do you consider “What you say above, regarding Obama’s father and his lack of naturalization, is pure 100% inescapable fact.”
    Question: Are you pro-abortion? SCOTUS ruled the against life in the womb in Roe v Wade. Do you consider that SCOTUS can be in serious error in Constitutional matters. Or do you consider them infallible, incapable of error in all matters, including Constitutional ones?
    Please explain to me how “…regarding Obama’s father and his lack of naturalization, is pure 100% inescapable fact” means absolutely nothing as to the proper evaluation and understanding of Obama’s situation.
    That ‘pure 100% inescapable fact’ is ground zero in Obama territory. SCOTUS is quite aware of the issue and refuses to deal with the it for whatever the reason.
    You do have a problem! You are not thinking and really evaluating for yourself in this matter.
    Why are you completely avoiding the “pure 100% inescapable fact’? What reason or reasons do you have? I understand that you completely agree with the Hawaii officials concerning the COLB.
    Wild Bill, the Greek and I are in agreement when we say the Obama’s COLB is completely inadequate to adjudicate this matter.
    Let me repeat: To be a natural born citizen one must be born of two American parents on America soil. This is the true and only condition of a natural born citizen. Obama, Sr. was born in Kenya and never met the condition of being naturalized in the United States. So, it is logical that Barack Obama II can never be a natural born citizen and can never be eligible for the Presidency.
    This is where the ‘pure 100% inescapable fact’ should lead people.
    If you can admit to the ‘pure 100% inescapable fact’ why can you not arrive Barack Obama II as being disqualified for the Presidency?

  1267. Hawaii is saying that they have an Obama COLB under seal, but they are not saying that Obama is born in Hawaii.

    Well. Except, you know, the HI state official who said “Yes” when directly asked that question.
    But– that official is part of the Grand Conspiracy, so she doesn’t count.

    Even if Obama was born in Hawaii,…

    I know, Hugh, I know. And darn those judges and justices who just don’t agree with the Tin Foil Hat interpretation of the Constitution!! What you say above, regarding Obama’s father and his lack of naturalization, is pure 100% inescapable fact.
    Of course, your interpretation of that fact- i.e. that even if Obama was born in the US, he would not be considered “natural born,” is laughable. Otherwise, why would no Court act on what is such a simple fact?
    They are all part of the Grand Conspiracy?

  1268. Also, you will not address THIS FACT and choose to IGNORE the relevance of it…..

    Because it’s not a “fact” and it’s certainly not relevant- you are just saying that when Okubo said what she said, in her capacity as a state official- she was lying.
    Fine. I have no problem with you thinking that- it just makes her another person in your Grand Conspiracy.
    So why do you refuse to give us a head count, CG? At this point, how many people need to be “in the know” to make your Grand Conspiracy a fact?
    By your own tacit admission:
    At least two HI state officials (one for her sly refusal to answer a direct question, the other by her sly direct answer to a direct question. I know- it sounds senseless to me, but it IS your contention).
    How many lower court judges have to be participating in the Grand Conspiracy, simply be refusing to allow the cases to proceed?
    And, of course, at least four USSC justices…
    A

  1269. Todays headlines:

    Obama sets firm withdrawal timetable for Iraq
    Enemy combatant case moved into US civilian courts
    Enemy combatant case moved into civilian courts
    Analysis: Obama’s budget goals depend on recovery
    Afghan: Taliban has 10,000 to 15,000 fighters

    And the DJIA is down again by 119.15.
    If all this good news from BHO keeps up, I may have to give up retirement and go back to work.
    Hey, Robert! Is this the change you were looking for?
    And no comment about the number of military joining to question BHO’s qualifications? At 85 plus and counting, I think something is going on that you can’t face.

  1270. BHO, IMHO, is campaigning because he has no idea of how to lead. If he was a leader, he would have told NP what he wanted in the stim… uh, SPENDING bill rather than ask her to come up with something. As far as I’m concerned, he is showboating and enjoying AF-1 because he really doesn’t know what to do. And his great talent in speaking always comes from the teleprompters. No more Mr. Ad-Lib he. That doesn’t work.
    Oh, yeah. And then there are the Wednesday evening cocktail hours at the White House.

  1271. there is information on that vault copy that would prove Obama ineligible for the office of POTUS.

    Yes, and I am sure that is why he is STILL campaigning even after he won instead of going about the business of just doing his job. Someone needs to tell him the election is over, well, unless we need to start over again because he is ineligible, which is looking more and more like a probability instead of a possibility.

    If it were otherwise, and that document could prove beyond ANY DOUBT that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and should be considered a ‘natural born citizen’, you can bet that both Obama AND the DNC would be shouting that FACT from the rooftops……..complete with a parade and spending MILLIONS of dollars of the taxpayers money to rub that fact into the noses of ANY who would DARE question the Mesiah………………but, THEY AREN’T DOING THAT, now are they?

    Exactly, and therein lies the problem – or solution.

  1272. Ann…..
    Well stated! Why INDEED!!!!
    The answer, it would seem, is quite simple……..there is information on that vault copy that would prove Obama ineligible for the office of POTUS.
    If it were otherwise, and that document could prove beyond ANY DOUBT that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and should be considered a ‘natural born citizen’, you can bet that both Obama AND the DNC would be shouting that FACT from the rooftops……..complete with a parade and spending MILLIONS of dollars of the taxpayers money to rub that fact into the noses of ANY who would DARE question the Mesiah………………but, THEY AREN’T DOING THAT, now are they?
    ROFLMFAO

  1273. Well Robert……….you took the bait and ran with it. I KNEW you WOULD. Is is soooo typical of you. Once again, you address the issue as it ONLY applies to YOUR contention, totally IGNORING the FACT of what has REALLY been said.

    Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo (see Chicago Tribune, 10-31-08). Citing Hawaii state privacy laws, and guidance from the state attorney general, she said she, “was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.”

    Also, you will not address THIS FACT and choose to IGNORE the relevance of it…..

    Just because someone says “yes, that’s what they meant”, especially a 2nd party who clearly wasn’t listed on the original statement as being one of those who actually checked to see if a birth certificate was indeed there, doesn’t make it so.

    You also choose to IGNORE THIS……………….

    Further, in all this, you would think that the person who is supposed to have ‘meant it when they said what they did’ has YET to come forth themselves and state that “Yes, this is what I meant when I said we had seen the birth certificate.”

    I would love to see you try to operate as an attorney in a court of law…I think your case would sound something like this……………………………….
    “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury……..you have heard my side of the case……we DO NOT NEED to hear the other side…..mine is the ONLY side that matters, so go on back to the jury room now and come back with a ruling favorable to my client!”
    Totally laughable! Your credibility just sunk to a new low Robert because you, just like your candidate Obama, REFUSES to address the issue of WHY that vault copy of Obama’s original birth certificate should NOT BE SEEN and VERIFIED!
    ROFLMFAO

  1274. if the officials in Hawaii have seen the original birth certificate and have certified that it is authentic, then why can’t we, as U.S. citizens, (or our representatives from both parites), have access to it as well? It might satisify a lot of people and put this to rest. The inaccessibility of something so simple does not lend to or advance Barak Obama’s credibility.

  1275. From The Right Side of Life yesterday
    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=4128

    Dr. Taitz goes on to say the following:
    We are now at 85 Plaintiffs in our Military Action for Barack Obama to prove his eligibility. All of you brave men and women are stepping up at a fast pass now. We all are behind you and signing on to the Federal and Citizen Suits.

    And the beat goes on…

  1276. Robert:
    Hawaii is saying that they have an Obama COLB under seal, but they are not saying that Obama is born in Hawaii. They cannot reveal what is on the COLB as it is a private matter. But when Obama runs for President this private matter becomes a very public matter. Obama really cannot say to we the people “It is none of your business.” Oh no! Try applying for a job that requires birth certificate identification or security clearance. Obama could not get a security clearence for a job with the FBI or CIA. The COLB will not stand up to a court of law. We must see the original vault copy. There is a loophole that needs to be closed.
    It is true that Obama Sr. was born in Kenya and did not naturalize to the US. Barack Obama admits that Sr. was born in Kenya. Even if Obama was born in Hawaii, Obama Sr.’s status seals the deal and his son cannot be nor will ever be a natural born citizen.
    You refuse to believe the truth in this matter. You position is not logical.

  1277. Robert,
    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,”
    Where in this statement does it elude to Obama being a US born indivdual?

  1278. I’m willing to give ya that she made the first statement

    There you go CG!!! Progress, guy, progress.
    So- Okubo DID say that her boss confirmed Obama’s HI birth. Taken from there- EVEN IF you are correctly interpreting her statement regarding the authenticity of the certificate… you are saying that Okubo and/or her boss are part of this Grand Conspiracy.
    Otherwise, why would she make such a statement?
    So add Okubo and/or Furkino to your list of Grand Conspirators, along with numerous federal judges and supreme court justices.

    Just because someone says “yes, that’s what they meant”, especially a 2nd party who clearly wasn’t listed on the original statement as being one of those who actually checked to see if a birth certificate was indeed there, doesn’t make it so.

    But it DOES make that person and/or the second party part of the Grand Conspiracy, if it’s not true, doesn’t it?

    Since you don’t answer my questions, I must assume that like BHO, you are hiding something – or don’t have an answer.

    WB, you are the only person I know that won’t accept a direct quote from a HI state official as proof that an HI state official said something! LMAO.

  1279. Robert –
    Greek and I are again in agreement, and I’m going to go back to my comment from several days ago:

    1. If you will re-read, or perhaps read for the first time, no official in HI has said he was born there. Just that there is a “birth certificate.” And no one has yet to see it except for those who say it is there. Oh, well. Maybe someone else, but do YOU really know the truth? I don’t.

    Since you don’t answer my questions, I must assume that like BHO, you are hiding something – or don’t have an answer.
    And for all,
    I think Dr. Taitz is up to a fairly good number of military, either active or retired and subject to recall, who have consented to be plantiffs in her pending action.
    And I sense that the country is having some doubts. And if you don’t believe me, check out
    http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx
    Although BHO seems to be riding fairly high, there are a lot of numbers that don’t look all that good.
    State of the Nation? 75% dissatisfied.
    Consumer confidence? 73% negative.
    Hmm…
    Oh, YEAH! Hope and change! Well, I hope it changes soon.

  1280. Robert wrote:

    Stop being dishonest, CG. I have no “eggs in the vault,” as it were. I don’t need them.

    I have to ask Robert (and really, I don’t care if you have ‘eggs in the vault’ or not) why it is that you flat refuse to answer my simple question? Are you THAT afraid of what might really be written on that vault copy of the BC? It would appear so since you are trying to tap dance around the question each and every time. Now, WHO’S the one being, as you say, “dishonest” here? I haven’t accused you of ANYTHING…I have merely asked a very simple question.
    Robert wrote:

    Given what Ms. Okubo said – and you don’t deny what she said- Ms. Okubo and/or her boss are either telling the truth OR they are part of The Grand Conspiracy.

    How can I “deny” what she supposedly said Robert……WHICH one of her statements would you think me “denying”? I’m willing to give ya that she made the first statement…would you be willing to do the same with her last statement which I posted….again, here it is for you if you have a problem finding it upthread…

    Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo (see Chicago Tribune, 10-31-08). Citing Hawaii state privacy laws, and guidance from the state attorney general, she said she, “was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.”

    Robert wrote:

    Which is it?

    Which is it indeed Robert. Have you REALLY read what the first statement ACTUALLY WAS that was made by Hawaiian officials regarding this? I suggest you read it again…with an open mind this time…….don’t read INTO it…just read it. Now, please tell us exactly WHERE it is in that statement that ANYONE has ACTUALLY SAID that they have seen the vault copy of Obama’s original birth certificate AND THAT IT IS CLEARLY WRITTEN UPON IT THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII AT SUCH AND SUCH A HOSPITAL WITH SUCH AND SUCH PHYSICIAN ATTENDING THE BIRTH?
    The plain FACT is Robert………..you CANNOT DO THIS…….because it simply IS NOT THERE!
    Now THAT’S the FACT…I don’t care how much you want to believe otherwise.
    Just because someone says “yes, that’s what they meant”, especially a 2nd party who clearly wasn’t listed on the original statement as being one of those who actually checked to see if a birth certificate was indeed there, doesn’t make it so. Further, in all this, you would think that the person who is supposed to have ‘meant it when they said what they did’ has YET to come forth themselves and state that “Yes, this is what I meant when I said we had seen the birth certificate.”
    I wonder why THAT is?

  1281. Asked numerous times Robert……NEVER answered….so, I’ll ask you ONE MORE TIME, especially since you are placing all your eggs in Okubo’s statement……..”WHY are you so afraid to have the vault copy of the ORIGINAL birth certificate that the State of Hawaii says they have under lock and key looked at and VERIFIED?

    Stop being dishonest, CG. I have no “eggs in the vault,” as it were. I don’t need them.
    Given what Ms. Okubo said – and you don’t deny what she said- Ms. Okubo and/or her boss are either telling the truth OR they are part of The Grand Conspiracy.
    Which is it?

  1282. Mitchell wrote:

    Sorry, I meant $1,000,000.00 Cash to anyone that can provide evidence proving Obamas citizenship.

    Mitchell…you might want to make sure that Richard sees this…since he is so dang sure of his guys qualifications. Now, I don’t rightly know if Richard can show you proof or not…I’ve asked him NUMEROUS times on here what his aversion is to having that vault copy of Obama’s original birth certificate shown and he hasn’t answered me yet…….’course, I wasn’t thrownin out the incentive to him that you are.
    Hey, with that kind of incentive, maybe quite a few folks (Richard included) will start hollerin to see that vault copy………………………………but, I kinda doubt it.
    Ya never know though…ya know? 😉

  1283. Sorry, I meant $1,000,000.00 Cash to anyone that can provide evidence proving Obamas citizenship.

  1284. $100,000,000.00 cash , to anyone that can prove or disprove Obamas qualifications .
    Why? I just want to know the truth.

  1285. I think what Weasler was gettin at was the fact that because this person (and now there are two, btw) is an officer in the military, he stands a chance of being brought up on charges of insubordination by a military tribunal (courts martial) and IF that were to happen and be allowed to be brought before a full trial board, then ANY evidence he would care to ask for in support of his case COULD be subpoenaed and brought out in any trial that would be in session.
    A civilian, such as us, asking for Obama to ‘proof up’ does not have to worry about such a thing happening…simple really.
    Bad part about the UCMJ is that if they can’t get you on anything else and are really wanting to hang you from the yardarm, there is always Article 192 (I believe it is…don’t have a copy of the UCMJ in front of me right now). This is what everyone refers to as the “catch all” article, because if covers ANYTHING that is not specifically covered in any of the other articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice!
    Always thought it kind of funny when talking about “Justice” and “Article 192” in the same sentence…or AT ALL for that matter! 😉

  1286. Robert wrote:

    Asked and answered NUMEROUS times, CG. Just because you are unwilling to believe the fact isn’t my problem.
    Go back and reread Okubo’s direct quote in response to a direct question posed by a reporter- I needn’t repost it here, as you have seen it any number of times.

    Asked numerous times Robert……NEVER answered….so, I’ll ask you ONE MORE TIME, especially since you are placing all your eggs in Okubo’s statement……..”WHY are you so afraid to have the vault copy of the ORIGINAL birth certificate that the State of Hawaii says they have under lock and key looked at and VERIFIED?
    As far as Okubo’ statement that you are placing so much faith in….please explain this……..just another than I have placed on this forum that you seem unwilling to see…………………………

    Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo (see Chicago Tribune, 10-31-08). Citing Hawaii state privacy laws, and guidance from the state attorney general, she said she, “was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.”

    Got an answer or are you just gonna try tap dancin your way around this for the upteenth time?
    You are loosing credibility FAST Robert!!!!! 😉

  1287. Just a valid COLB vs. a soldier with a ruined career.

    That’s what you really have to hope ISN’T the case, WTF. That some poor young soldier has been misled by this Internet Conspiracy crowd into doing something that will tarnish his military career.
    And for the jugheads that are silly enough to think some military tribunal is going to demand anything of the CinC where a Supreme Court already had the opportunity, give me some of whatever you are smoking!!

  1288. My source is the Broe v Reed Argument section, as follows

    Ergo, your source is meaningless. Please come back to me when the arguments cited by Broe v. Reed win in a court of law. Until then, continue to whistle Dixie…

    Your response please?

    Asked and answered NUMEROUS times, CG. Just because you are unwilling to believe the fact isn’t my problem.
    Go back and reread Okubo’s direct quote in response to a direct question posed by a reporter- I needn’t repost it here, as you have seen it any number of times.

  1289. “This time, the matter will be brought in front of a military tribunal rather
    than a civilian court.”
    Where did you get that? The WND propaganda says he added his name to the Orly Taitz grab bag of useless plaintiffs without standing. If it got to a military court Obama would just submit the one and only document a citizen currently may order from the HI Dept. of Health, the same prima facie legal, certified COLB he showed. The one from the same health dept. that 2 newspapers got data from to announce his birth. This soldier would then have no proof against it good in any court, civil or military. No doctored grandma audio, no hearsay from radio shows, no blog posts by anonymous fake experts. Just a valid COLB vs. a soldier with a ruined career.

  1290. News update from Gallop:

    Obama Job Approval Dips Below 60% for First TimeFebruary 24, 2009
    For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama’s presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president.

    And the beat goes on…

  1291. When it finally is revealed, hopefully by a military court, that “president”
    Obama is a fraud (as we all know is the truth, for why else would he
    hire three law firms to fight this case?), I’m hoping he can be tried
    and convicted for treason during war time.

  1292. So now a soldier on active duty has thrown his hat into the ring of this
    case, and has said that he can’t take orders from a “president” who
    is not eligible to serve in that capacity. Very interesting development.
    This time, the matter will be brought in front of a military tribunal rather
    than a civilian court. The lawyers for the accused are bound to demand
    President Disaster’s birth certificate. What will Osama DO? How
    can he cover up his tracks NOW?
    Will Osama throw out the case? I suppose he could have that done,
    but by doing so, that will create a huge problem, as other servicemen
    are bound to do the same thing if that happens. Tough call.
    BTW, the lawyers for the accused in a military tribunal CAN be civilian
    lawyers. They need not be military.

  1293. Robert………in you zealous efforts to support your guy Obama and the birth certificate issue, (I have noticed (as we all have) that you keep bringing up the fact the Obubo is a state official for the State of Hawaii), could you please explain the following statements made by Ms. Okubo? I think we would find your “analysis” of these statements enlightening.
    Statement by Ms. Okubo…………..

    A senior official in the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Director of Communications Janice Okubo, confirms that the image published and circulated by the Obama campaign as his “birth certificate” lacks the necessary embossed seal and signature. Backing away from a quote attributed to her that the image on the campaign site was “valid,” she told the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times in an article published yesterday: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”

    Okubo can’t “even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents” because she is not allowed access to Barack Obama’s personal records. State law prohibits it.
    Statement by Ms. Okubo………..

    “Unfortunately the way state laws are written we are not allowed to confirm vital information and vital records,” said Janice Okubo, a spokeswoman for Hawaii’s department of health. “I cannot confirm individual information because that is against the law.”

    Statement by Ms. Okubo………………..

    Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo (see Chicago Tribune, 10-31-08). Citing Hawaii state privacy laws, and guidance from the state attorney general, she said she, “was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.”

    Also, please astound us with your explanation to this question/response regarding the statement you are so fond of trotting out by Ms. Okubo sent to the State of Hawaii……………………
    The question…………………..

    The Chicago tribune published the following on Nov 3rd:
    “Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”
    Can you please confirm the accuracy of this statement?
    Is Dr Fukino categorically stating that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii?

    The answer from the State of Hawaii……………….

    Subject: Re: Alleged statement by Janice Okubo
    Thank you for your inquiry. Hawaii State law protects the birth records of all individuals born in our state under all circumstances. State law prohibits the Department of Health from disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS-338-18(b)
    Aloha,
    vr-info
    Department of Health
    State of Hawaii
    Honolulu, Hawaii”

    Your response please? Also, just as a friendly reminder, could you please answer the question I have asked of you several times on this forum and which you STILL have NOT responded to?

  1294. How does one debunk a myth? You find undisputed proof and facts.
    Wheres the proof Obama is qualified? Why is something as simple as a Birth Certificate so top secret? Could I possibly steal O’s identitiy?
    Why won’t Obama squash the myths ,and provide proof? He said , she said , you say , isn’t any good. I don’t believe evidence based on those terms would hold up in a court of law.
    Debunk the myth , show us proof .

  1295. Robert:
    I said:
    ‘Both parents would have to be born citizens or naturalized if born foreigners for Obama to be a natural born citizen.’
    You replied:
    ‘Not even close, Hugh. And not very original either. The US Constitution says no such thing, and this idea has been thoroughly debunked.’
    Since you know everything about the topic at hand, by all means please quote me chapter and verse.
    But consider my reply to Rich on January 18:
    ‘Rich:
    My source is the Broe v Reed Argument section, as follows:
    “Hawaii, under HRS 338-17.8 allows for the registration of births to parents who gave birth while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii [emphasis added] and who declare the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
    Because HRS 338-17.8 exists, a Certification of Live Birth in the form provided by Barack Obama is insufficient to establish native birth. Instead, he must produce a Certificate of Live Birth, which sets forth his name, his mother’s name, his father’s name, the hospital where he was born, the attending physician, and which includes his mother’s signature, the attending physician’s signature, and the signature of another witness.
    As a matter of law, there is no official Hawaiian “birth certificate” – there is only the Certification of Live Birth, and the Certificate of Live Birth.
    As of the present moment, Barack Obama has not produced a single piece of evidence demonstrating that he was born on U.S. soil. Even his birth announcement in the Hawaiian press is inconclusive, given that he was born in August of 1961, and the article was published in August, 1962, and at that time, his father was already back in Kenya.”
    Now, Rich, please explain to me and all the others how Obama has provided clear, convincing evidence that he was born on U.S. soil.
    Fuurthermore, Obama Sr. was born in Kenya, and never naturalized in the U.S. So he held British and Kenyan citizenships during his lifetime. Obama Jr. became a British citizen at birth, and he was adopted by his Indonesian step-Dad.
    According to the Broe v Reed: “Because of his multiple citizenships, Barack Obama does not have automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
    Barack Obama has never demonstrated that he was naturalized as an American citizen, which requires a residency period, a test, and an oath of allegiance.
    Barack Obama is not qualified under 8 U.S.C. §1401(g).
    In 1986, Congress amended the statute, replacing the phrase “ten years, at least five” with “five years, at least two.” Pub. L. No. 99-653, § 12, 100 Stat. 3655 (1986), now codified at 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(g). The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act also replaced the “residence” requirement, found in the earlier Nationality Act of 1940, with a requirement of “physical presence” for transmission of citizenship to a child born abroad. See Drozd, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 155 F.3d 871 at 87( 2nd Cir.1998) (citing to the Nationality Act of 1940, ch.876, § 201(g), 54 Stat. 1137, 1139). That change in language “compel[s] a strict adherence to the plain terms of the Act.” Id. Further, the change from “ten years, at least five” years to “five years at least two” applies only to those born after 1986. U.S. v. Flores-Villar, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1162-64 (S.D. Cal. 2007) aff’d, 536 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2008). The amendment had no retroactive application that would change the legal analysis for Senator Obama.
    You seem to put great faith in the Hawaiian COLB. It is not sufficient evidence. Where is the evidence? Obama has certainly not given us any competent evidence. Any U.S. birth evidence is greatly in doubt at this point. I do not assume the Obama is born in Hawaii.
    Again from Broe v Reed: “A child born overseas, of an American citizen and a foreign national is not a “natural born citizen,” and the child’s citizenship can only be established by a process of naturalization.
    A child born in the United States of an American citizen and a foreign national is also not a “natural born citizen” if the child obtained citizenship of another nation automatically at the time of his birth.”
    I understand that I am using Broe v Reed’s argument as to reasoning. But it appears to be sound. It seems more productive to me that hiding behind a Hawaiian COLB. If Obama does produce a vault copy of his birth certificate then he has no problem in that area.’
    I am aware the Broe v Reed failed in the State of Washington Supreme Court, but that does not mean that the argument has no merit.
    Robert. you must be laughing by now! Far be it from you to accept such an argument! I am sure that you would never accept it!

  1296. Robert………I, and the rest on this forum, can see that once again you have tap danced around my most pointed question to you in you zeal to come to the aid of YOUR candidate.
    Why won’t you answer that simple question? Afraid?
    I guess if I were in your shoes I would be reticent to answer also, because the answer if very clear to anyone who cares to pull their head out of the sand for a couple of nano seconds!
    Rave on………….your rants are now falling on deaf ears! 😉

  1297. I’m going to suggest to you that you need to go back on the BC issue and reread it again, because nowhere does anyone actually say that they have cast eyes upon the BC, just verified that it is on file.

    Once again- read what CG said, and get back to me. (Hint: he made a claim that no “NO HI state official” has ever said Obama was born in HI.
    Like the fact or not, Okubo is a state official of HI. She is the spokesperson for the Department of Health.

    I can tell you why, because just like the Corrupt , Pussy whipped Judges that won’t look into the case . No one wants to be called ” your it”.

    Thanks for your input, Lloyd!! All those “pussy whipped judges,” all part of the Great Conspiracy! LOL.
    My guess is you have no idea how foolish that makes you sound?

    Both parents would have to be born citizens or naturalized if born foreigners for Obama to be a natural born citizen.

    Not even close, Hugh. And not very original either. The US Constitution says no such thing, and this idea has been thoroughly debunked.

    If this is what Janice Okubo said…

    Sorry, CG. It’s exactly what she said. An official of the state of HI stated that Obama was born in HI.
    BUT: to all of you. I think we have at least established one thing that we all can agree on: For your idea to be true, a pretty good chunk of federal judges and USSC justices have to be a part of the Grand Conspiracy for your idea to be true. I know, I know. They’re “pussy whipped.”
    Class assignment: Look up “Occam’s Razor” and apply it here.

  1298. Robert wrote:

    And here is the direct quote from the first link (HI state official), CG:
    Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

    Two questions for ya Robert…………
    1. IF that is what Dr. Fukino MEANT, can you think of any reason why, a person with the credentials this person obviously possesses would NOT say exactly what they meant realizing the importance of what they were discussing?
    2. IF this is what Janice Okubo said, how do you explain her then saying the following…….as I have quoted her statement in the Chicago Tribune………….”If you will take a look at the Chicago Tribune for October 31, 2008 you will find the following……………….this same Janice Okubo made the following statement……”Citing Hawaii state privacy laws, and guidance from the state attorney general, she said she, “was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.”
    Now, once again….still waiting for your answer to this one as asked before…..you seem to be as hesitant as Obama to answer this simple question Robert……….as asked of you in my posting for February 22, 2009 @ 7:07am…

    Now Robert, once again I am going to ask……..WHY are you not wanting this document (the ORIGINAL vault copy) to be examined and the information it contains being compared with what YOUR guy has claimed concerning his place of birth? Are you AFRAID of what might be found on this document? I truly do not understand anyone who is an Obama supporter NOT wanting this. It would be SOLID verification and VINDICATION for your candidate, IF the information on the vault copy matches what he has said…wouldn’t it?
    I would think you would be overcome with excitement at the thought of being able to “drive the nail in the coffin” of all doubters of your candidates authenticity!
    Again….PLEASE ANSWER……..what’s the problem you have with this document being seen?

  1299. Robert:
    The Greek’s salvo’s certainly sink your ship. Hawaii’s COLB means nothing in a court of law. The Health Department cannot reveal what is on Obama’s certificate; only Obama has authority to ask for release outside the courts.
    Here is my salvo: Barack Obama Sr. was born in Kenya and he never naturalized to the United States. Both parents would have to be born citizens or naturalized if born foreigners for Obama to be a natural born citizen. Obama cannot claim any of the 14th Amendment or its related statutes to support natural born citizen status.
    Avoidance byf the courts of this issue does not mean Obama has any rightful claim to the Presidency. So Barack Obama can never, no never, no never be a natural born citizen of the United States.
    Every other President excluding the Framers except for Chester Arthur had parents that were naturalized according to the laws in effect at their due time. The lack of naturalization of Arthur’s father before Arthur’s birth was hidden from the American public and officials.

  1300. Robert ,
    Fukino says” I have seen and verified BHO’s Birth Cert” That doesn’t mean she is saying , ” BHO was born in HI.
    That is only Okubo’s interpretation of what she means. If someone means something, why don’t They just say it.
    I can tell you why, because just like the Corrupt , Pussy whipped Judges that won’t look into the case . No one wants to be called ” your it”.
    Not 1 average person has seen O’s Birth certificate. I think that every tax payer has the right to see and authenticate his birth certificate , since we do pay his salary. The only thing I am convinced of is ” Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.

  1301. And still more piling on
    Today

    Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
    DEFENDOURFREEDOMS.US
    Col. Riley former division chief national security agency joins our action

    Eventually the truth will out.

  1302. Robert –
    You told Greek to

    Learn to read

    I’m going to suggest to you that you need to go back on the BC issue and reread it again, because nowhere does anyone actually say that they have cast eyes upon the BC, just verified that it is on file.
    Then a spokesperson is given a place with

    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

    Sorry, but that is hearsay, not direct evidence.
    In my 27 years dealing with attorneys from both my side and the opposition, I did learn to read very throughly and not jump to conclusions.
    Sorry, but the Greek is right.

  1303. Did I see a dangling piece of yarn on that sweater?

    LOL. Two Tennessee state reps, and the honorable (senior?) senator from the great state of Alabama!
    If ONLY the major media would give this story more play!! It would only reinforce the idea that the GOP is well on its way to becoming a regional party, not much of a force outside the south.

  1304. LOL- and my bad on the Pakistan travel thing. Of course- without a shred of evidence- the Tin Foil Hatters say he traveled on an Indonesian passport.
    This Conspiracy just gets deeper and deeper!

  1305. And here is the direct quote from the first link (HI state official), CG:
    Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

  1306. See??? This IS fun!!!
    Let’s start by teaching Crazy Greek:

    I repeat NO official from Hawaii has EVER said that Obama was ACTUALLY BORN in Hawaii.

    Sorry, Greek. Wrong. Janice Okubo, an “official from HI” said EXACTLY that to the Chicago Tribune…
    http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html
    I know, I know!!! Those Chicago Tribune reporters are IN on the conspiracy!! LOL.
    Onward!

    My salvo – I don’t see anyone “hiding” a damn thing….these judge’s you speak of are simply refusing to let a case work it’s way before them in it’s entirety!

    Ahhhh… I see, I see. You tell me that the judges aren’t “hiding” anything, as I theorized, but are instead “refusing to let [the] case work its way before them…”
    Wow. GREAT point, CG! You really did “blow me out of the water.”
    Well– except for the fact that your statement pretty much implies that the judges ARE participating in the Great Conspiracy. They are participating by “refusing” to hear a case they should, by the Constitution, hear. Right?
    So the judges ARE party of the conspiracy, or do you have some backpedaling to do?

    The only thing that saved you is that you did, knowingly or not, admit that it would seem that SCOTUS doesn’t even CARE about our Constitution….a document they are SWORN TO DEFEND!!!!!

    Learn to read. That’s your theory, not mine. I believe that the judges properly see no Constitutional case here. End of story, they are properly doing their jobs.

    As a matter of fact, I haven’t seen ANYTHING surface regarding Obama’s willingness to apply for, and obtain, a passport at ANY TIME in his life! He certainly didn’t NEED one when he arrived in CONUS

    Well. Here’s someone who clearly dislikes Obama discussing his travel to Pakistan in 1980:
    http://www.newscred.com/article/show/title/media-double-standard-on-foreign-travel-experience-48cca900588ae/555187
    So maybe he got there without a US passport, huh?
    LOL. Get your facts RIGHT, CG!

  1307. From the Right Side of Life website posted today, we are seeing more piling on.

    Dr. Taitz reports today that 1st Lt. Scott Easterling has signed a Consent form making him the next Plaintiff in her upcoming Court case requesting that the President unseal his vital records:

    So we now have state representatives, a US Senator, and at least one commissioned officer of the US Army.
    OOOrah!

  1308. Posted just today on WorldNetDaily, we now have a sitting Senator questioning the qualifications of BHO.

    WASHINGTON – A U.S. senator has weighed in on the continuing controversy over Barack Obama’s eligibility for office by saying he has never seen proof the new president was actually born in Hawaii.
    “Well, his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate,” Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told constituents in Cullman County. “You have to be born in America to be president.”

    Read all about it here:
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89704
    Did I see a dangling piece of yarn on that sweater?

  1309. Wild Bill found this and sent it to me!
    WAY TO GO BILL!! Im in agreement with ya ole buddy!!

    http://defendourfreedoms.org
    Rep. Tim Jones will be one of the plaintiffs in the next legal action on behalf of Dr. Keyes  and candidates on the ballot, State Representatives and nearly 60 members of the military
    7th State representative, a decorated Attorney from the state of Missouri Tim Jones has joined as an additional plaintiff a legal action by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq to seek a Writ of Mandamus to unseal vital records of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, to determine his eligibility for presidency.
    Consent
    I agree to be one of the plaintiffs in a legal action filed by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire for a Writ of Mandamus to obtain Original Birth Certificate, immigration records, passports and other vital records for Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Hussein Obama.
    Timothy W. Jones
    State Representative-89th District
    Electronic Signature

    All I can say is……more the merrier!
    I’m LOVIN it!! One of these days….like I’ve said…he can run but he can’t hide forever!!!!!
    The TRUTH WILL surface…it’s just a matter of time…and time is runnin SHORT, I’m thinkin!
    I simply cannot, for the life of me, understand the thinking on Obama’s part here. Doesn’t he realize just how bad he is starting to look by simply not saying “Hawaii, release the vault copy of my original birth certificate so we can put this matter to rest…..” type statement….or is it just that he REALLY is saying “Hey CHUMPS…you elected me President and I don’t have to answer a damn thing I don’t want to…so go pound sand!”
    Personally, I’m inclined to think it’s the latter of the two options!
    Just my humble opinion, of course!
    All I can say is…..TICK TOCK TICK TOCK TICK TOCK!!!!!

  1310. John 14:6
    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
    Does this explain my position?

  1311. What do you boys think of Obama’s Moon connection?
    /unificationists-sees-kingdom-coming-with-the-help-of-obama/
    Our host has located some interesting findings.

  1312. Robert….regarding your 1st challenge on your previous post, I had stated that up thread you would see that the ‘spokesperson’ for the State of Hawaii had said that she couldn’t

    confirm

    that the birth certificate held by Hawaii said he was actually born in Hawaii and I asked that you check it out. Well, in this instance, I’ve done your leg work for you…please read the following excerpt from my post above dated Jan. 30, 2009 at 5:43am…….go back and read the entire thing if you like, but here is the gist concerning this one element…………
    Crazy Greek wrote:

    Well, here is the statement that was issued by Dr. Fukino in .pdf form and NO WHERE on this statement does it state that Obama was born in Hawaii!
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
    What her statement DOES SAY is simply
    ……..have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
    Getting right into this, she REALLY isn’t saying that she or the Registrar of Vital Statistics have ACTUALLY SEEN the birth certificate itself but rather that it is recorded as being there.
    Once again, a person in authority using words to sidestep the actual question.
    Notice at the bottom of said document from the Hawaii Dept. of Health the name of the person in the lower left hand corner………Janice Okubo -Communications Office.
    If you will take a look at the Chicago Tribune for October 31, 2008 you will find the following……………….this same Janice Okubo made the following statement……”Citing Hawaii state privacy laws, and guidance from the state attorney general, she said she, “was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.”
    What do you say to that? Kinda blows a BIG HOLE in your “State of Hawaii officials conspiracy theory” you seem to think all of us that are questioning Obama’s citizenship has, now doesn’t it?
    I submit that what she IS saying, without actually coming out and saying it, is that the Certification Of Live Birth document that the Obama campaign released and the copy of the ORIGINAL vault copy of Obama’s actual BIRTH CERTIFICATE, do not exactly contain the same information!
    Now Robert, once again I am going to ask……..WHY are you not wanting this document (the ORIGINAL vault copy) to be examined and the information it contains being compared with what YOUR guy has claimed concerning his place of birth? Are you AFRAID of what might be found on this document? I truly do not understand anyone who is an Obama supporter NOT wanting this. It would be SOLID verification and VINDICATION for your candidate, IF the information on the vault copy matches what he has said…wouldn’t it?
    I would think you would be overcome with excitement at the thought of being able to “drive the nail in the coffin” of all doubters of your candidates authenticity!
    Again….PLEASE ANSWER……..what’s the problem you have with this document being seen?

  1313. Robert……I’ll gladly “play along” with ya…and since I’m and old Navy hand, let’s do this the Navy way……………..
    Robert’s first challenge…….

    1. Several high HI state officials. It goes without saying that the official (and her spokesperson) who stated Obama was born in HI are in on the conspiracy……

    MY salvo – IF you would care to read upthread, you will see where it has been PROVEN time and time again that NO….I repeat NO official from Hawaii has EVER said that Obama was ACTUALLY BORN in Hawaii. All they have said is that the State of Hawaii has his original birth certificate on file! Also add to this the FACT (which was also pointed out upthread) that the spokesperson for the State of Hawaii, when asked, said she could not say whether Obama was actually born in Hawaii or not!
    RESULT OF FIRST SALVO – YOU just got blown out of the water!
    Robert’s second challenge –

    Several federal judges. They are willing to hide the TRUE FACTS about Obama by their tricksy dicksy “no standing to sue” standing our Consititution on its head!

    My salvo – I don’t see anyone “hiding” a damn thing….these judge’s you speak of are simply refusing to let a case work it’s way before them in it’s entirety! In order to “hide” something, something must first be heard.
    RESULT OF SECOND SALVO – YOU got blown totally out of the water on this one!
    Robert’s third challenge –

    At least four (or is it five) Supreme Court Justices, who are willing to keep the true facts from coming to light by refusing to hear the case. They don’t even CARE about our Constitution.

    My salvo – The Supreme’s don’t have to hear the case Robert. It is ALWAYS open for litigation in the lower courts. However, the FACT that SCOTUS doesn’t even want to open the cases for discussion does, in FACT, speak VOLUMES about our Supreme Court JESTERS!
    RESULT OF THIRD SALVO – You ALMOST got blown completely out of the water on this one. The only thing that saved you is that you did, knowingly or not, admit that it would seem that SCOTUS doesn’t even CARE about our Constitution….a document they are SWORN TO DEFEND!!!!!
    Robert’s fourth challenge –

    Whatever officials issued Barack Obama a US Passport without a proper Birth record or (the true sign!) his Certificate of Naturalization.

    My salvo – I believe that Obama, like all other federal officials, travels under a diplomatic passport…something entirely different from the one most citizens carry and, judging from the corruption in Washington, D.C., a whole lot easier to obtain without complete documentation of citizenship. As a matter of fact, I haven’t seen ANYTHING surface regarding Obama’s willingness to apply for, and obtain, a passport at ANY TIME in his life! He certainly didn’t NEED one when he arrived in CONUS from the State of Hawaii and I don’t think YOU can produce proof of his EVER having applied either.
    RESULT OF FOURTH SALVO – Shot over the bow…….produce proof of what you say!
    Robert’s fifth challenge –

    Countless investigative journalists, willing to forego a certain Pulitzer Prize for uncovering this vast conspiracy.

    My salvo – Countless journalist……”investigative’, no less? You GOTTA BE KIDDIN, right? NO….I repeat NO main stream media journalist has EVER brought Obama to task on ANYTHING! LAUGHABLE!!
    RESULT OF FIFTH SALVO – YOU just got blown COMPLETELY out of the water on this one!
    END GAME…………you………LOOSE!!
    GO NAVY!!!!! 😉

  1314. Robert –
    Since it is past my bedtime, I’ll just start with this:
    1. If you will re-read, or perhaps read for the first time, no official in HI has said he was born there. Just that there is a “birth certificate.” And no one has yet to see it except for those who say it is there. Oh, well. Maybe someone else, but do YOU really know the truth? I don’t.
    2. Are you an attorney? Standing is a necessary part of a suit. I’m not an attorney, but I have filed a suit against one. You must have “standing” in the court. As much as you want to ignore it, you, I must assume, are a United States citizen. As such, you are the one of the employers of each and every civil servant. Did you think of that? Are you, as an employer, empowered to ask questions about your employees? OMG!!! What an idea! PS The president is an employee of the people. We pay his salary, don’t we?
    3. There is not a case… yet. The SCOTUS has not reused to hear the case – they have let it pass. There are lower courts that can, and are, faced with dealing wtih the situation. Once they make a determination, the SCOTUS may have to take up a review. Remember Nixon? Or are you too young? It took a while, but the SCOTUS finally made the POTUS cough up the Watergate tapes. BTW, the
    Watergate is a very interesting building. Learn something about law before you start barking.
    4. Passports come in two ways in this country. You can apply for one, as I did… OR you can get elected and get a diplomatic passport because you are an elected official. Ooops! In some cases you can get both.
    5. Journalists? Don’t make me laugh.

  1315. Say!!! I have a FUN idea for a game ALL OF US can play! Let’s make a list of People That Would Need To Be In On The Obama Conspiracy, if indeed he were ineligible to be POTUS. Now, of course we won’t be able to name everyone! But let’s not let that stop us! A partial list is better than no list, right?
    I’ll start, but feel free to chime in at any time.
    1. Several high HI state officials. It goes without saying that the official (and her spokesperson) who stated Obama was born in HI are in on the conspiracy. But lets’s not forget the state governor and anyone else with the power to overrule the HI health official.
    2. Several federal judges. They are willing to hide the TRUE FACTS about Obama by their tricksy dicksy “no standing to sue” standing our Consititution on its head!
    3. At least four (or is it five) Supreme Court Justices, who are willing to keep the true facts from coming to light by refusing to hear the case. They don’t even CARE about our Constitution.
    4. Whatever officials issued Barack Obama a US Passport without a proper Birth record or (the true sign!) his Certificate of Naturalization.
    5. Countless investigative journalists, willing to forego a certain Pulitzer Prize for uncovering this vast conspiracy.
    [oh, wait. my bad. The Pulitzer Prize people are no doubt part of the conspiracy]
    So… come on! Play along. Add to the list!

  1316. Thank you…you just gave us all a powerful insight into the way Dems think and the real reason this country is in the situation it finds itself in today!

    Blaming “the Dems” for current state of the economy and nation only showcases your own ignorance of facts and history, Greek. I tell you what: tell us what George W. Bush did to avoid the situation. Give us a breakdown of the steps Mr. Bush got behind that would have prevented the incredible deficit inherited by Obama.
    While you’re at it, explain how George W. Bush’s cheerleading of the last ($750 billion?) stimulus helped us to avoid the current “situation.”

    Now, you want to somehow make it seem like it’s people that question people like THESE that are the one’s at fault?

    Time would be better spent fighting the stimulus, rather than being so blindly suckered by the Tin Foil Hat idea that Obama is not eligible to be POTUS.
    WB: I voted for Obama, and don’t regret it for a moment. That said, if the GOP would get the heck out of citizens’ bedrooms, I would cast my vote for them in a heartbeat.

  1317. Greek –
    As always we are thinking alike.
    Robert –
    Far right? I don’t think that the Greek or I qualify as far right, although we are both Navy vets of the Nam era. I spent some time in law enforcement and I have to say that when it comes to the law, it applies to everyone including the POTUS. And the Constitution of the United States is the highest law of this land. If a law has been broken, then let it come out. If it hasn’t, then show that it hasn’t and we will just take it like men (and women) and move forward. However, I suspect that we will be working with Michael Steele and the rest of the party to go forward and recover Reagan’s vision.
    Who’d you vote for? I voted for the other guy. Not my favorite, but…

  1318. ROFLMFAO……This is just too funny!!
    Robert wrote:

    ….and more time discussing real issues, mistakes like the now signed Stimulus wouldn’t be happening.

    I have to ask Robert………just WHO was it that signed that Stimulus and WHO was it that pushed for it’s passage?
    Oh wait…I know…I know…..Obama, Reid, Pelosi….oh my….ALL DEMOCRATS!
    Now, you want to somehow make it seem like it’s people that question people like THESE that are the one’s at fault?
    Thank you…you just gave us all a powerful insight into the way Dems think and the real reason this country is in the situation it finds itself in today!

  1319. As you read through a thread like this, you realize precisely why the far right is becoming irrelevant to our national politics, and just why the GOP must distance itsefl from people who wrap themselves in the flag, and proceed to use nothing but innuendo and paranoid fantasies to attack those with whom they disagree…
    It’s a shame, really. Perhaps if people like Alan Keyes, et. al. spent less time tilting at windmills of their own making, and more time discussing real issues, mistakes like the now signed Stimulus wouldn’t be happening.

  1320. Hey Wild Bill..
    I read it and saw this before a couple of days ago. It’s sickening! I believe I warned on this thread earlier that the powers that be would be just lickin their chops when it comes to the thought of anything to do with Obama. They are gonna chew him up and spit him out….this is just the proof of it!
    Yeah…we got us a real leader, don’t we?

  1321. Wild Bill,
    I never made it into the service myself. My Mother and Father both served in the Marine Corp. Once a Marine forever a Marine. My friends and family tell me that I am a natural born Marine. LOL
    I love this country and I am proud to be an American. I will lay down my life to defend her too. Damned straight.
    Obama and the Rest Will Fall. Its time for the People to Stand. God above doesn’t allow Obamanations . One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty And Justice For All.

  1322. OOOORAH. After Obama, we need to get rid of the rest. Of The People , by The People for The People. Repeat. Of The People, By The People For The People.
    One Nation, Under God, Indivisible, With Liberty And Justice For All.
    Amen.

  1323. WOW…that National Grand Jury thing sounds interesting.
    Sorry I haven’t been posting for awhile, but work does seem to get in the way occasionally. 😉
    Seems that some people in Washington and elsewhere have forgotten that in this country we have a government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE and FOR the PEOPLE!
    Maybe they are ripe for a crash course…………with chapters on just what it takes to be considered constitutionally eligible for the office of President of the United States! 😉
    I for one am really looking forward to seeing this thing played out all the way and do NOT intend to give up ANYTHING!!
    Hang in there guys!!

  1324. Larry –
    Welcome back.
    Hugh –
    Also good to hear from you. BTW, still haven’t gotten your eMail address from Warren.

  1325. I have been reading all of your comments but have no made one for some time. I really enjoy reading the comments of Wild Bill, Crazy Greek and Lil Lloyd. I just want to say that the only way Obama can carry this off is if we “let it go”.
    It is not in the nature of a true American Patriot to ever just let it go! We must continue to pursue the truth until it is finally brought into the light of day. The consequences will be what they will be and we will deal with that but the truth must be known!
    Keep up the fight!

  1326. Loyd –
    Yeah, that thought has crossed my mind from time to time. All the more reason to stay with the chase.

  1327. Wild Bill,
    Don’t you think that Obama is just a fall guy. I think the problem is Washington. After all they must have helped get Obama in , I’m sure that everyone in the White House knows the truth to the issue at hand. The Government that is supposed to lead this country , is just filling their own pockets and don’t give a damn about the people. Someone was pretty smart putting Obama in office, that takes the focus off of the real culprits. Just a thought.

  1328. Loyd –
    I don’t think that money is the answer to this, although it is probably necessary to some degree. And, unlike you, I am not going to stop delving into the issue as much as I can – and that means providing small sums of money to various causes.
    If you haven’t seen this
    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89078
    or this
    http://www.usjf.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=514&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
    you should go look. Alan Keyes is fighting. We have state legislators pitching in. Dr. Taitz is still active as is Gary Kreep – and, of course, his FOIA request was to be delivered from Occidental College yesterday and who knows where that will be by weeks end.
    There are a lot of people still concerned, and I’m finding even some of my liberal friends are beginning to look at this as a potentially big problem.
    Sportsguy –
    Agreed. The truth will come out in time. And I view all of this as kind of a loose piece of yarn on a sweater. Start pulling and the whole thing comes undone.

  1329. It has always been my experience that when something stinks this bad, it’s rotten. I don’t know what spell this guy has over much of the world, but there have been a multitude of red flags. The Obamatrons follow him unquestioningly. The truth will eventually come out, and when it does, this will certainly make an interesting chapter in the history books.

  1330. Well Everyone, I have been following the topic of Obamas eligibilty issue since it started. At this point, Ifeel that it is hopeless to continue to pursue it. You gotta FIGURE , Obama IS POTUS , with money and power that trumps any lawer , judge or citizen. There are not enough people that will stand together to oppose Obama . He is the Messiah in the eyes of so many.
    ALL WE CAN DO NOW IS ,PRAY AND HOLD ON TIGHT. TRUST ME , IF I HAD THE MONEY , I WOULD FIND OUT THE TRUTH , WHATEVER IT MAY BE.

  1331. From Philip Berg’s website:
    02/13/09: PRESS RELEASE – Berg Fighting On – 3 Pending Lawsuits to
    Expose Obama for “not” being Constitutionally “qualified/eligible” to be President
    and Berg requests help to spread the word as the major media refuses
    (Contact information and PDF at end)
    (Lafayette Hill, PA – 02/13/09) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the first Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of Constitutional “qualifications/eligibility” to serve as President of the United States and his cases that are still pending, Berg vs. Obama [2 cases – 1 under seal] and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama announced today the request to his supporters to spread the word as the major media continues to refuse to cover this story – the most significant story in the history of our country; the biggest “HOAX” perpetrated on the citizens of the United States in 230 years, since our nation was established. Obama must be legally removed from office.
    Berg’s request: “I hereby request all of obamacrimes.com supporters to (1) go to your computers; (2) send a message to everyone on ‘your address’ book to go to obamacrimes.com and read it; (3) ask everyone on ‘their address’ book to read and send on to everyone on their address book; and (4) if they can, make a contribution to obamacrimes.com [on our web site to donate online or mail in]. I am requesting donations of asking four [4] friends to contribute $15.00 each or donate $60.00 themselves as this is the seventh [7th] month that we are pursuing this effort to expose Obama’s ‘HOAX’ and we are preparing to proceed with discovery [interrogatories, request for production of documents, subpoenaing of documents, depositions of Obama & Howard Dean, etc.].
    I believe that 10 to 15 million people are aware of the Obama ‘HOAX,’ and we must make 75 million people aware. When people are made aware of the Obama ‘HOAX,’ that Obama has not proven he is constitutionally ‘qualified/eligible’ to be President; that Obama has not produced his original (vault version) ‘Birth Certificate;’ that Obama has not produced legal documents to show he legally changed his name from his ‘adopted’ name of ‘Barry Soetoro’ from Indonesia; they will demand Obama be removed from his office of President of the United States.”
    Berg concluded, “I am proceeding for the 305 + million people in ‘our’ U.S.A., for ‘our’ forefathers and for the tens of thousands of men and women that have died and/or been maimed defending our Constitution, with our legal fight to prove that Obama is not constitutionally qualified/eligible to be President.”
    Status of Cases:
    Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340
    Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09
    Waiting for Response Briefs from Obama, DNC and the other Defendants (Appellees)
    Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court
    Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed
    Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama,
    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-02254
    Berg filed 1st Amended Complaint for Hollister on 2/09/09
    after Soetoro/Obama and Biden filed Motion to Dismiss
    For copies of all Court Pleadings, go to obamacrimes.com
    For Further Information Contact:
    Philip J. Berg, Esquire
    555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12
    Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531
    (610) 825-3134
    (800) 993-PHIL [7445]
    Fax (610) 834-7659
    Cell (610) 662-3005
    [email protected]

  1332. Drumsalot –
    Thanks. And isn’t it simply amazing that more and more people are asking the question?
    I followed the blog comments on your link. Those were interesting, too.

  1333. Right on, Greek!
    And for Rich to consider, we know that Barry Soetoro was registered in Indonesia to attend school there and that privlege extended only to citizens. Add that to the fact that Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro wasn’t divorced until AFTER here son was already in college at Occidental. That may not constitute absolute proof, but it sure leads one to question.
    Maybe BHO is stonewalling this as part of his stimulus package. After all, look at all of the attorney work he is creating.

  1334. According to Wikipedia………….

    In the common law, and under many statutes, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. In the United States, for example, a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff “lacks standing” to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality. In order to sue to have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for whoever is suing to be there. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless they have automatic standing by action of law.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_standing
    Now, given the above definition, how in HELL can ANY citizen be construed as NOT HAVING STANDING?
    I submit the following……………………………………………………………………………………..
    1. Every citizen of the United States is irreparably harmed by having someone holding the office of POTUS that has taken that office by LYING regarding his/her eligibility. Reason? ANY LAW that is signed by this person illegally holding the office of POTUS is NOT VALID, once proven that said person in ineligible! That alone should be enough to “demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case in the case”, as so stated in the above definition.
    2. “The party suing must have something to lose”…….each and every citizen of the United States does INDEED have “something to lose”……..it’s called our FREEDOM and OUR COUNTRY!
    Is there ANYONE (Yes, even Obama supporters) who believe that we should just willingly hand over the highest office in the land to ANYONE without VERIFICATION that they are who they say they are?
    All that is being asked here is ONE SIMPLE QUESTION…….”Mr. Obama, why won’t you release the vault copy of your birth certificate for verification?”
    That’s a pretty damn simple request if you ask me. How many here would have a problem honoring such a request? ANYONE? I seriously DOUBT IT!
    Yet, when doubt has been raised, and NOT PROVEN WRONG, by the person who is sitting in the Oval Office of OUR HOUSE, all manner of means should be used to get the truth (whatever it may be) out in the open for ALL TO SEE!
    In order for a person to hold the office of United States Senator, for example, they MUST BE ABLE TO PROVE residency in the State in which they desire to hold office. Should not the holder of the office of President of the United States have to be held to at least this same minimal standard? I say YES…YES….Y E S!!!!!

  1335. Crazy Creek
    There has got to be a way to find and know the truth. this issue is causing a problem. I personally know at least 6 people that have purchased BARETT 50 ‘S .
    I have been invited to go up north to see these babies in action.
    Mike claims he can hit an apple at 1500 yards , and do it consistently.
    I gotta see this. I’m taking my highly modified AR-15 . We aren’t waiting for “it’s too late.

  1336. Lil Loyd…..
    Evidently “We The People” don’t have ANY rights in this country anymore! Just witness what those crooks in Washington, D.C. are shovin down our throats right now!
    Believe me, before this is over even the Obama supporters that are defending him so much are gonna be SCREAMIN at the top of their lungs!
    Unfortunately, when you pull your head out of the sand that late, you’ve already taken it up the ‘you know where’ and didn’t even realize it!!!!!
    It’s SAD Bro…really SAD…that this country has stooped to this level in this short of time……and there are STILL people in DENIAL that it is happening!
    Obama will NEVER WILLINGINGLY RELEASE ANY INFORMATION! The main problem is (just my opinion here) is that the judiciary KNOWS there is a problem but this potato is TOO HOT for them to handle and they are ducking their responsibilities to America as a whole without regard to ANYONE!
    I think they still call that COVER YOUR ASS!!!!! 😉

  1337. DO We The People have a Right to Know, if Obama is or is not qualified to be POTUS according to our own written Constitution?
    Is the SCOTUS corrupt / Is our whole government corrupt?
    I don’t care if Obama is purple, I do care that it is possible he isn’t qualified according to our own written Constitution.
    If Obama has nothing to hide , why can’t people like myself know the simple truth to the allegations being made. It would make a whole lot of people feel at ease knowing that Obama is not a usurper.
    Trust me, if it is discovered that he is not qualified , there will be bloodshed.

  1338. Lloyd…regarding the Ammunition Accountability Act…………………………..I think you can rest easy.
    Here is what happened to AAA legislation in the 18 states it came up (info was either obtained via phone calls to state legislatures or use of state Web sites):
    Alabama Senate Bill 541: It was indefinitely postponed in House of origin. It will not pass and would have to be reintroduced.
    Arizona House Bill 2833: It never got heard in any committee. Never voted on. It would have to be reintroduced.
    California Senate Bill 997: SB997 has no Info on it, and died in committee. SB1471 passed and is now known as the “Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007.” It was authored by Assemblymember Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) and was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. You can read the final bill here. The bill is in regard to handguns and microstamping, not ammunition. It also has no wording in it that would indicate that citizens would need to turn in their guns. It could also be rendered moot depending on the technology. It is not a part of the AAA agenda.
    Connecticut Raised Bill 603: The bill was raised and had a public hearing. No action was taken. Bill would need to be re-introduced.
    Hawaii House Bill 2392, Hawaii Senate Bill 2020, Hawaii Senate Bill 2076: All bills were deferred to the judiciary with no further action taken. Bill would need to be reintroduced.
    Illinois House Bills 4258, 4259, 4269, 4349. Illinois Senate Bill 1095: All bills referred to Rules Committee. No other actions were taken.
    Indiana House Bill 1260: Was sent to committee and not acted on again. It would need to be reintroduced.
    Kentucky House Bill 715: Was withdrawn.
    Maryland House Bill 517: No copy of the report. It didn’t pass. Would need to be reintroduced.
    Mississippi Senate Bill 2286: Died in Committee.
    Missouri Senate Bill 1200: Referred to Judiciary. Would need to be reintroduced.
    New Jersey Assembly Bill 2490: Referred to Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee. Would need to be reintroduced.
    Pennsylvania House Bill: Referred to the Judiciary on Feb. 5, 2008. No other action taken.
    Rhode Island Senate Bill 2742: Committee recommended measure be held for further study. It would need to be reintroduced.
    South Carolina Senate Bill 1259: Was referred to a subcommittee with no further action taken. Would need to be reintroduced.
    Tennessee House Bill 3245, Tennessee Senate Bill 3395: Both were sent to the judiciary committee with no other action taken. Would need to be reintroduced.
    Washington House Bill 3359: Was referred to the Judiciary with no other action taken. Would need to be reintroduced.
    Ammunitionaccountability.org: This Web site was last update on Dec. 3, 2008.
    It’s been shot down, or never even got a chance to fly anwhere it has been introduced. 😉

  1339. Wild Bill,

    New posting at the USJF. Dr. Taitz and Gary Kreep filing.

    It’s just more of the same, and contains just as many erroneous statements of fact and law as the previous filings.
    For example, Taitz and Kreep are still claiming that travel by Americans to Pakistan was banned in 1981. That has been thoroughly debunked.
    Taitz and Kreep are still claiming that Obama’s mother and stepfather could have caused him to give up his U.S. citizenship while they were in Indonesia. In fact, both the law and Supreme Court decision have made it clear that there is nothing that a parent can do to cause his or her child to lose U.S. citizenship. Your parents cannot renounce your citizenship for you. You have to do it yourself.
    Besides, the Keyes lawsuit is a fool’s errand. Even if Keyes were to win the lawsuit, the only “relief” he could conceivably get from the California court is a decree that California’s electoral votes were invalid. Take away California’s electoral votes, and guess what? Obama still wins. But that isn’t going to happen because Congress has certified the electoral vote, and California has no authority to overrule the decision of Congress. It’s over. Get used to it.

  1340. Rich wrote:

    Unfortunately, this is fairly typical of how this discussion has gone. I produce evidence that Obama was not known as “Barry Soetoro” when he was in high school, I point out that there is no evidence that he was ever adopted by his stepfather, and instead of responding to my evidence you choose to make ad hominem attacks which have nothing to do with what I was talking about.

    You “produce evidence”? What…because YOU say it’s so, THAT’S evidence? You ARE kiddin, right?
    Ad hominem attacks? AGAIN..you are KIDDIN, right? Show me ONE statement that I made in my response to you that was an “attack”…..PLEASE!
    You mean to say that if I say something about Obama, THAT is what you consider an ‘attack’? Dude, I think you had better go back to school…or at least try the ‘school of hard knocks’ curriculum again.
    As for your ‘evidence’ that you say you have supplied, I would like for you to tell us just who it is that you know at, oh let’s say Occidental, since Occidental hasn’t let out the first scrap of information YET on Obama. Where, pray tell, is your EVIDENCE? I, for one, would REALLY love to see it…HONEST!
    Where is your ‘EVIDENCE’ that Obama was “never adopted by his step father Soetoro”. Again, please produce your EVIDENCE! Obviously, you have an inside track to some of these institutions and governments that no one else has, right?
    I don’t have any “preconceived notions” Rich. All I have is a burning curiosity as to WHY your buy Obama REFUSES to release ANY information from ANY of his colleges OR his vault copy of his birth certificate.
    Now, if you want to consider that I have a “preconceived notion” that, because of this failure to openly disclose information on Obama’s part, I consider him a LIAR, then you would be 100% correct!
    In relation to that, if you would like to think that I have a “preconceived notion” that ANYONE who would willingly believe Obama when his actions don’t warrant it (YOU, for instance) as a FOOL, then you would once again be 100% CORRECT!
    One last thing you stated that I would have to say you are 100% correct on………”trust but VERIFY”! Perhaps you should grab a dictionary and look up the word ‘verify’! The ONLY verification you seem to be pleased with is what is coming out of Obama’s and the DNC mouth!
    Again….show me your EVIDENCE and I might change my mind….fair enough?

  1341. Lil Loyd,

    NOTE: PLEASE READ AND DISTRIBUTE. THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF A FREEDOM AND RIGHT IF THIS BILL PASSES CONGRESS!!!

    You need to get a grip. This proposed legislation has nothing to do with Obama and it has nothing to do with Congress. In fact, seven of the eighteen states which are considering this legislation are states which Obama LOST in November.

  1342. Crazy Greek,
    You sure are high on your guy Obama, aren’t ya? You been smokin what HE was smokin?
    Unfortunately, this is fairly typical of how this discussion has gone. I produce evidence that Obama was not known as “Barry Soetoro” when he was in high school, I point out that there is no evidence that he was ever adopted by his stepfather, and instead of responding to my evidence you choose to make ad hominem attacks which have nothing to do with what I was talking about. So be it. You keep saying “trust but verify” but you obviously aren’t interested in verifying anything except that which supports your preconceived notions.

  1343. Greek:
    Ed Hale has a problem with anger, but then concerning Obama there is a lot to be angry about. No valid birth certificate, natural born citizen situation, cancellation of Gitmo, Acorn, eitc. It is enough to stampede a herd of wild elephants! Ed is a good ol’e boy and he does love America. His afternoon line-up of daily shows (Ingrahm and Hannity) have gone so he has to assess a fee. His chat room is a pain to him in a lot of ways. Hale gets lots of Obama pressure, but he has done a credible job against Obama. I have told Caren that ” loose lips sink ships”. People have undercut him, it seems.
    Plains Radio is a rally-point against Obama. The related birth certificate and natural born citizenship issues are only a small part of the Obama problem, but the Obama problem is so multi-faceted that it is hard to track.
    Besides looking at the State Sovereignty issue I have be reading Edwin Vieira’s book Constitutional Homeland Security, volume one Nation in Arms, an excellent read. I have finished the first two chapters.
    Obama’s ineligibility conflict has set Americans one against another, and we must win in so many areas (Gun rights, Free Speech, money issues, the Census—Greg Judd has withdrawn his nomination–etc.
    Edwin Vieira will be on Plains Radio on February 20, Friday 7:00 PM CST. Please confirm at Plains.
    When Warren sends me you e-mail I will contact you in a more personal manner.

  1344. Loyd –
    First things first. Representatives and Senators are enumerated by the Constitution. To change that requires ratification by (if I remember correctly) two thirds of the states of a Constitutional Amendment and ratification has a life span of seven years.
    Remember the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment)? Didn’t fly.
    And, BTW, although some of us occasionally get off point, this blog is about the BOGUS POTUS.
    I think the issue of state sovereignty is certainly germain to the Berg v. Obama issue since it looks like BHO wants to usurp that, too.
    We still need the answer to the NBC issue.

  1345. Not sure of the numbers, but think about it..while every
    > company everywhere is trying to reduce costs/personnel…the
    > government just gets bigger and bigger and certainly not
    > cutting back. Just think of the election savings, reduced
    > travel….etc.
    > Therefore: Reduce the House of Representatives from the
    > current435 members to 218 members and Senate members from
    > 100 to 50(one per State). Also reduce remaining staff by
    > 25%.
    >
    >
    >
    > Accomplish this over the next 8 years. (two steps / two
    > elections) and of course this would require some
    > redistricting.
    >
    > Some Yearly Monetary Gains Include:
    >
    > $44,108,400 for elimination of base pay for congress. (267
    > members X $165,200 pay / member / yr.)
    >
    > $97,175,000 for elimination of the above people’s
    > staff. (estimate $1.3 Million in staff per each member of
    > the House, and $3 Million in staff per each member of the
    > Senate every year)
    >
    > $240,294 for the reduction in remaining staff by 25%.
    >
    > $7,500,000,000 reduction in pork barrel ear-marks each
    > year. (those members whose jobs are gone. Current estimates
    > for total government pork earmarks are at$15 Billion / yr)
    >
    > The remaining representatives would need to work
    > smarter20and would need to improve efficiencies. It might
    > even be in their best interests to work together for the
    > good of our country?
    >
    > We may also expect that smaller committees might lead to a
    > more efficient resolution of issues as well. It might even
    > be easier to keep track of what your representative is
    > doing.
    >
    > Congress has more tools available to do their jobs than it
    > had back in 1911 when the current number of representatives
    > was established. (telephone, computers, cell phones to
    > name a few)
    >
    > Note:
    >
    > Congress did not hesitate to head home when it was a
    > holiday, when the nation needed a real fix to the economic
    > problems. Also, we have 3 senators that have not been
    > doing their jobs for the past 18+ months (on the campaign
    > trail) and still they all have been accepting full pay.
    > These facts alone support a reduction in senators &
    > congress.
    >
    > Summary of opportunity:
    >
    > $ 44,108,400 reduction of congress members.
    >
    > $282,100, 000 for elimination of the reduced house member
    > staff.
    >
    > $150,000,000 for elimination of reduced senate member
    > staff.
    >
    > $59,675,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining house
    > members.
    >
    > $37,500,000 for 25% reduction of staff for remaining senate
    > members.
    >
    > $7,500,000,00020reduction in pork added to bills by the
    > reduction of congress members.
    >
    > $8,073,383,400 per year, estimated total savings.
    > (that’s 8-BILLION just to start!)
    >
    > Big business does these types of cuts all the time.
    >
    > If Congresspersons were required to serve 20, 25 or 30
    > years (like everyone else) in order to collect retirement
    > benefits there is no telling how much we would save. Now
    > they get full retirement after serving only ONE term.
    >
    > IF you are happy how the Congress spends our taxes, then
    > just delete this message. IF you are NOT at all happy, then
    > I assume you know what to do.
    >
    >

  1346. Loyd –
    There is a lot of science that says it isn’t really viable. And a lot of law enforcement agrees.
    But, if you aren’t a member of the National Rifle Association, I suggest that you join. America’s 1st Freedom magazine stays on top of these issues.

  1347. Hugh,
    Won’t be able to listen the Plains Radio tonight…gettin ready to go to work. Don’t know if you are aware of it or not, but Ed Hale has now made his web page forum all membership only in order to post to that. I’m beginning to have some serious doubts about his real reason for being on the air, either that or the guy has totally lost it mentally. You can still read the forum (I guess) but you won’t be able to post unless you want to sign up for $10/month membership dues!
    Warren……..please send Hugh my email address……THANKS!!

  1348. NOTE: PLEASE READ AND DISTRIBUTE. THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF A FREEDOM AND RIGHT IF THIS BILL PASSES CONGRESS!!!
    Check out on Snopes.com
    Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009
    It has already started…. Ammunition Accountability Legislation
    Remember how Obama said that he wasn’t going to take your guns? Well, it seems that his allies in the anti-gun world have no problem with taking your ammo! The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and Indiana) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacture a data base of all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers.. Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the ammunition is coded. Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011. (Including hand loaded ammo.) They will also charge a .05 cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more! If they can deprive you of ammo, they do not need to take your gun! ! ; T his legislation is currently pending in 18 states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.
    Send to your friends in these states AND fight to dissolve this BILL!! To find more about the anti-gun group that is sponsoring
    this legislation and the specific legislation for each state, go to: http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm

  1349. Rich,
    You sure are high on your guy Obama, aren’t ya? You been smokin what HE was smokin?
    Seriously, do you REALLY think that Obama is being TRUTHFUL? If so, why the hesitancy to show this vault copy of his birth certificate? Let’s hear something more than “He don’t have to”, ok?
    Still think Obama, or any other Democrat currently seated in Washington, D.C. gives a tinkers dang about anyone other than themselves…..YOU included? You better pull you head out of the sand and take a good look at what is currently happening in D.C. and in other States throughout this Nation.
    IF you think this usurper is REALLY who/what he says he is and that he is going to bring this nation together, how do you explain these…something this nation has not seen in over 140 YEARS?
    MICHIGAN SOVEREIGNTY BILL
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jdky1kilnqdsztjywsd2py55))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2009-hcr-0004
    MONTANA SOVEREIGNTY BILL
    http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/hb0246.htm
    OKLAHOMA SOVEREIGNTY BILL
    http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/state-legislator-charles-key-wants-to-limit-federal-power/
    GEORGIA SOVEREIGNTY BILL
    http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/1995_96/leg/fulltext/sr308.htm
    WASHINGTON STATE SOVEREIGNTY BILL
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=4009
    ARIZONA SOVEREIGNTY BILL
    http://http://www.azleg.gov/formatdocument.asp?indoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2024p.htm
    STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SOVEREIGNTY BILL
    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/hcr0006.html
    These States, along with others to follow (you can count on it) are already sick and tired of YOUR Obama and his cronies and the direction they are taking this country…..and they ain’t even been in office a MONTH!
    I respectively submit that you had better start looking around at what is happening in this country!
    Support Obama all you want……DO NOT expect me to! The man is a LIAR and is doing his dead level best to RUIN this country…along with his cronies!!!!!
    Obama is a FAKE, a LIAR, a CHEAT….and the closest thing this country has ever had to a DICTATOR!!
    THIS is who you support and what you want for OUR country?
    UNBELIEVABLE!!

  1350. Greek,
    Here is Obama’s photo from his high school yearbook (Punahou School in Honolulu). Note that his name is shown as “Barry Obama.”

  1351. Crazy Greek,

    Now THIS is EXCITING…..let’s see if the courts say that Rep. Swafford doesn’t have ’standing’……..IF they do, then we will all know the FIX is IN for sure!!

    That’s hilarious. Rep. Swafford is a member of the TENNESSEE House of Representatives, not the U.S.House of Representatives. He has no more standing than any of the other plaintiffs in this fruitless litigation.

    Barry Soetoro’s mother’s last name was Soetoro up until that date. Why wouldn’t her adopted son’s last name be the same as hers?

    Because there is no evidence that Obama was ever adopted by his stepfather, for one thing. This is just another fantasy dreamed up by Berg, et al. The only time that Obama is known to have used the name “Barry Soetoro” is when his stepfather enrolled him in school in Indonesia, when Obama was a child. The idea that Obama was adopted by Soetoro and then had his name legally changed is an allegation for which there is not a shred of evidence. Where and when did this adoption take place? Where and when did the legal name change take place? Nobody can say, because nobody has any evidence that either thing ever happened.

    We DO know that Obama, during the time frame of his starting Occidental, was using the name Barry Soetoro…..and didn’t alter his name back to his birth name until WHILE AT Occidental because he says so himself….read is book………”I was always tired of explaning the Barack name until it was pointed out to me by a gal at college that Barack was a beautiful name….”

    More nonsense. Obama never said that he used the name Barry SOETORO when he enrolled at Occidental. He only said that he used the nickname “Barry” because when he was young he didn’t like the name “Barack.” Through high school and at Occidental he was known to his friends and classmates as “Barry Obama,” not “Barry Soetoro.” There is nothing unusual about that. I went to school with a girl whose first name is “Catherine” but everybody knew her as “Addie.”
    By the way, did you know that Orly Taitz got her law degree from an Internet/correspondence law school which is not accredited by the American Bar Association? California is the only state in the U.S. which allows graduates of correspondence schools to take the bar exam. That explains a lot about the incredibly inept briefs which she has filed.

  1352. Yeah Bill,
    That is a recording from a radio station and then afterwards (I’m assuming when someone got to the Ambassador) the Ambassador was hemmin and hawwin around saying “No, I was talking about the Father…Obama, Sr…..trying to lie his way out of what he had just publicly said. He was saying that the radio station was twisting his words around when it is quite clear from the recording that PRESIDENT ELECT Obama, Jr. was the person he was talking about!
    Too Funny!!
    Looking forward to seeing what those records from Occidental College show….that will be interesting…but it still IS NOT the vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate that Hawaii says they hold and THAT is what really needs to be seen.
    Only reason I say that is because THAT document has supposedly been locked up where NO ONE could get to it, therefore the information on it COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH…supposedly. That’s the reason that vault copy is so important….IF it has indeed been where no one could possibly get to it, then any information on it would have to be considered TRUTHFUL….but TRUTH is the one thing no one is gonna get out of OBAMA!!

  1353. I don’t know how old this is, but it is on Dr. Orly Taitz’s web site. More potentially damaging material out of Kenya.
    http://defendourfreedoms.org/wriffinal.doc
    Very near the end there is mention of a monument to be placed at BHO Jr.’s birthsite.
    And next Monday, 16 Feb, Occidental College is supposed to provide BHO”s college records to Gary Kreep, Esq.
    It ain’t over yet.

  1354. Greek:
    You replied to my New Hampshire HCR6 question. Yes sir! That is it. Other States have joined this chorus. HCR6 has another committee meeting on 02/12/09, and is due out of committee on 03/19/09. At least there are some legislatures that are trying to do the right thing. As I recall, New Hampshire voted for Obama, and her Governor is Democratic.
    SPONSORS: Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Ingbretson, Graf 5; Rep. Comerford, Rock 9; Sen. Denley, Dist 3 are all Republicans.
    My reply option for this page is gone.

  1355. Rich wrote:

    And there is no evidence — not a shred of evidence — that he enrolled at Occidental College as “Barry Soetoro.” He was known as “Barry Obama” but his legal name was “Barack Obama.”

    Really? Proof of your statement please? Link? Anything?
    We DO know that Obama, during the time frame of his starting Occidental, was using the name Barry Soetoro…..and didn’t alter his name back to his birth name until WHILE AT Occidental because he says so himself….read is book………”I was always tired of explaning the Barack name until it was pointed out to me by a gal at college that Barack was a beautiful name….”
    His Mama and his Indonesian Papa Soetoro were still married when he entered Occidental and got their divorce during his first or second year there, so how do you figure him for using Obama and that everyone knew him as such and not Soetoro? I don’t understand.

  1356. Yeah…I thought the same thing. Kinda dumb really.
    Question is, did he have a United States passport when entering Occidental…….not that he needed one to get there, but I think they are wondering about the rumor of the Indonesian passport thing…..who knows!

  1357. Crazy Greek,

    Also, factor this into the mix…….when Obama came to California to enter Occidental College in 1979, he entered said college under the name of Barry Soetoro…not Barack Obama! The students didn’t even know him as Barack Obama but rather as Barry. Then in 1980, Obama suddenly changes his name to Barack Obama. Why is that?

    Have you ever heard of a nickname? “Barry” was Barack Obama’s nickname when he was a kid. And there is no evidence — not a shred of evidence — that he enrolled at Occidental College as “Barry Soetoro.” He was known as “Barry Obama” but his legal name was “Barack Obama.”
    http://www.oxy.edu/x8273.xml

    Question is……….did he enter Occidental College using an Indonesian passport or a United States passport…or, did he use ANY PASSPORT AT ALL?

    Huh? Why would he have needed a passport to enter Occidental College? You don’t need a passport to travel from Hawaii to California.

  1358. Greek –
    Sorry for my faux pas, but at 65 going on 66 my mind tends to miss some stuff.
    However, I will stay with you and we will get to the end. Time, my friend. Just time.
    Hugh? You there?
    PS. Per Nancy, we’re gonna lose 500 million jobs a month if the stimulus package ain’t passed.
    Right.
    (Navy) Not self, but country.
    (USMC) Semper Fi.
    Bill

  1359. Wild Bill wrote:

    And I also, upon reflection, find that it is rather curious (unbelieveable, actually) that BHO listed no “other” names on his Illinois Bar application, and we know he used Soetoro at Occidental – or at least it is a pretty sure bet.

    Hummmmm….why curious Bill? What more would you expect from a LIAR? No matter whether he used Soetoro at Occidental. I believe he used Soetoro while in Indonesia and Hawaii, didn’t he? He should have put Dunham down also, but he didn’t.
    Why? Because the man is a pathological LIAR, that’s why!

  1360. Just a matter of time is right. But I wonder how much it will take to undo some of the things already signed, such as the SCHIP?
    The next “due date” is 16 Feb for the FOIA by Kreep with Occidental. Sometimes time seems to fly by; other times just crawl.
    And I also, upon reflection, find that it is rather curious (unbelieveable, actually) that BHO listed no “other” names on his Illinois Bar application, and we know he used Soetoro at Occidental – or at least it is a pretty sure bet.

  1361. Hey guys…….we have IDIOTS running Washington now. Did you see this?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hMJVXt09E

    “Every month we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs. I don’t think we can go fast enough to stop that.”

    NEWS FLASH FOR YA PELOSI
    Population of the United States………….

    “305.748.610 million people as of 1 50 pm central standard time”

    We are still faced with a problem even if we do get Obama out of office by eventually having his true identity revealed (and that is just a matter of time)…..we are still gonna have IDIOTS in governing positions!
    (Thought I’d put that last in there just to keep it ‘on topic’, ya know?) 😉

  1362. Hiya Hugh.
    You mean this?

    A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
    Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and
    Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and
    Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;”

    I LOVE IT!!
    Looks like at least one State is sick and tired of Washington’s tactics already, don’t it?
    Gonna get interesting, that’s for sure! 😉

  1363. Hi Hugh –
    Thanks. Very interesting, and I like it! It will be interesting to see if Oregon does anything with it.

  1364. Interesting Bill. Maybe this one will have the legs it takes to proceed and force Obama to eventually put up or get outta Dodge!
    Like I said before…it’s just a matter of time! 😉

  1365. Interesting reading Bill…..long, but interesting.
    Makes ya wonder where/when all this will end, don’t it?
    I just don’t know how we can legally get Obama to come forth and produce that BC Hawaii says they have in the vault. Got a feeling it’s gonna take a judge with huevos and we seem to still be lookin for that guy!

  1366. Anyone read this yet? http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87548
    How can we get BO out? What will it take?
    This Nation is Blinded by O’s charisma and talk. Hell, he might be the Anti christ for all I know. Are we prepared what what is going to happen?
    I don’t trust him. I refuse to be like sheep led to slaughter. The general populas believes in O and that scares me too.
    I am working hard with my fiends to be prepared for the worst. I hope you all are getting prepared too. Anyone that believes this is all propaganda is a fool.
    If it looks , smells and walks like a duck ,….well you know.

  1367. Yep..saw that one Bill.
    Sure goes to show just how easy it is/was to get a birth certificate stating that you were born in Hawaii and also blows the argument that “Yes, you could get a Hawaiian birth certificate, but it had to show your actual birth place as other than Hawaii if you were born somewhere other than…”, don’t it?
    What I can’t figure out is why anyone would want a BC stating they were born in Hawaii if they really weren’t. Back when this Chinese got his, it wasn’t for the purpose of establishing American citizenship because Hawaii wasn’t on of the States then…so what purpose do you suppose having one gave the guy?
    Weird, ain’t it? Further, why would Hawaii do that? Just doesn’t seem in their best interest either.
    Sorry, slept in and runnin late for work today. Keep pluggin away at it ole buddy.
    Gotta scoot………..Later

  1368. Bill,
    I just got in from work and took a look at the link you provided. As bad as I hate to say it, this “son of the soil” comment could be construed a number of ways.
    First – (as we suspect they are inferring) Obama was actually born in Kenya.
    Second – (and this is the position they will probably take if pressed on the issue) They are saying that Obama is the son of a native born Kenyan (Obama, Sr.) and that therefore makes him a “son of the soil” of Kenya.
    Again, another case of smoke and mirrors.
    We have been told that there is a birth certificate indicating that Obama was born in Mombasa, Kenya…….but then the Kenyan Govt. put a lid on that one.
    We have been told that Obama’s Grandmother has stated that she was present at Obama’s birth, again in Kenya……..then amazingly, nothing more out of the proud Grandmother’s mouth publicly regarding this.
    We have been told that Obama’s Aunt, who is in the United States ILLEGALLY said that she was ordered not to say anything until AFTER the elections…then she could talk to anyone. What happens after the elections? She DISAPPEARS…only to show up finally (again, as an illegal alien in this country against judge’s orders to leave) at the Inauguration and the Inaugural Ball of all places….but she didn’t talk to anyone.
    Oh yeah……………there are too many coincidences for anyone to take all this at face value that Obama is a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States and NOT question……..unless of course you are totally blinded by the Obama mystique!
    Like I said before, all it is going to take is one judge, just one, with the huevos to make a ruling that Obama will have to produce the required documentation and it’s all over! Time is NOT in Obama’s favor on this one.
    So, we wait…………………………

  1369. Hi Hugh –
    Yeah. That hit me right in the forehead.
    And, just in case, I sent the thread to Berg, Taitz, and the USJF. May be just what we needed. And I’ll continue to look – and forward.

  1370. Bill:
    I just took a look. This is incontrovertible truth, and moreover from the Kenyan Parliament. Someone said today that Kenya is Obama-bragging, but not Hawaii. This is just one more convincing truth that the Obama clan is willingly denying.

  1371. Greek and Hugh –
    I can find nothing that refutes this. And it seem to me that if the premise was false, there would be a LOT of traffic about the allegation.
    Meanwhile, I rejoice in the election of Michael Steele as the Chairman of the RNC.
    BTW, have either of you looked at the link I sent earlier? Or anyone else watching this dialog interested?

  1372. Greek and Bill:
    It is imperative that you watch Plains Radio Tuesday 3 February on 4:00-6:00 PM CST. Greg Everson, a retired Michigan State Policeman will be speaking @4:30 PM about what is coming to America in six months plus or minus two months. Big trouble from Obama! Link is http://www.plainsradio.com.

  1373. Greek:
    I have seen these documents on the Internet. Obama’s submission is fraudulent on its face since the document control number is marked out. I have seen another folded document with a control number on it, but that has been confirmed as a forgery by Ron Polarik and Sandra Ramsey Line. Ms. Line says an original document must be examined to prove anything. See my note to Rich on 19 January at 6:02 PM. The post only returns you to the sites’ first page.
    I have seen the example of the long-form birth certificate.
    The Chinaman’s certificate is confirmation of the problem that we have been speaking of. I have seen this information on other http://www.oilforimigration.org as I recall.
    I think multiple forensic document examiners must Obama’s vault original birth and any other documents that can be found.
    I do not understand how the Obama clan can deny these examples. I do not have a problem with any of these examples as support against Obama. The Obama clan has to be very ignorant or willfully blind to hold to their position.

  1374. There has been previous discussion on the thread regarding the statement released by the Hawaii Dept. of Health supervisor Dr. Chiyome Fukino’s statement regarding the fact that she had seen the birth certificate of Barack Obama……and then someone went on to say that there was an addition to that statement where a spokesperson was asked “Did she mean to say that Obama was born in Hawaii” (or words to that effect) and the spokespersons answer was “Yes, that’s what she meant”.
    Remember that?
    Well, here is the statement that was issued by Dr. Fukino in .pdf form and NO WHERE on this statement does it state that Obama was born in Hawaii!
    http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf
    What her statement DOES SAY is simply

    ……..have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

    Getting right into this, she REALLY isn’t saying that she or the Registrar of Vital Statistics have ACTUALLY SEEN the birth certificate itself but rather that it is recorded as being there.
    Once again, a person in authority using words to sidestep the actual question.
    Notice at the bottom of said document from the Hawaii Dept. of Health the name of the person in the lower left hand corner………Janice Okubo -Communications Office.
    If you will take a look at the Chicago Tribune for October 31, 2008 you will find the following……………….this same Janice Okubo made the following statement……”Citing Hawaii state privacy laws, and guidance from the state attorney general, she said she, “was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.”
    Sounds to me like someone is refusing to stick their neck on the chopping block for Obama. Hummmmmmm….wonder why THAT is?
    It’s called CYA where I come from…and there seems to be a LOT of THAT going on where Obama is concerned!
    Also, factor this into the mix…….when Obama came to California to enter Occidental College in 1979, he entered said college under the name of Barry Soetoro…not Barack Obama! The students didn’t even know him as Barack Obama but rather as Barry. Then in 1980, Obama suddenly changes his name to Barack Obama. Why is that?
    The answer is……….He was using his Indonesian name right up until the time that his Mama divorced his Indonesian Papa and then changed his name back to his original birth name.
    Question is……….did he enter Occidental College using an Indonesian passport or a United States passport…or, did he use ANY PASSPORT AT ALL?
    Occidental College has been subpoenaed to provide these records as mentioned above. Whether that subpoena is still valid is questionable.
    There are too many questions being asked by a lot of different people on this and sooner or later, someone is going to ask the right question in the right format that will be impossible for a judge to just dismiss out of hand.
    It’s just a matter of time and time is something Obama is running out of.

  1375. Unbelievable!
    That’s all I’m gonna say..cause you REALLY don’t wanna know what I think about this, I can guarantee ya.

  1376. Alrighty then……..I don’t know if this will be consider ‘on topic’ or not…..I think it kinda ties in to why it is so important that we make sure that we have a person that has met the eligibility requirement of the constitution to be President of the United States.
    Regardless, I personally feel that this should be required viewing/listening for every American.
    It’s time to WAKE UP folks!!
    http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

  1377. Yeah, Greek –
    I’m sure it will be a case of “I didn’t understand.” However, who can guess what might come out at an amnesty hearing that could be damaging? We aren’t done yet, my friend.

  1378. Hey Bill,
    How many “illegal immigrants” do you know that can get away with THIS crap?

    Earlier this month, Onyango attended Obama’s swearing-in ceremony and an inaugural ball at Washington’s Renaissance Mayflower Hotel, a historic luxury hotel, the Associated Press reported. Rogers claims she never met with the president during inaugural festivities. She arrived with her immigration lawyer
    as her guest.

    Here we have a KNOWN ILLEGAL and she shows up at THE biggest party of the century and is not even approached by law enforcement.
    Well…..surprise, surprise, surprise! 😉
    As to Obama’s family KNOWING he was born in Kenya, all that guy will say if questioned will be “I didn’t understand what she meant” and it will be taken as gospel………just like the Kenyan Ambassador did!
    If this weren’t so serious it would be LAUGHABLE! It’s like watchin a rerun of THE JEFFERSONS, except this is for REAL!
    UNBELIEVABLE!!

  1379. Hugh,
    I was trying to fly by memory when I mentioned above that Obama has known that he would possibly have a problem with the ‘natural born citizen’ issue. I stated that I thought it was ’05……I now wish to amend that……it was 2006….and here’s the proof.
    In 2006, february 22 to be exact, a gal by the name of Sarah P. Herlihy filed the following………………….AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE………….which when read is clearly meant to want to strike the ‘natural born citizen’ requirement from the Constitution of the United States.
    Who is Sarah P. Herlihy?
    Sarah P. Herlihy is employed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP, a law firm based in, yeah you guess it, Chicago!
    Taking a look at the law firm’s website……Ms. Herlihy is listed as an “Associate”.
    Checking the website further, you will find this name listed…Bruce I. Ettelson. Mr. Ettelson is listed as “Partner”
    Another name on the website……Jack S. Levin. Mr. Levin is listed as “Partner” also.
    How does all this tie together?
    Bruce I. Ettelson, P.C., was a member of the finance committees of U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Richard Durbin.
    Obama presented some kind of award to Levin (can’t remember what for right now) even before 2006. In short, Obama is in tight with this law firm…a fact not surprising in and of itself due to Obama being a lawyer, but it’s plain to see that he was reaching out to friends as early as 2006 regarding this ‘natural born citizen’ clause in the Constitution.
    As I stated earlier, these politicos do not do things just for drill. There is ALWAYS a hidden agenda if one looks hard enough and is patient enough in their investigation to dig through the layers of crap that they use to try and hide their intentions.
    I think Obama KNEW way back when that this issue could come up to haunt him and he knows it now…and is still not willing to be forthcoming with ANY information regarding his background. Don’t get me wrong here. From Obama’s perspective, this unwillingness is quite understandable…he has too much to loose.
    The fact that it is understandable DOES NOT retract from the FACT that it is action resulting in his being ILLEGALLY elected President.
    The law is the law and the Constitution of the United States is the SUPREME LAW of the land.
    Obama is NOT above this law and WILL BE held accountable and IF found guilty of occupying the White House illegally, should be stripped of any political title he may have and run out of Washington on a rail, preferrably to the nearest Federal Penitentiary along with ANYONE who assisted him in his subversion of our political system.
    JMHO, of course. 😉

  1380. Hugh,
    Yes, I am in agreement with you on this one. Also, you have to remember that SR 511 started well before April ’08……I believe sometime in ’05 as something entirely different but with the same objective. The only reason it ended up as SR 511 is because the other attempts were shot down. As to your time line quandary, SR-511 was adopted April 30, 2008.
    However, in reading SR 511 as it was passed, one finds the following…………..

    Whereas the term ‘‘natural born Citizen’’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

    I consider this one area alone, to be posturing on Obama’s part and wouldn’t doubt for a minute that he played a large part in the wording of this one section of SR-511. He is, after all, one of the co-sponsors of this bill.
    Also, one must consider this. These are politicos we are talking about here and a lot of what is done and the way it is worded is done so with the express purpose of setting precedence for something in the future, unless of course we are talking about one of the politicos just signing on in order to ride the coat tails of a bill they feel strongly has a chance of passing and plugging their little greedy wants onto the bill in hopes of passage.
    One must remember that this bill was introduced, and passed, with the supposed purpose of declaring John McCain to be a ‘natural born citizen’, but it is obvious when you read the wording that this had far greater purposes than just declaring McCain to be a ‘natural born citizen’.
    However, I feel that Obama more or less shot himself in the foot with this one because we also find the following wording in SR-511……………….

    Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:

    Notice the word “citizens”. It’s plural, indicating this to mean that both the father and the mother should be American citizens, not just one or the other. Obama’s Mama was an American citizen but his Papa was NOT!
    Politicos love to play this game but they don’t like it much when the game is turned on THEM. They seem to come across that we, the average American citizen, is incapable of playing in their ‘league’.

  1381. Greek:
    Here is the link: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/02/sitroom.01.html (I could not find the video, per se. The date is April 2, 2008.
    Now I wonder what is the date of SR-511? I wonder if April 2, 2008 is before the date of SR-511? I am just thinking about the time-line.
    “SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D-VT), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: I believe — and we have had some question in this committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be president.
    I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You’re a former federal judge. You’re the head of the agency that executes federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind? I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he’s constitutionally eligible to become president?
    MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: My assumption and my understanding is that if you were born of American parents, you are a natural born American citizen.”
    (I do remember Senator Leahy saying at the end something like …”That is my understanding also!”
    This fits right into SR-511 that Obama, Clinton, Cochran, Leahy, and McCoskey resolved before the Senate. It says to me that this group knows about Obama’s situation because of the wording of SR-511. Cochran, I think, is Chad Cochran, (R) from Mississippi. McCoskey (?) is a woman from Missouri.
    To my mind, it says there are a group of Senators that are aware of this fraud (fraud in the inducement,,,related in another Blog). It is one reason they desperately want to keep all this sub Rosa. If it comes out fully, Congress, especially the Democrats, and the SCOTUS, will be shaking in their boots. But it is all the more reason why it needs to be fully disclosed! These SR-511 Senators are actively working against the Constitution according to the language of SR-511. Greek, do you read this the same way? What do you have to add?
    My source is Robert Reece who is a researcher for Plains Radio.

  1382. Hi Greek –
    I looked at the “waffle” site but got nowhere. I’ll give that one up and pursue elsewhere.
    Bill

  1383. Anyone got anything on this? Says Obama has until 2-16-09 to produce.
    http://obamawaffles.typepad.com/files/obama-subpoena-1.pdf
    I think this is/was part of the Keyes V Bowen case but according to this list that I will post, there is a case Keyes V Bowen case with this same case number on it with a hearing date of March 13, 2009.
    Anyway, here is a listing that I found of cases that are supposedly challenging Obama’s eligibility. I don’t know the dates……………………………………….I would imagine some, if not the majority of these, have already been tossed.
    State cases concerning eligibility of Barack Obama for POTUS:
    California
    Joan Corbett v. Bowen, 30-2008-00114112-CU-FR-CJC, Orange County
    There was an ex parte hearing Nov. 3 and no further docket activity, so I’m guessing this case is dead at the Superior Court level. No appeals found with CA Supreme Court.
    Keyes v. Bowen, 34-2008-80000096-CU-WM-GDS, Sacramento County
    Filed Nov. 13; hearing set for March 13, 2009.
    Lightfoot v. Bowen, S168690, Supreme Court of CA
    Denied on Dec. 3. Filed with SCOTUS 08A524 on Dec. 12, denied Dec. 17 by Justice Kennedy. UPDATE: Distributed for conference Jan. 23, 2009 by Chief Justice Roberts.
    Georgia
    Rev. Tom Terry v. Handel, 08CV158774S
    Filed with Georgia Supreme Court Nov. 3, S09D0284, Dec. 3 dismissed as moot. Motion for reconsideration filed Dec. 15, pending.
    Hawaii
    Martin v. Lingle, 1CC08-1-002147, Honolulu County
    Denied; emergency motion for reconsideration filed Dec. 1. Opposition to motion filed Dec. 12. I can’t tell from the court website if this is on calendar but there is no case termination date so I assume it’s still alive.
    Kentucky
    Daniel John Essek v. Obama, Kentucky Eastern District Court, 6:2008cv00379 (Whitley County)
    Filed in District Court Nov. 25
    North Carolina
    Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan v. NC Board of Elections, Pender County
    No further info available
    Texas
    Jody Brockhausen v. Andrade
    Darrel Hunter v. US Supreme Court
    Appeal filed in Texas Northern District Court, 2:2008cv00232
    – filed in SCOTUS, Docket number unknown
    Washington
    James E. Broe v. Reed, King County
    Investigating:
    Susan Herbert v. United States of America, Barack Obama and John Roberts
    Florida Middle District Court, 3:2008cv01201
    Filed Dec. 15
    Susan Herbert v. Barack Obama and United States
    Florida Middle District Court, 3:2008cv01164
    Filed December 4, 2008
    Kamal K. Roy v. United States of America, George W. Bush, John McCain and Barack H. Obama
    Hawaii District Court, 1:2008cv00513
    Filed November 13, 2008
    Gordon Allen Stamper v. United States of America, R. Barclay Surrick, Barack Hussein Obama and John McCain
    Ohio Northern District Court, 1:2008cv02593
    Filed November 3, 2008

  1384. Bill,
    Congratulations on your gettin the ride of a lifetime on a tin can. That’s an experience for sure….but guess we’d better stick to the topic here before we can keelhauled by the moderators. 😉

  1385. Greek –
    I consider Ron Paul to be one of the good guys, too. Didn’t agree with everything he proposed he would do if elected to POTUS, but didn’t disagree either. I remember reading somewhere that Ron Paul was starting to engage in this effort to get BHO to provide proof. Did that dry up?
    Unfortunately, I live in Oregon where both of my senators and my local representative are all Democrats. I keep sending them advice, but they seem to want to ignore it. Eh… That’s Oregon. But I keep writing and calling. We conservatives WILL rise again – good Lord willin’ and the creek don’t rise.
    And, just so you know, I wanted tin can assignment when I graduated from RDA school, but they sent me to an LST in Yokosuka. From there I got a swap to the USS Ticonderoga, CVA-14 (best damn flattop in the fleet if you ask me). When I was aboard the Maddox, I was on TDY with a radarscope camera. Needless to say, I was a volunteer for the job. Flattoppers don’t usually like the way a tin can rides. But I did. Spent some time on the Wiltsie, DD-716, too. Offer me a ride on a can, and I was gone!

  1386. Greek:
    I have sent an e-mail concerning the video!
    I have reviewed what I said to you. Protocol is a bad choice of words. SCOTUS is aware of Obama’s situation. They have allowed Obama the usurper-in-chief into the Whitehouse according to our view. I would use the words “proper time and procedure”. But then it seems the proper time is past to apply the proper procedure. SCOTUS needs to act in a Constitutionally ordained way.
    Concerning riots, there is going to be riots with or without Obama. Mr Change will most like do his best with his henchmen to scrap our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Gun owners and Free Speech people will begin to fight as they see the full colors of Mr. Change. At that time marginal Obamalots could have buyers’ remorse.
    Speaking in more concrete terms, I am reminded of Colonel Roosevelt, upon discovery that his troops had landed in the wrong spot on the Normandy beaches on 6 June 1945. He did not scratch his head and wonder what to do. He made the decision to start where he was and told his troops to move forward from that spot. Thanks for the correction, Greek!

  1387. Hugh wrote:

    SCOTUS is all about proper protocol.

    If, by protocol, you mean ass kissin, I agree. What they are supposed to be about is the LAW! They are sworn by oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and if they don’t wanna do that they need to get the hell outta Dodge and let us get someone in there that will. Only problem with that scenario is that it’s the President (for now, like it or not, Obama) that would appoint their replacement and we all know what that would lead to. 😉
    Yes, I did notice Alito dismissing himself, a move I thought prudent. I was actually surprised that the meeting was called (although almost every President elect has had one with SCOTUS) simply due to the fact that there were cases on the table for SCOTUS consideration that had something to do with the incoming administration. I think you are right in that this SCOTUS is put into an unenviable position that no SCOTUS has been placed in before, but it would seem to me that this would be a good time for them to learn from the military….adapt and overcome! 😉
    If riots are their concern, they had better get used to the fact that once this IS ruled on, IF they have the huevos to do so, that is gonna be inevitable. There WILL BE dissension, you can believe that. However, that said, the law of the land should never be held hostage by the possibility of dissension!
    The law is the law…and no man is above that law…..I don’t care if his name IS Obama. This is a fact that BO had better take to heart also. Like I said before, all it is gonna take is for one judge, somewhere in this country, to rule that BO must produce that vault birth certificate.
    It has been said on here that there is not that many people concerned with this issue. I think whoever made that statement was dead wrong. The number of people concerned is growing daily and has, according to reports, reached the highest levels of our government.
    Time is now Obama’s enemy.

  1388. Greek:
    I will look for the video. You are right about Ron Paul! My Senators McConnell and Bunning have said that the SCOTUS must deal with Obama, in so many words.My Representative Chandler is a Democrat. It is also possible to jump to the conclusions about the the Senators. Basically, they are good men. McConnell did support Bush’s bailout, however, while Bunning said it is foolish! Considering the strong arm of the Democrats, the Republicans who are actually standing for right and righteous positions are taking heat from Reid, Durbin, etc. in the Senate, and Pelosi, Hoyer, etc. in the House. McConnell and Boehnor must be taking a bunch of heat. Also, Mike Pence , R, Ind., is one great Representative. I guess I need to ask myself, (and you), how would I like to have to deal with Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Hoyer on a daily basis? Well, I would not want to one bit!
    Concerning SCOTUS, those Justices are a harder group to crack, understand. They may feel that the evidentual case is not quite ripe, so to speak. We do not have access to there replies except “denied”, and other legal responses. So, their motives are harder to measure, and it is quite possible to misjudge them.
    Consider the fact that it would be exceedingly difficult to stop Obama at the direct point of his oath-taking. An enormous riot would have occurred in Washington DC since the Obama clan basically worships Obama. I do not agree with their actions thus far, but this SCOTUS is in a very difficult situation, like no other SCOTUS in American history.
    Have you considered that Justice Samuel Alito dismissed himself from the SCOTUS meeting with Obama and Biden. That is interesting! If Chief Justice wanted to meet with Obama, it would be really bad manners for four or five of the Justices to not meet an invited guest. SCOTUS is all about proper protocol. Lets not forget that Jesus gave Judas every opportunity to come clean before the betrayal.

  1389. Greek:
    I will look for the video. You are right about Ron Paul! My Senators McConnell and Bunning have said that the SCOTUS must deal with Obama, in so many words.My Representative Chandler is a Democrat. It is also possible to jump to the conclusion about the the Senators. Basically, they are good men. McConnell did support Bush’s bailout, however, while Bunning said it is foolish! Considering the strong arm of the Democrats, the Republicans who are actually standing for right and righteous positions are taking heat from Reid, Durbin, etc. in the Senate, and Pelosi, Hoyer, etc. in the House. McConnell and Boehnor must be taking a bunch of heat. Also, Mike Pence , R, Ind., is one great Representative. I guess I need to ask myself, (and you), how would I like to have to deal with Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Hoyer on a daily basis? Well, I would not want to one bit!
    Concerning SCOTUS, those Justices are a harder group to crack, understand. They may feel that the evidentual case is not quite ripe, so to speak. We do not have access to there replies except “denied”, and other legal responses. So, their motives are harder to measure, and it is quite possible to misjudge them.
    Consider the fact that it would be exceedingly difficult to stop Obama at the direct point of his oath-taking. An enormous riot would have occurred in Washington DC since the Obama clan basically worships Obama. I do not agree with their actions thus far, but this SCOTUS is in a very difficult situation, like no other SCOTUS in American history.
    Have you considered that Justice Samuel Alito dismissed himself from the SCOTUS meeting with Obama and Biden. That is interesting! If Chief Justice wanted to meet with Obama, it would be really bad manners for four or five of the Justices to not meet an invited guest. SCOTUS is all about proper protocol. Lets not forget that Jesus gave Judas every opportunity to come clean before the betrayal.

  1390. Yeah Bill….that’s one of em I’m keepin a close eye on also. He can run, but he can’t hide!

  1391. Hey Hugh..you wouldn’t happen to remember what the title of that Lehey video is or where you saw it, would ya? I missed that one. Therein lies the bug in the soup…..whether it’s one or both parents……..I’ve seen both listed as the ruling factor but nothing concrete…hell, in this mess, I don’t think there IS anything concrete. 😉
    That’s probably one of the main reasons why no judge is willing to tackle this one head on. I’m often reminded of the old movie with John Payne where he’s the lawyer for Santa Claus and the judge is gettin ready to make his ruling with his advisor sittin in the gallery, shakin his head and mouthing “Be Careful”! LOL

  1392. Yes Hugh, I did indeed see your post concerning.
    I know Paul to be a good man. I know he’s all for the veteran and is known for going out of his way to get a vet any information he/she requires.
    Right now, I’m just a little disgusted over his inaction regarding this, but I’ll get over it I’m sure. Also, I’m quite sure that he had good reason for not pressing, but I would like an answer from him.
    Maybe he can lay this to rest and I can feel I have a President..who knows? 😉

  1393. Hey….THANKS Bill.
    I was wondering about that. I thought maybe it was a ‘stand alone’ deal with no connections to anything currently being litigated.

  1394. Greek:
    Did you see my post concerning Vieira’s Constitutional Homeland Security? It is a eye-popping book! Ron Paul is really good on the Federal Reserve situation and he advocates the Austrian School of Economics. My opinion is that he has lost heart concerning Obamagate. But now is not the time to lose heart! I am located in Frankfort, Ky. I visited San Antonio a few years ago, and Dallas-Fort Worth in 1975. Hot!

  1395. Lil Loyd wrote:

    How can “We the People”, even know truth? There hasn’t been any broadcast of this subject on any news channels.
    Is this Obama citizenship thing for real? Are not, these questions asked before anyone is put on the ballot?

    That’s a good question Loyd…..and the answer is not as straightforward as you might think. I’m referring to your question regard us ever knowing the truth. The reason that you aren’t hearing any broadcast on any ‘news channel’ is because most of the MSM is happy to be in the Obama camp and don’t wanna rock their boat. Heck, they didn’t even report honestly during the campaign……..you don’t really expect to hear any honest reporting now, do ya? 😉
    As far as these questions supposed to be asked before anyone is put on the ballot, that’s another can of worms. Yes, there is supposed to be a ‘vetting process’, but as of late, no one can really say just who it is that is supposed to do the vetting! Now, ain’t that something? Then you have this other little fact……NO WHERE did anyone ever think to write down that any prospective candidate for position of POTUS is required to show any proof of who they say they are…….supposedly, there is nothing stated that they HAVE TO show a birth certificate, social security card, passport or any other form of identification in order to be placed on the ballot for the office of President of the United States.
    Don’t THAT just make ya feel warm all over?
    The ONLY FACT that we have to go on right now is that the Constitution of the United States CLEARLY STATES that in order to be President, one MUST be a ‘natural born citizen’. Sounds pretty nice and neat, right? WRONG! NO ONE yet is willing to come forth and stick their neck out with a definition of “natural born citizen”.
    Ain’t THAT just peachy.
    So no, this is not a cut and dried issue where we should just roll over and support Obama. IF he can PROVE that he is constitutionally eligible, fine….NO PROBLEM………but until that time….BIG PROBLEM!!
    I don’t think anyone on here (granted, there may be a few idiots out there who are going on the race card only) is racist in their intentions OR their questioning. I know I certainly am not. I didn’t like McCain and was really hoping that the Republicans would have run J.C. Watts (Oklahoma) on the ticket against Obama. Now THAT would have been something to see and IF it had happened, I don’t think you would have seen Obama get out of the batters box, let alone to first base!
    BTW…….in case you didn’t get it….J.C. Watts is BLACK and one of the most respected men to ever serve in Washington……..that last is just my opinion of course. 😉

  1396. LiL Lloyd:
    I have been looking at the case for a few months. It is absolute fact the Obama’s Dad was born in Kenya and he was never naturalized to the United States. So, Obama Sr British-Kenyan citizenship makes Obama II a British citizen. This fact alone denies any standing for Obama II to be a natural born citizen. Moreover, Obama has yet to provide his vault-certified birth certificate to clear up questions of his posted-online COLB which Hawaii allows foreigner to receive, thereby creating a legal loophole that Obama himself refuses to fill.
    To understand all the arguments a good source is http://www.stephenpidgeon.com. Pidgeon is the attorney for the Broe v Reed lawsuit out of Washington State.
    Another good source is http://www.plainsradio.com to hear people speak about the case.
    We have the main stream media keeping all this quiet for the most part. The Supreme Court, among others, is refusing to hear the cases.
    Obama is extremely liberal and, in my opinion, has extremely malevolent intent. He will do much harm to America.

  1397. Hugh,
    I hear ya bud!
    I guess what is really gettin my panties in a wad is the fact that NO ONE in Congress has the huevos to do anything about it. That’s why I’m all for backin the truck up to the steps and haulin all their butts outta Washington. I even had a wonderful dream last night of openin up Devils Island! 😉
    Seriously, the one I am MOST DISAPPOINTED in is MY congressman…Ron Paul. I’ve always known Paul to be a straight shooter and there were rumors going around that he was prepared to object when the vote came up……yet he kept silent! I’m gettin ready to fire a letter off to him and ask “Why?” As I stated previously, somewhere, someone knows the actual unmitigated truth of all this and sooner or later, that truth WILL come out.
    Now, if that ‘truth’ happens to uphold Obama’s legitimacy then so be it..and I’ll be the first to say I was wrong and support him as President. Until that time, I feel that I have no President!
    That’s pretty simple and all it will take to prove/disprove this issue is for Obama to release the vault copy of his BC that Hawaii has stated they hold.
    There is a reason that this is being brought into question. That reason is based in so much smoke and mirrors regarding Obama’s past and his willingness to be, let’s say, less than completely truthful on a number of issues…..to wit: Obama has publicly stated that he had ABSOLUTELY NO CONTACT with the Governor of Illinois over his vacated Senate seat…….and now it has come out that he indeed had phone conversations with the Governor at least 2 weeks prior to being inaugurated and that the Senate seat was mentioned in that conversation. That’s just ONE of the many instances where Obama finds it necessary to LIE when pressed on an issue.
    I have a feeling that things are gettin ready to pop over this BC issue……where there’s smoke there’s fire……and you could signal the entire indian nation with the smoke that risin off this one! Got a feeling the next couple of weeks are gonna get plum interestin…..;-)

  1398. Greek:
    I remember Senator Patrick Lehay speaking to Homeland Security Chief Chernoff concerning the definition of “natural born citizen” as person born on U.S. soil with two U.S. citizen parents. as per a video. Lehay, Clinton, Cochran (R) and McCoskey from Missouri signed onto SR-511. These people definitely know the situation, in my opinion. The Supreme Court definitely knows there is a problem. So, we are facing some kind of coup de’tat. A friend of mine has told me: “If it is true it is much bigger than Watergate.” Properly investigated, Obamagate could cause a great deal of trouble for the Congress, especially the Democrats. But everyone in effectual authority is passing the buck. Yet, America has to face the situation and Obama needs to most likely go to jail. The problem is Obama, but the much greater problem is American complacency, our unwillingness to confront evil, and our willingness to cover it up.
    As I have said in a prior post: The Founders would not put up with Obama for 15-minutes. He would be gone within the hour.

  1399. How can “We the People”, even know truth? There hasn’t been any broadcast of this subject on any news channels.
    Is this Obama citizenship thing for real? Are not, these questions asked before anyone is put on the ballot?
    If this is all a bunch of crap spread by those that don’t like blacks, and can’t stomach the thought of a black man as a leader , it is as bad as the concocted story itself.
    Until there are facts and unquestionable truth , we need to support our leader , we all need to get involved and help get this Country back in shape, for the future of our children,their children and so on.
    If,it is found to be true, that Barack H. Obama isn’t qualified, according to our Constitution , are we even prepare for that kind of outcome?
    How can we get this topic resolved a.s.a.p. ?
    We all need to work together here.

  1400. Been sittin here mulling this over and thought I’d throw this out in the mix, since it DOES pertain to the topic line of the birth certificate issue. Let’s take the BD issue first.
    The judge that does make said ruling will have to word his ruling so that any other judge will be very hesitant to overrule said ruling. In other words, he/she is going to have to make his/her ruling loophole safe, leaving Obama no other choice but to produce said evidence for verification/validation.
    Let’s just say, for arguments sake if for no other, that we all are made aware of the fact that Obama is indeed ineligible to hold the office of President. By this, I mean that a case has indeed been heard and a judge has indeed ruled to that premise. Can you just imagine the turmoil this country will find itself in?
    Anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, that can be considered to be a party to this deceit will be wide open to a lawsuit and if convicted, jail time.
    Any, and I do mean ANY, member of Congress, that can be proven to have been complicit in this matter, will be subject to trial and jail if convicted.
    Any member of the populace that can be proven to have been complicit in this matter will face similar action.
    Add to this mix the fact that there will be riots in the streets of this country like we have never seen. I would even venture to submit that there would be some sections of the cities in this country that would resemble the Gaza strip after a good Israeli carpet bombing!
    Our government will be in total chaos, all due to a guy with an ego so large he couldn’t come forth with an honest explanation (which should be sooooo easy to do IF there is nothing on any documentation that could hurt his image) for the America he claims to love so much.
    Like I have said before….gonna be a hell of a price to pay just to say we were “stylish”!
    Oh well……..rant over………….you may now return to your normal programming…….til next time! 😉

  1401. Hummmmm…now here is something I find interesting….the records are ‘sealed’ (surprise, surprise, surprise) so we can’t find out WHY…but take a look at this……
    In doing a search for attorney’s in Illinois we find the following information concerning Barack Hussein Obama…………………………………
    Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law – Last Registered Year: 2008
    Malpractice Insurance:
    (Current as of date of registration;
    consult attorney for further information) In annual registration, attorney reported that he/she does not have malpractice coverage. (Some attorneys, such as judges, government lawyers, and in-house corporate lawyers, may not carry coverage due to the nature of their practice setting.)
    The following information is readily available concerning Michelle Obama…….notice the difference…………………..
    Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law – Last Registered Year: 1993
    Malpractice Insurance:
    (Current as of date of registration;
    consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status
    Hummmmmm…….COURT ORDERED inactive status….wonder why that is? It’s obvious that Michelle really didn’t like practicing law all that much since, according to this, she hasn’t bothered to ‘practice’ her chosen profession since 1993, but COURT ORDERED?
    Just something else in the smoke and mirrors of these two that makes ya wonder..

  1402. Something tells me this is not about to ‘go away’ anytime soon……anyone seen this?
    Proof of Service To US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and FBI Chicago
    This was a subpoena for “records to be produced” are described as follows:
    “Per Executive Order from January 16, 2009, any and all documents relating to “fitness and determination” in regards to level of character and conduct necessary to perform work for or on behlf of a Federal Agency….continued with “Attachment 3”
    Attachment 3
    As per Executive Order: Granting Reciprocity on Excepted Service and Federal Contractor Employee Fitness and Reinvestigation Individuals in Positions of Public Trust, see attached, please provide copies of any and all records in regards to level of character and conduct necessary pertaining to Barack H. Obama, a/k/a Barry H. Obama, II a/k/a Barry Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro. These documents have direct relation to holding a Position of Public Trust.
    Documents to include:
    – Certified copy of original long vault birth certificate
    – Certified copies of any and all passports and passport applications held in the U.S., Indonesia, Great Britain and Kenya.
    – Certified copies of any and all school applications, school registrations, grant or student loan applications or funding received for Occidental College, Columbia University, Columbia College, Harvard University
    – Certified copies of any U.S. Port of Entry Records
    – Certified copies of any documentation pertaining to Social Security. Documentation showing multiple social security numbers being held
    – Certified copies of documentation showing a social security number being applied for in the state of Connecticut
    – Certified copies of immigration and naturalization records
    – Certified copies of any records showing legal name and name change.
    Delivered to “L. Dickerson” at 219 s. Dearborn St. Chicago, Illinois (5th Floor) on 1/26/09 at 1:38 pm:
    Delivered to “David Habitch” with the FBI’s Chicago headquarters office, 2111 West Roosevelt Road, Chicago, Illinois on 1/26/09 at 2:11 pm.
    Unfortunately, I don’t have a clue…therefore simply asking if anyone on this forum has any information regarding the above.
    Thanks

  1403. Sittin here reading these post, especially from those with prior military service (THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, by the way) and I am struck with one thought……………………………………
    It doesn’t look like any one of us has the least problem with owning up to our past record…………………………I wonder why Obama seems to have such a problem with this?
    Oh yeah………….USS Frank Knox (DD-742) 4 years….3 tours in Nam
    USS Gurke (DD-783) 8 months..home port change to Japan
    USS Chicago (CG-11) Operation RED CROWN for mining of
    Haiphong Harbor..17 MIGS shot down!

  1404. I’m with ya Bill!
    Hell, if I remember right, I had to supply the government all kinds of information when I joined up……………and I was just applying for the job of enlisted man!
    You would think that our COMMANDER IN CHIEF would have to supply at least what we did, wouldn’t you?
    I remember after joining the Navy my parents telling me that there were Navy personnel all over our neighborhood asking all the neighbors about my background…you would think that America would want at least the same background information on our President, right?
    Come on people…..WAKE UP!

  1405. Greek –
    61-65, West Pac.
    2 Aug 1964, USS Maddox, DD731, Gulf of Tonkin. RD3. 4 August as well.
    Hugh –
    Welcome aboard!
    Seems to me we need sideboys for this reunion.
    Let’s keep this thread going.
    I am not willing to let this go away.
    IF Obama is legit, so be it. If not, then get him out.
    Hey Greek,
    Just call me Bill. I got tagged with the Wild for who knows why.
    And let’s all keep our eyes on the ball. (Sorry, didn’t mean to bring up any court games that were not legally related).
    IMHO, there is more than sufficient reason to get this thing to the end. And I will stay until we get an answer.

  1406. Greek:
    I agree with “your story and sticking to it” 1000%. The Obama clan is like a swine crushing precious pearls.
    Wild Bill and Greek:
    My Dad was a RM2/c on two LSMs during WWII. His LSM-467’s Flag had 17-stars left on it when ravaged by a typhoon. I escaped Viet Nam service through college and high draft number 274. We Americans have paid a precious price for our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. We should never take their sacrifice lightly. Just go visit Arlington and the other National Cemeteries. Thanks for fighting for FREEDOM!
    Obama just does not get this!

  1407. Hey Wild Bill,
    As one sailor to another (Vietnam Vet here too………U.S. Navy 1965-72 with 4 tours in that hell hole) I ain’t about to abandon this ship. Further, I want to see ANYONE who would desire to stear my ‘Ship Of State’ onto the shoals KEELHAULED!
    In short, I ain’t about to go ANYWHERE ole buddy! 😉

  1408. Gentlemen –
    While I am not an attorney, I did work in law enforcement, albeit for a short time. Howerver, one thing I know is that it is not a matter or IF you will get caught, it is simply a matter of when. And in my primary career as an engineer, I had many dealings with attorneys.
    Berg is still working. Orly Taitz is still working. And, as I THINK I pointed out, there are numerous state cases pending.
    And since I was Navy in the Viet Nam era, I have a few naval observations such as:
    Don’t give up the ship.
    Also: Damn the torpedos. Full speed ahead.
    Not self, but country! Semper Fi!
    I may have been a squid, but I have a lot of grunt friends.
    Hey, Greek! Stick with me.

  1409. Rich,
    I’m reading from the link you provided with great interest. What I am finding (that is, gleaning from this) is that it seems to me that the law was used (by Obama etal – Defendant) to preclude having to provide the evidence sought by the Plaintiff Berg. Further, the judge in this matter, realizing that this would be a good way to ‘wash his hands of the matter’ readily grabbed for this ‘life preserver’ in order to not have to make a ruling.
    Let me explain my thought process here using the court document you provided the link to.
    Rule 12(b)(1) – Lack of Jurisdiction
    The court is saying that the pleadings of Defendant is facial. Without going into all the legal mumbo jumbo in essence the court then states, using Rule 12(b)(6) – Failure to State a Claim that this court must accept all factual allegations as true…..however, goes on to say The Court ‘may of its own initiative dismiss the claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted…….where the inadequacy of the complaint is apparent as a matter of law.
    I think that right here is the ‘fly in the ointment’ so to speak. I’d further be willing to bet that right here is where this judge saw his out and chose to use it!
    In short, it’s legal bullsh**! Hence my assertion, as stated above, that the law was used (and I contend here by both the defendant AND the judge) to circumvent the law.
    I know legally I am out in left field with that assumption, but there it is.
    Here’s my thinking………How can one take what another says as true without the preponderance of evidence having been examined? This judge based his rulings on nothing more that legalese, with no intention of having said defendant present evidence to the contrary.
    In short, he bailed!
    Now, on to this ‘standing’ issue……………………….
    Supplied document reads as follows………….(not quoted in it’s entirety)

    Judge Posner has framed the topic in the following way:…….It must at least resemble the type of lawsuit under traditional principles of common law or equity; it must therefore affect one’s possessions or bodily integrity or freedom of action, however expansively defined and not just one’s opinions, aspirations or ideology. It must in short be fairly describable as an injury personal to the plaintiff – a deprivation of his rights – rather than a concern with another’s injury.

    Now, taking this definition, wouldn’t it be fairly truthful in saying that the Plaintiff in this case (Berg) and by extension the entire voting public in America, had their rights deprived by having one of the candidates in this election (Obama) not being entirely ‘up front’ with the voting public?
    Add to the above, this. This judge went on to say in his renderings the following…(again, not quoted in it’ entirety)

    Because we dispose of Count One on jurisdictional grounds, we need not address….relief under the Natural Born Citizen Clause.

    Again, he bailed!
    Also this………………………….

    If you have no right to demand assistance the failure to assist you is not an injury that will support a federal suit, even though such failure may make the right you do have, which include the right of political advocacy, less fruitful in achieving your goals.

    Stay with me here for a minute and you will see where I am going with this………when electing any politician to any position, isn’t what we the voting public doing in essence hiring that individual to perform a specific task? I contend that the answer is “YES” and in so doing I (and others, including Berg) feel that said candidate should provide future employer (the voting public) with any and all evidence that they are indeed qualified and constitutionally eligible for the job they are seeking……hence, PRODUCE THE DAMNED BIRTH CERTIFICATE for verification and validation as to your claim of being who you say you are!
    I don’t think that’s asking too much. If a person does, maybe they shouldn’t be running for office in the first place!
    That’s just my contention…….simple really.
    What I (and a bunch of others) are saying here is that it’s time this system was FLUSHED DOWN IT’S OWN TOILET…clean it up! We are talking about OUR (each and every person in America) Constitution here…..a document that took from 1776 until 1787 (11 YEARS) for all founders to sign off on. It wasn’t written willy nilly but with extreme forethought because they KNEW that it would be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND that every American would live under.
    The Constitution of the United States is a document that is the envy of the entire world, admitted or not. As a Constitutionalists, I want to see it upheld!
    Given Obama’s (and the DNC by extension) actions in this matter (moving for motions to dismiss), I have some very high suspicions that they just don’t give a damn about the Constitution of the United States………..and I demand they be held accountable!
    That’s my story and I’m stickin to it!!!!! 😉

  1410. Greek,

    I don’t really think that EVERY lawyer that has ever filed, and been heard, has gone to the extreme of “working for a law firm that handles appeals to SCOTUS” before going before said court.

    That’s probably accurate, but it doesn’t make it a smart thing to do. A surgeon learns how to operate by acting as an assistant surgeon. How much experience could Taitz have gained in six years, when she spends most of her time in her dental practice and doing real estate? Her inexperience was never more clearly on display than when she claimed that when her petition was referred to a SCOTUS conference by Chief Justice Roberts it meant that he believed that there was a problem with the election. In fact, it meant no such thing. It was a routine referral. She got everyone excited with her claim that her case was the “strongest yet,” and that sort of talk just gets everyone set up for a huge letdown. People who understand how SCOTUS works knew that there was little or no chance that the court would grant her petition.
    Look, she has every right to appeal to SCOTUS. But if I were a plaintiff in a case going to the Supreme Court, I would want an experienced constitutional lawyer handling it for me.

  1411. Rich,
    Thanks for the reply. I will check out the link you provide. Sounds like it might be an interesting read since this ‘standing’ issue seems to be so clouded. You would think that in a case where the constitutional eligibility issue is at the forefront, there would be at least one person in this damned country that would have ‘standing’, but according to these JESTERS (sorry, but in my opinion that exactly what they are coming across as) not one person has yet met that criteria!
    Now that’s what I call amazing.
    Like I said Rich, we ARE talking about the President of the United States here…not some little abortion clinic in Podunk.
    Sorry…this just pisses me off to no end. I don’t really care WHAT the outcome is, I just want the damn evidence brought forth and so far Obama ain’t about to do that. There can only be ONE reason for his behavior.

  1412. Greek,

    Respectfully, again I disagree. I don’t believe SCOTUS is doing their job. Their ‘job’, as I see it, is to hear cases based on merit, NOT to “rule” (meaning in this instance to simply throw out) on a case without having actually heard the complete argument.

    I understand your point, but that is the way SCOTUS works. Yesterday SCOTUS denied cert on 98 cases, all without comment. Your argument suggests that there should be complete arguments on every appeal which is filed with SCOTUS. But SCOTUS has never worked that way, and in fact it could not function that way. 100 cases per week is 5200 cases in a year. There is no way that they could agreed to hear “complete arguments” on 5200 cases annually.
    In fact, the law says that SCOTUS cannot rule on the merits of a case if the plaintiff has no legal standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place. As the District Court judge in the Berg case noted, “Where a plaintiff cannot establish each of the three elements [for standing], the plaintiff does not have standing and the court does not have jurisdiction over the case and CANNOT RULE ON THE MERITS.”
    So, before SCOTUS could rule on the merits of these cases, it first has to be established that the plaintiff has standing to bring the lawsuit and that the court has jurisdiction. Until the plaintiff clears that hurdle, no court can rule on the merits of the case.
    If you’re up for some dry reading on the rules regarding standing, you might want to peruse Judge Surrick’s order in the Berg case.
    http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/pennsylvania/paedce/2:2008cv04083/281573/28/

  1413. Greek:
    Concerning:
    “Sooner or later, this SCOTUS is gonna have to take the bull by the horns and have one of these cases seated before it rather than just tossing them all, wouldn’t you think”
    I certainly hope so. But I have read that SCOTUS is in the Obama camp. Also, I have heard on Plains Radio that attorney Gary Kreep is planning to challenge Obama on every executive order and legislation. His plan is to flood the courts.
    I have started reading Edwin Vieira’s Constitutional Homeland Security, Vol. I, Nation in Arms. I purchased it for $19.95 M.O. directly from him, and he signed it for me since I noted that I had heard his interview on Plains Radio. This book turns upside down our concept of security and our WE THE PEOPLE rights.
    Juan said “I think Obama knows exactly what he is doing and he has extremely malicious intent.” I certainly agree! I do not think he or his goons have any good plans for America. We do not have the time to wait and see what Obama will do. “O’ lets just give Obama a chance” is just plain foolishnes! Obama has the capacity and now the usurped authority to do America and her citizens great harm. For this reason we must “dog Obama’s every move”. The Obama clan may think my position is extreme, but I remind them that Obama is extremely liberal. But conditions are such that they see “no problem”. In another post somewhere, I noted that our Founders would not put up with Obama for 15-minutes. I would rather be prepared and wrong than unprepared and right. If the Obama clan say they love America and her Constitution let them prove their loyalty or shut up!

  1414. “Trust by Verify”(Quote posted by Greek) That quote in itself is the “standing” for which any United States citizen has to question the eligibility of our once pres-elect and our now alleged Usurper.
    Obama has not verified his eligibility to be POTUS. All of his attempts to verify his citizenship have been lack luster in nature and have simply created mischief rather than certainty. Anyone who denies this is simply thinking of only themselves and or their political party.

  1415. Eddy wrote:

    The Greek is right though, I did only return to play mini-moderator. And I said what I wanted to say. Other than that I resist unproductive conversations strenuously so I guess I’m outta here. (There are actually a few productive conversations going on that I find more interesting.)
    Good luck!

    Just because you personally don’t agree on a point does not in and of itself render that point “unproductive” Eddy. To you maybe, but there are others in this conversation that might just have a differing opinion.
    This topic area proves my point. You insinuated early that this topic was ‘dead’, even going so far as to say that “most have abandonded this discussion”. However, you will notice that Robert and Rich obviously don’t think so (in the Obama “camp”) and the rest of us certainly don’t think so given our willingness to continue this discussion (in the Anti Obama “camp”).
    I respectively submit that this discussion is NOT abandoned. Just take a look for a minute…….YOU yourself once left with “Happy Trails” and “It’s been well…..fun”, and yet here you are once again. If I were a bettin man (which I have been known to do from time to time..;-)) I would be willing to venture that this topic area hasn’t heard the last from HighlanderJuan either.
    Therein lies my case in point. Good Luck to you also.

  1416. Rich wrote:

    Crazy Greek:
    IF that is your stance, I would have to ask you a very simple question…..”WHY?”
    I have looked at the available evidence, and I am satisfied that Obama was born in Hawaii. The people who are claiming that he is not a natural born citizen have no credibility. The have floated disproven theories, such as the one that it was illegal to travel to Pakistan in 1981, such as the one that he would have lost his U.S. citizenship if he was adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia — and today I saw a blog which claims that somebody has a copy of Obama’s PAKISTAN passport! So many allegations, so little evidence to support any of them.

    Once again, therein lies the problem, at least as far as those of us concerned with ALL the evidence. The only “available evidence” that has surfaced thus far is in question…by several sources. We do know that there is another piece of ‘evidence’ out there since the State of Hawaii has gone on record claiming that they have it on file.
    The problem here is simple….IF there is nothing on that piece of evidence Hawaii says is in their possession, what’s the problem with having it released for comparison and verification?
    Someone once said, Reagan I believe, “Trust but verify”…that’s all we are asking and since Obama has shown his unwillingness to produce said document which only he can have made public, there is DIStrust as to what information is on said document.
    Rich wrote:

    That’s easy. An attorney gets SCOTUS experience by going to work for a law firm which handles appeals to SCOTUS. That’s how an attorney learns how to properly frame a case, how to file a brief which actually makes sense, how NOT to file a brief which is replete with misstatements of fact and law. For example, one would expect that a “constitutional lawyer” would be aware of the Supreme Court rulings that a minor child cannot lose citizenship because of the actions of his or her parents. Of course she has the RIGHT to file appeals with SCOTUS, but if she wants to have a chance of success she should at least learn how to do it properly.

    Finally, I can agree with you Rich..on some of this. The fact is, she does have that RIGHT, and can exercise same. I don’t really think that EVERY lawyer that has ever filed, and been heard, has gone to the extreme of “working for a law firm that handles appeals to SCOTUS” before going before said court. I could be wrong here, but knowing lawyers, I would kinda doubt that one. 😉
    Rich wrote:

    And the Supreme Court actually is doing its job. SCOTUS receives thousands of cases each year. One part of the job is to separate the wheat from the chaff. And that is precisely what they have done with Berg, Wrotnowski, Donofrio, and now Lightfoot. There will be more lawsuits, more appeals, and more denials. None of these lawsuits are going anywhere.

    Respectfully, again I disagree. I don’t believe SCOTUS is doing their job. Their ‘job’, as I see it, is to hear cases based on merit, NOT to “rule” (meaning in this instance to simply throw out) on a case without having actually heard the complete argument.
    We all know that there is information that will come out during the actual session before the court that is not entered in the filing brief. There is always the possibility that one side can make case where the other side will possibly ‘stub it’s toe’, thereby opening a door to a whole range of possibilities not available before and therefore changing the entire outcome of a case.
    To simply throw something out, especially of this importance (we ARE talking about OUR Constitution here..NOT a jay walking case), without even being willing to examine any evidence which a case such as this might produce is simply foolish, IMHO, and tends to make one believe that our JESTERS are not ruling on case law but rather out of FEAR of what any findings brought before them in this matter might bring to light.
    Does that make sense?

  1417. Robert wrote:

    Wow. So you guys are STILL here? Don’t tell me you are surprised that no one is taking your “allegations” seriously???
    Seems to me that Carpetbagger Keyes is just about closest to the political center of anyone to believe in this issue, and that says ALOT about the types of people buying into this citizenship nonsense…

    Robert, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this. I don’t consider this to be “nonsense”, as you put it, when there is the possibility that someone is sitting in the oval office that is not constitutionally qualified to be there.
    IF this BC thing had been the only issue concerning Obama’s past that is clouded with smoke and mirrors, I might tend to agree with you. However, we all know that not to be the case. Since this is the only case being filed thus far with any possibility of seeing an actual document that could prove/disprove, I think the American public has a RIGHT to see that document.

  1418. Wild Bill wrote:

    Crazy Greek –
    Thanks for your efforts – and I’ll do what I can. Looks like we are in the same camp.

    Thanks to you also Bill. Like I said, the campfire may be dwindling in our “camp”, but where there is smoke there is always the possibility of fire……fire in the form of SCOTUS actually doing their job and having at least one of these cases before it instead of just tossing each one.

  1419. Hugh wrote:

    Hello Greek:
    You post concerning Dr. Orly is right on! The main problem is the Court Jesters. Many a great lawyer has submitted cases to SCOTUS and been denied. The denials say more about the Jesters as a whole then the lawsuits since the merits of the cases have not been allowed full recourse.

    Agreed Hugh. Although the campfire may be dwindling in this discussion, there is still a little spark left and it will continue to burn until this matter is resolved…and we all know there is only one way that will ever happen.
    Sooner or later, this SCOTUS is gonna have to take the bull by the horns and have one of these cases seated before it rather than just tossing them all, wouldn’t you think?

  1420. Hugh–
    You told Wild Bill that you were responding to me…I don’t see any comments from you directed to me. I’m guessing it must be the post that you addressed “Hello Greek”. No wonder this discussion doesn’t go anywhere.
    The Greek is right though, I did only return to play mini-moderator. And I said what I wanted to say. Other than that I resist unproductive conversations strenuously so I guess I’m outta here. (There are actually a few productive conversations going on that I find more interesting.)
    Good luck!

  1421. Wild Bill,

    So Rich, why would Dr. Keyes use Dr. Taitz as his representative if she is so inexperienced?

    Probably because she was willing to take the case. Don’t you think that there are some highly experienced constitutional lawyers in California? Why haven’t they offered to represent Keyes? It may have something to do with the fact that they want to preserve their reputations.
    Heck, it isn’t even clear that Keyes is paying her, since she is soliciting money on her blog.

  1422. Crazy Greek:

    IF that is your stance, I would have to ask you a very simple question…..”WHY?”

    I have looked at the available evidence, and I am satisfied that Obama was born in Hawaii. The people who are claiming that he is not a natural born citizen have no credibility. The have floated disproven theories, such as the one that it was illegal to travel to Pakistan in 1981, such as the one that he would have lost his U.S. citizenship if he was adopted by his stepfather in Indonesia — and today I saw a blog which claims that somebody has a copy of Obama’s PAKISTAN passport! So many allegations, so little evidence to support any of them.

    As for you comment about Orly Taitz being “inexperienced”, what does that have to do with anything. Where else is she supposed to gain ‘experience’ of going before SCOTUS, other than to go before SCOTUS in the first place. Where else would you have her go for the ‘experience credentials’ you would demand.

    That’s easy. An attorney gets SCOTUS experience by going to work for a law firm which handles appeals to SCOTUS. That’s how an attorney learns how to properly frame a case, how to file a brief which actually makes sense, how NOT to file a brief which is replete with misstatements of fact and law. For example, one would expect that a “constitutional lawyer” would be aware of the Supreme Court rulings that a minor child cannot lose citizenship because of the actions of his or her parents. Of course she has the RIGHT to file appeals with SCOTUS, but if she wants to have a chance of success she should at least learn how to do it properly.
    And the Supreme Court actually is doing its job. SCOTUS receives thousands of cases each year. One part of the job is to separate the wheat from the chaff. And that is precisely what they have done with Berg, Wrotnowski, Donofrio, and now Lightfoot. There will be more lawsuits, more appeals, and more denials. None of these lawsuits are going anywhere.

  1423. Wow. So you guys are STILL here? Don’t tell me you are surprised that no one is taking your “allegations” seriously???
    Seems to me that Carpetbagger Keyes is just about closest to the political center of anyone to believe in this issue, and that says ALOT about the types of people buying into this citizenship nonsense…

  1424. Wild Bill:
    I was responding to Eddy who seems to be in the Obama camp. I am also in camp with the Greek in this matter!

  1425. Crazy Greek –
    Thanks for your efforts – and I’ll do what I can. Looks like we are in the same camp.

  1426. Hugh –
    MY point was that Dr. Taitz isn’t done yet – even at the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS is still open to her latest.
    California is DEFINITELY still open.
    As are several other state cases on this issue.

  1427. Hello Greek:
    You post concerning Dr. Orly is right on! The main problem is the Court Jesters. Many a great lawyer has submitted cases to SCOTUS and been denied. The denials say more about the Jesters as a whole then the lawsuits since the merits of the cases have not been allowed full recourse.

  1428. Eddy,
    Thanks for your reply, although I find you diatribe a bit, shall we say, self inflated?
    Here, I’m going to refer specifically to your item #12………
    Eddy wrote:

    IMHO, you have no allegiance to Warren or to this blogsite. In fact, I doubt you know very little about him. You haven’t stepped outside this particular topic to meet the other members of Warren’s very interesting and very diverse blog family.

    I was not aware that “allegiance to Warren or to this blogsite” was REQUIRED in order for one to be able to post here. If YOU want to consider this “family”, that’s a wonderful thing but to me it’s not ‘family’ but rather a site for political discussion….period.
    Regarding your item #4…………
    Eddy wrote:

    Due to your tendency to see conspiracies, I wanted you to know that, sometimes, when the conversation goes off-topic, Warren simply closes it down. (I know of one, perhaps two, that have been closed in the past month or two.

    MY ‘tendency to see conspiracies’? WTF do you come up with THAT one? Laughable!
    Personally, since we are going in that direction, I don’t see where what I posted was going ‘off topic’ as you allude to for the reasons stated in answer to your statement regarding same. Further, since you freely admit to NOT being one of Warren’s chosen ‘moderators’, I would think the prudent thing to do when joining a blog conversation would be to leave your “pet peeves” in your own closet.
    In short, no one really cares what another persons “pet peeve” is on a blog. We ain’t here to try and walk on egg shells while around you so as not to upset you when mentioning something that you might consider a “pet peeve”.
    Your conceit is only surpassed by your arrogance.
    As I suggested previously, how bout us lettin Warren decide…since it is HIS forum!
    If Warren wants to kill the thread, I won’t have a problem with it. These things ain’t exactly my sole reason for waking up each day. ROFLMFAO

  1429. BTW, Dr. Orly Taitz, who has been practicing law in California for the past 7 years, is representing Dr. Alan Keyes, former Ambassador Keyes, in another suit that was just recently filed in California.
    So Rich, why would Dr. Keyes use Dr. Taitz as his representative if she is so inexperienced?

  1430. Oh Crazy–
    1) Your new comments pop up on the recent comments. Since there’s been a big change recently…the inauguration…I checked in to see if there was anything new or pertinent being said related to the topic.
    2) Since Warren has posted dozens of topics since this one he can’t always check in on every thread. Just as I posted when Highlander was being called a liar, I posted again this morning. Yes, my hopes were to draw Warren’s attention to what could start happening here. I have zero power but I’m respected as a caring, rational and intuititive participant. I draw things to Warren’s attention and leave the responses up to him. (LOL. That’s why I know about things like the occasional glitches that had several throwing tantrums at the moderator. Trying to regain credibility after a tantrum is often tricky.)
    3) But, in the process, I thought I’d be a nice guy and advise you of the best way to get a focussed discussion underway—with a few participants. In case you haven’t noticed, most everyone has abandoned this ‘discussion’.
    4) Due to your tendency to see conspiracies, I wanted you to know that, sometimes, when the conversation goes off-topic, Warren simply closes it down. (I know of one, perhaps two, that have been closed in the past month or two.
    5) Personally, I hope that he does…but I wanted you to have a sense of why if and when it closes.
    6) Despite several hints over the course of this topic’s duration that there are other Obama topics, you all seemed to be stuck here and, as with most topics that go beyond 200 posts, the conversation has taken a number of mini-detours.
    7) After Highlander left, there were several days of no comments. I presumed the topic had finally run its course. But then two of you posted with Obama criticisms that seemed to have no relation to the topic other than the name “Obama”.
    8) If that’s all it takes, then this beast could stay alive for the next four to eight years.
    9) Since your comments do pop under ‘recent comments’, readers both old and new are getting an impression of the overall tone of Warren’s site simply from the realization that a 2 to 3 month old topic simply won’t die a natural death.
    10) I occasionally refer people to this site based largely on its credibility. IMHO, this unending diatribe may in fact impact the integrity of the site’s reputation.
    11) I already know of one regular reader who has simply ‘disconnected’ from the site due to ‘the political stuff that has gone on way too long’.
    12) IMHO, you have no allegiance to Warren or to this blogsite. In fact, I doubt you know very little about him. You haven’t stepped outside this particular topic to meet the other members of Warren’s very interesting and very diverse blog family.
    13) As I stated way earlier among the comments, ‘going off topic’ is one of my pet peeves. If the detour is worth talking about, how would someone know to look for those comments here? Please don’t feel picked on, I’ve commented on several other topics when I felt they strayed too far.
    14) I consciously refused to address the specifics of your comment and hoped that my comment would deter others from taking the bait. Might not be able to convince you or Wild Bill that Warren sees value in focussed discussion but hoped I could persuade any others.
    LOL. You asked ‘whaddya think?’ There you have it.

  1431. Rich,
    Question for ya here…….are you saying that you have absolutely NO problems at all with your President’s failure to ‘come clean’ over this issue? Are you saying that you are perfectly alright with this issue as it stands, based on the fact that you have been ‘right’ each and every time?
    IF that is your stance, I would have to ask you a very simple question…..”WHY?”
    As for you comment about Orly Taitz being “inexperienced”, what does that have to do with anything. Where else is she supposed to gain ‘experience’ of going before SCOTUS, other than to go before SCOTUS in the first place. Where else would you have her go for the ‘experience credentials’ you would demand. Taken a bit further, wouldn’t this mean that there would NEVER be a lawyer that would meet your demand for ‘experience’ since ALL lawyers must, by definition, submit at least one case before SCOTUS in order to claim ‘experience’ and if this is true, then there could NEVER be a case brought before SCOTUS because NO lawyer would ever be able to claim the ‘experience’ factor if they had never been able to submit a case to the Supreme Court?
    I know that sounds a bit far fetched, but just what would be YOUR parameters for someone to be able to bring a case before said court?
    Seems this is a little bit of ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ type situation. 😉
    Experience be hanged. She has just as much right as any other lawyer to try and get her case heard. The fact that our current crop of JESTERS are refusing to do their job shouldn’t change that fact one iota!

  1432. You know what amazes me about all this?
    It’s a simple frickin request………”let everyone see the vault copy of your birth certificate that Hawaii purports to have on file”.
    Why in the world would someone have a problem with producing a copy of that certificate. Heck, if someone were asking me for a copy of mine I wouldn’t have ANY problem with showing them ANY copy they would desire to see.
    What the heck is Obama’s problem………IF he has nothing to hide? WHY would he want this taken to court, time after time, in the hopes of someone finally filing the lawsuit with the right wording or whatever that the courts would find to have met the ‘standing rule’, IF he is so open and “transparent” (I believe that’s the word Obama used, isn’t it?) about his past?
    The answer is really very SIMPLE………Obama is nothing more than a LIAR and is willing to throw OUR Constitution and anything else he can get his hands on, under that bus in order to achieve what he wants……………..nothing more than POWER to feed his ARROGANT EGO!
    THAT’S what this is all about when you get down to the nut cuttin of the issue.
    Maybe Jessie Jackson wasn’t far off the mark is his remark about cuttin Obama after all! 😉

  1433. Wild Bill,
    Orly Taitz is an inexperienced attorney who is in way over her head. I have seen better-written briefs prepared by law students.
    Consider this. She first submitted her petition to Justice Kennedy, who denied it. She then resubmitted it to Chief Justice Roberts, who had it distributed for conference. At that point Taitz made a big deal about it being distributed for conference, saying that it meant that Roberts was going to give her a full hearing, etc. Of course it meant nothing of the kind and was strictly a routine distribution.
    Now, at this point Kennedy had already denied her petition. It was a given that Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer were not going to want to grant her petition. That left four justices who might be willing to take her case — Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. So what does Taitz do? She asks Roberts to recuse himself, leaving her with only three justices who might even think about taking her case! What an idiotic move that was!
    As I said before, I wouldn’t hire Orly Taitz to handle a personal injury lawsuit, must less a Constitutional case. I’m sure that she will continue to file lawsuits as long as there are enough suckers out there willing to finance her, but they are doomed to failure. I’ve been saying this all along, and I have been proven correct every time.

  1434. Thanks, Crazy Greek.
    And for those who don’t normally look at Dr. Orly Taitz’s site, the top two articles are worth reading. Lightfoot is not over and done with.

  1435. Eddy wrote:

    Please take note of the topic:
    Berg vs Obama: Response to Supreme Court due December 1
    If you’ve got other topics re President Obama that you think the blog should discuss, you can send a ‘heads up’ to Warren for consideration. Otherwise, it’s customary here to try to stick with the topic.

    While I hate to take issue with you over this one Eddy, I think I will.
    Aren’t you the one who was gonna LEAVE this forum awhile back with Happy Trails and It’s been well……..fun?
    NOW, you want to come on here and play ‘moderator’?
    I think my post has EVERYTHING to do with the topic line, since the provisions enacted directly ARE related to Obama and his run for the Presidency.
    Since Obama’s winning the office, I feel that the inactions are ALSO DIRECTLY RELATED to someone being in office that hasn’t fully answered the question of his constitutional eligibility.
    Perhaps we should just let Warren make the decision here, otherwise I guess we could ALL be considered ‘moderators’ of HIS forum.
    Whaddya think?

  1436. Please take note of the topic:
    Berg vs Obama: Response to Supreme Court due December 1
    If you’ve got other topics re President Obama that you think the blog should discuss, you can send a ‘heads up’ to Warren for consideration. Otherwise, it’s customary here to try to stick with the topic.

  1437. Does anyone want to give their opinion on just how many ILLEGAL ALIENS, that are currently (supposedly) being investigated by the INS with a case (again supposedly) “making it’s way through the legal system” for failure to leave the country when told to do so by a sitting judge, would show up at a Presidential Inauguration and attend the Inaugural Ball?

    Despite the deportation order, Onyango traveled to Washington last week for her nephew’s inauguration. News organizations observed her attending an inaugural ball at Washington’s Renaissance Mayflower Hotel, a historic luxury hotel, with her immigration lawyer, Margaret Wong.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090126/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_aunt
    Am I missing something here?
    How about a little help from the law enforcement types here…………wouldn’t the FACT that someone purposely DISOBEYED a judge’s order to get out of the country for OVER 4 YEARS, make them a FUGUTIVE, since they did not try and appeal that order until caught?
    Again….am I missing something here?
    I have a feeling that we are setting ourselves up for a dangerous precedent here. If this is allowed to stand, wouldn’t it therefore mean that every illegal from south of our border, or from anywhere else, can just thumb their noses at our judicial orders until caught and ONLY THEN appeal that decision? I always thought that there was a time limit on filing appeals…..am I wrong?
    Oh wait….I think I understand…….in THIS case, this person MUST HAVE STANDING with our court system right? (It’s a joke, ok?) 😉
    Kinda makes ya feel warm all over, don’t it?
    ROFLMFAO

  1438. President Barack Obama advised Republican leaders Friday that they shouldn’t be listening to Rush Limbaugh if they plan on getting along with him.
    “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told the GOP leaders, according to a report in the New York Post, in the midst of discussions on his planned $1 trillion stimulus package.

    The comments came during the same meeting in which Obama told Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., that his plan would be getting pushed through because “I won,” according to aides briefed on the meeting.
    “I will trump you on that,” he added as Cantor was discussing his problems with the stimulus legislation.
    “We just have a difference here, and I’m president,” Obama continued

    Then the article goes on to say…….

    Emanuel said Obama was being lighthearted and that lawmakers from both parties laughed. Cantor later agreed that the comment was made with no ill intent.

    I wouldn’t buy that, especially coming from the likes of “They’re DEAD..DEAD..DEAD” Emanuel OR Obama.
    http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_rush_limbaugh/2009/01/25/175082.html?s=al&promo_code=789E-1
    Like a snot nosed little kid……….you don’t play my way and I’m gonna take my marbles and go home………Yeah….THAT’S what we have for a President!

  1439. Wild Bill wrote:

    ………but in the meantime, is anyone, other than me, concerned that the BOGUS POTUS is putting together a quote stimulus plan unquote that ain’t gonna help?

    Think you hit the nail right on the head ole buddy. This “stimulus package” he’s talkin about will take at least 5 YEARS before having ANY kind of impact on middle America……..but you can bet your boots it will definitely ‘help’ those that contributed to his campaign and inaugural party!
    The guys a joke!
    Our only hope is that someone keeps after this clown and eventually the truth WILL come out…either for OR against……that’s all anyone is really asking.

  1440. Ladies and gentlemen –
    My desire is that we get to the bottom of this discussion, but in the meantime, is anyone, other than me, concerned that the BOGUS POTUS is putting together a quote stimulus plan unquote that ain’t gonna help?
    In addition to which the BOGUS POTUS will probably try to impose regulation on our discussions? Possibly our right to defend ourselves?
    Stay together. Stay focused. It is America, and I am an American. Forget the other countrys that I could claim.
    We still deserve an answer, but, while that is pending, don’t ignore the other important issues that confront our members in Congress.
    Write them.

  1441. Crazy Greek,

    The problem, as I see it, anytime one is participating in these ‘blog discussions’ is that we have (each of us) pretty much made up our minds about the subject at hand and it is gonna take some pretty strong evidence in favor of the other side of the discussion to get us to change our minds.

    On that point I agree with you.
    My main point is that you guys are like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills. SCOTUS is going to deny the Lightfoot petition, just as it has denied Berg, Wrotnowski, and Donofrio. You can bank on it — check Monday’s orders, and they will say that the Lightfoot petition has been denied. It is as certain as the sun rising. No court is going to allow Orly Taitz or any other attorney to go on a fishing expedition into Obama’s past, and particularly so in the case of lawyers whose briefs are replete with misstatements of fact and law (e.g., I see that Taitz is still making the bogus claim that it was illegal for U.S citizens to travel to Pakistan in 1981).
    However, I expect the lawsuits to continue as long as there are enough gullible people out there who are willing to contribute to the cause.

  1442. Eddy wrote:

    I simply can’t imagine why Highlander couldn’t hear the concern that others have for our Constitution. I know that I do. I also know that I posted several times about entrusting this matter to officials who were elected to protect and defend the Constitution. I recall feeling quite passionate about that and I thought that came out in my words. I did though have the feeling that my words were falling on deaf ears. That might account for it.

    Eddy…just yakkin with ya here now, but I think Juan’s disgust was not necessarily with you, but with a couple of others that come on here with the ‘know it all…ah hell, he (someone others have linked to) don’t know nothin’ type attitude. That, plus the fact of never willing to answer but always asking for verification.
    Heck, one man’s ‘verification’ is another man’s hoopla! We all have sources we believe in and a lot of times those sources are exactly opposite one another in their thinking. That’s what makes for good discussion, at least in my view. This, I believe, goes to your points/counter points area of concern. Just because someone’s ‘source’ doesn’t necessarily agree with another person perspective doesn’t make that source “wrong” and free game for ridicule, and that goes for both sides.
    The problem, as I see it, anytime one is participating in these ‘blog discussions’ is that we have (each of us) pretty much made up our minds about the subject at hand and it is gonna take some pretty strong evidence in favor of the other side of the discussion to get us to change our minds.
    Evidence this in this discussion regarding the Obama BC. One side thinks that Obama is telling the truth and is unwilling to ask for verification while the other side is just as sure that Obama wouldn’t know the truth if it hit him in the face. Each side has their reasons for their beliefs. I don’t think either side is gonna change the others point of view unless something surfaces that proves, beyond a doubt, that one side or the other is absolutely correct.
    The truth is, as you stated, indeed out there. The question is, have we already seen it or is it yet to be revealed?

  1443. I simply can’t imagine why Highlander couldn’t hear the concern that others have for our Constitution. I know that I do. I also know that I posted several times about entrusting this matter to officials who were elected to protect and defend the Constitution. I recall feeling quite passionate about that and I thought that came out in my words. I did though have the feeling that my words were falling on deaf ears. That might account for it.
    I also recall seeing lots of points and counterpoints. Early on, I provided a link to FactCheck only to discover that ‘the other side’ roundly rejected FactCheck as a credible source while many of their new links came from sources like ObamaCrimes. I never could figure out why it was we were supposed to give those ideas their due when we could ignore FactCheck. Incredibly, it seemed that later on, ‘the other side’ was now alluding to the very FactCheck piece that I had first referenced. That’s when I became convinced that this thread had resorted to posturing rather than actual dialogue.
    In the words of the X-Files: The truth is out there. Even as this conversation dies, the truth goes marching on. Whether it’s my truth or someone else’s…or perhaps a blending of the two…the truth is still out there.

  1444. Just once, I’d like to hear you guys express some concern for the Constitution. I never hear it. Don’t you care?
    From my point of view, there is no actual discussion going on here. I make my points, someone comes along to discredit me and my sources. No pint, counterpoint. No discussion. We are a forum divided.
    I don’t want to waste anyone’s time, including my own, so, I’m going to say bye bye. Just like Eddy did, although for different reasons. I am not a missionary, and I don’t like turning the other cheek. I like growth and I like progress, neither of which seem to be happening here.
    Have a good one.

  1445. Just so we know that the following are opinions. There is not, as yet, any reliable evidence that these are facts:
    Highlander Juan said:

    but he is not the 44th president. He is an usurper who has committed a horrible fraud on our nation. Someone or a number of people knew years ago that his citizenship would become an issue and began greasing the skids to pull off this fraud…….

    LOL. I won’t ask for backup. The vagueness of ‘Someone or a number of people” is a clear indicator that this one is opinion only. And I actually don’t think there’s more than a handful of readers left but–just in case–didn’t want something that reads like facts to actually be interpreted as facts when it’s really just strongly stated opinion.

  1446. Another great article by Devvy Kidd:
    No, we don’t have a new president
    The A-list stars from Hollywood were out in full regalia to celebrate history: the first African American president. Barack Hussein Obama aka and so forth, is the first mulatto to run for president, but he is not the 44th president. He is an usurper who has committed a horrible fraud on our nation. Someone or a number of people knew years ago that his citizenship would become an issue and began greasing the skids to pull off this fraud…….
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd430.htm

    1. Devvy Kidd is a joke. If you would do a little independent research of your own, instead of simply relying on the word of right-wing nutjobs like her, you would know that what she says about Michelle Obama, for example, is totally false.
      Michelle Obama was not ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court to stop practicing law. She is officially listed as “voluntarily inactive.” “Voluntary” by definition means that it was her choice. In 1993 she went to work as Executive Director for the Chicago office of Public Allies, a non-profit organization encouraging young people to work on social issues in nonprofit groups and government agencies. She was not working as an attorney, and she has not worked as an attorney since 1993, so she allowed her registration to lapse.
      It happens all the time. Attorneys go into another line of work, or move to another state, and they allow their registrations to lapse. Barack Obama likewise is now listed as “voluntarily inactive” by the State of Illinois.
      Why you would give any credence to a person who is so loose with the facts is a mystery to me.

        1. Highland Juan,

          I think you’re just prejudiced against Texas redheads.
          Is that true?

          Actually, I have a niece who is a Texas redhead! She grew up in Plano and is a graduate of UT-Austin.
          However, I am prejudiced against Texas redheads who just make up stuff in order to make a point. Although didn’t Devvy Kidd run for Congress in California,? Maybe she’s originally from Texas.

  1447. Well……it didn’t take long, now did it? Obama’s first official day in office and this?
    It’s gonna be a loooonnnnngggggg 4 years, that’s for sure!
    On orders from Obama, a federal judge has suspended the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the avowed mastermind of the Sept. 11 plot, and four other accused al-Qaeda members!
    This is the guy that PLANNED the MURDER of 3000 innocent civilians, and Obama SUSPENDS the trial which was scheduled to get started in Gitmo!
    What a freakin IDIOT!!
    I hope you Obama supporters are proud of you boy now!!

  1448. Clestes:
    You say
    “You are obessing about something that you need not. Justice Roberts isn’t worried or evening thinking about the frivolous Obama lawsuits. Really, he isn’t.”
    I say
    When did talk last with Chief Justice John Roberts? Are you aware of all the meditations of his mind, his heart? Are you acquainted with the other Justices as well? Really!

  1449. Eddy:
    Juan is referring to “We” Constitutionalists as Hugh, the Greek and himself according to the context of his note!

  1450. You are obessing about something that you need not. Justice Roberts isn’t worried or evening thinking about the frivolous Obama lawsuits. Really, he isn’t.
    Think about it for a moment.
    1.) Ann Durham was born in KS. That is an undisputed fact. Under US law, as I said previously, by the virtue of her citizenship, she bestowed to her son his US natural born citizenship. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THIS FACT.
    This alone guarentees all questions about president Obama’s natural citizenship to be moot.
    2.) Hawaii Dept of Health has already vouched for the presence of a legit birth certificate that says he was born in Honolulu in 1961.
    3.) None of the court cases filed has withstood the test of standing. They have ALL BEEN TOSSED out of court.
    The writ of cert heard on 1/9 was denied on 1/12 and the injunction heard on 1/16 will be denied as well. These motions can not stand up the the rule of law that says a suit must have standing to be heard.
    Justice Roberts objectivity isn’t in danger one way or the other!
    I think you all must just enjoy getting together and dreaming up stories about impossible situations that have no relation to reality.
    I am not putting you down in anyway here. I think you have great imaginations and should think about writing short stories instead of writing on blogs.

    1. Like I said, you’re entitled to your opinion. Just remember there are people who disagree with you.

  1451. It’s inauguration day….I thought I’d check in.
    Highlander I’m glad you found a ‘we’, do they have a name? (You went ‘we’ three times in the last two paragraphs of your latest post; is this ‘we’ yet identified by name or by cause as yet?)

  1452. Juan:
    I agree with you 1,000%. Robert’s objectivity certainly is suspect.
    I think it was Rich who replied to me “…I have dismissed the notion of Obama Sr’s. Kenyan birth meaning anything.” Obama Sr. never naturalized in the America so where does that leave Obama II even if he was born in Hawaii? According to Donofrio’s analysis of Presidents past, that disqualifies Obama Jr. If indeed Obama is born in Kenya, that means he would need to naturalize and take on oath for basic United States citizenship.
    In a prior post I raised this scenario, based on facts:
    I have a friend born in Indonesia whose Dad was also born in Indonesia. My friend obtained his green card, gained his United States citizen.
    Assuming the Obama II was born in Kenya (which I believe) what is the difference in my friend’s situation and Obama’s?
    This makes it all important the we see Obama original vault copy certified!
    So, there is a chance that Obama is not even a United States citizen, much less natural born.
    Yet, the Obama clan dismisses the natural born citizen and birth certificate issue as totally without merit. But in my opinion, they are vitally tied together, and when we (you, the Greek and me) challenge the lack of real irrefutable evidence there are a multitude of complaints.
    The basic problem I have with the Obama clan is their refusal to face the Truth.

  1453. According to US law, anyone who has one parent born in the US is a natural born citizen. President Obama’s mother was born in KS, ergo, President Obama was given natural born citizenship upon his birth.
    IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE IN THE WORLD HE WAS BORN.
    This is much ado about nothing. No matter how many lawsuits are filed or how much quibbling naysayers do, it will not matter. There isn’t a chance, and I do mean ZERO chance, that President Obama is ever going to be asked to produce anything. Not because he is president, but because there is NO LEGAL STANDING for him to be asked.
    Why do you birth certificates conspiraists think every lawsuit has been thrown out of court?? None of them have standing. Not now, not ever.
    In 4 years when he runs for re-election, you can try again but the outcome won’t be any different.

    1. Clestes,
      Thank you for the response.
      At this point in time, with Roberts having administered the oath, I am concerned about his objectivity regarding the cases that find their way to his purview. He has knowingly administered the oath of office to a man who would not verify his NBC status publicly. This has never happened before. Obama is just the opposite of what he promises, including transparency. He is NOT transparent.
      Regarding the natural born citizenship status, I’m certain you have been watching the discussion herein and are aware that there are opposing views of the definition of NBC. Yours is one. Better men than me, but also including me, have declared otherwise. It’s too late to restart that conversation.
      BTW, we are not birth certificate conspirators – you can call us Constitutional pinkos, or law enforcement, or whatever makes you feel comfortable, but we believe in the absoluteness of the Constitution, and are concerned with the conformance to the law of the land by our own public officials. They have shown themselves to be lawless and self-serving, and you should be wary of them – they aren’t on your team.
      We wish more people thought lawfully like us because we would have fewer problems facing us right now, and certainly no crises.
      Have a nice day.

  1454. Juan:
    I agree! A person born in the United States with two American parents is a natural born citizen. Naturalized implies a process to arrive at citizenship. Natural born is a self-evident fact. The Obama clan keeps trying to merge natural born into the 14th Amendment and U.S. Code 1401. I cannot get it to fit.

  1455. Juan:
    I agree! A person born in the United States with two American citizens is a natural born citizen. Naturalized implies a process to gain citizenship. Natural born is a self-evident fact. the Obama clan seems to always want to merge the 14th Amendment and then1401 U.S. Code with natural born. I cannot get them to merge.

  1456. 14th Amendment
    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
    Does “naturalized” in this respect mean natural born citizen?

  1457. Rich:
    Concerning your reply: “You keep ignoring the fact that Hawaii requires that every COLB issued by the state has to include the city and county of birth. A person born in a foreign country can’t get a Hawaii COLB which says that the person was born in Hawaii. If Obama had been born in Kenya, his Hawaii COLB would say so. But it doesn’t. It says that he was born in Honolulu.”
    I refer you to Sandra Ramsey Lines, a Forensic Document Examiner who has examined Ron Polarik’s work, which includes the folded COLB with the certificate number 151-1961-10641.
    “I have reviewed the attached affidavit posted on the internet from “Ron Polarik,” [PDF] who has declined to provide his name because of a number of death threats he has received. After my review and based on my years of experience, I can state with certainty that the COLB presented on the internet by the various groups, which include the “Daily Kos,” the Obama Campaign, “Factcheck.org” and others cannot be relied upon as genuine. Mr. Polarik raises issues concerning the COLB that I can affirm. Software such as Adobe Photoshop can produce complete images or alter images that appear to be genuine; therefore, any image offered on the internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.
    Upon a cursory inspection of the internet COLB, one aspect of the image that is clearly questionable is the obliteration of the Certificate No. That number is a tracking number that would allow anyone to ask the question, “Does this number refer to the Certification of Live Birth for the child Barack Hussein Obama II?” It would not reveal any further personal information; therefore, there would be no justifiable reason for oliterating it.
    “In my experience as a forensic document examiner, if an original of any document exists, that is the document that must be examined to obtain a definitive finding of genuineness or non-genuineness. In this case, examination of the vault birth certificate for President-Elect Obama would lay this issue to rest once and for all.”
    My source for the above is http://www.investigatingobama.blogspot.com/
    Sandra Ramsey Lines realizes that original document examination can only prove the authenticity of a document.

    1. Greek,
      Really good site. I expect that you will find mostly conservatives will be the signers. I think the left really hates America and wants to see our country end as a republic and democracy.
      Thanks for the link.
      Juan

  1458. Ok….here’s an open question for the Obama supporters.
    Can any one of you give us a good reason WHY a person would not want to release their school records for verification? ANY REASON AT ALL?
    Consider this………we are talking about the position of President of the United States and Obama’s wanting to have access to ANY records of his past hidden.
    PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
    Please site for us ANY ONE INSTANCE where, should a person be applying for the position of DOCTOR at any hospital in the United States where their prior school records would NOT have to be made available.
    Please site for us ANY ONE INSTANCE where, should a person be applying for the position of NURSE at any hospital in the United States where their prior school records would NOT have to be made available.
    Your PROBLEM is………………….you CANNOT!
    My wife is a nurse and works for agencies. At EVERY agency and EVERY hospital that she has ever worked at, she has had to provide them with a copy of her nursing license and PROOF of where she received her schooling!
    She also has to TEST AND RENEW that license EVERY TWO YEARS!
    Now, next question, please give us your reasoning WHY you would not expect the same from someone who is applying for the most powerful position in the world? Also, give us ONE GOOD REASON WHY you feel that Obama should be granted leave of doing so.
    This is ALL we are asking of the man…………..PROOF of who he says he is and PROOF of his educational background, which in turn would make us the VOTING PUBLIC realize the qualifications of the person we are electing to be our next President.
    I’m willing to bet that most of us, Obama supporters included, spend more time seeking out what we deem to be a QUALIFIED person to be the Vet for our animals than the voting public, or Congress, or SCOTUS has invested in finding out anything regarding Obama’s background.
    Sad the level the country’s citizenry has stooped to in order to say we were “stylish” and elected the first black man President! There WILL BE a price to pay for our “stylishness”, believe me. Problem is, it’s not just Obama that is gonna pay…it is EACH AND EVERY AMERICAN that is gonna have to take a bite of this sandwich…and I think you know they type of ‘sandwich’ I’m referring to.

  1459. Another thing to remember when considering McCain’s and Obama’s non-NBC status or whenever that 1790 law is raised, is that it was very short-lived. A lot of commentary mentions the 1790 law and LEAVES OUT the 1795 REPEALER.
    Useful links are …
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227
    which provided this language from 1790:

    “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”

    and then this link
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=538
    in which we find that the entire Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) was repealed by the Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414) and the relevant clause was re-rendered to read:

    “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as Citizens”

  1460. U.S. Citizenship is different that natural Born Citizenship. Neither could be POTUS.

    Wanna bet?
    Your idea relies on some sort of third track of citizenship that does not exist- sorry about that. There are only two kinds:
    1- Natural born; and
    2- Naturalized.

  1461. Rich:
    Concerning your words:
    “And your evidence that a Hawaii COLB has no legal standing is — what? The State of Hawaii says that it meets all legal requirements, the State Department says that it meets all legal requirements for obtaining a U.S. passport. Can you cite one case in which a court has ruled that a Hawaii COLB is NOT prima facie evidence of where a person was born?”
    I can’t quote chapter and verse! But I actually do have rational thought concerning that matter. Here is my rationale: The Hawaii provision that foreigners can receive Hawaiian birth credentials creates, in my mind, a loophole which must be closed to satisfy what the the exact truth is concerning Obama’s birth certificate. The loophole closure will nail the evidence down, pro or con.
    Rich: I will give you the legal requirements and the passport issues. This is fine. But we are not dealing with only legal requirements and passports.
    Extra scrutiny is required to discover the exact truth regardless of legal requirements and passports. Extra scrutiny is required because of multiples of conflicting circumstances in Obama’s life. Not only that, Obama is hiding and suppressing much critical evidence.

    1. Hugh,

      Here is my rationale: The Hawaii provision that foreigners can receive Hawaiian birth credentials creates, in my mind, a loophole which must be closed to satisfy what the the exact truth is concerning Obama’s birth certificate. The loophole closure will nail the evidence down, pro or con.

      You keep ignoring the fact that Hawaii requires that every COLB issued by the state has to include the city and county of birth. A person born in a foreign country can’t get a Hawaii COLB which says that the person was born in Hawaii. If Obama had been born in Kenya, his Hawaii COLB would say so. But it doesn’t. It says that he was born in Honolulu.
      In addition, on August 13, 1961 the Honolulu Advertiser published a birth announcement of Obama’s birth. The newspaper has confirmed that the source of its birth announcements was the Hawaii Department of Health. Each week the area hospitals submitted birth records to the State, which in turn made up a list and provided it to the newspaper. Of course, someone undoubtedly has come up with a wacko explanation of how Obama could have been born in Kenya, yet within 4 days the Hawaii Department of Health had a record of the birth.
      http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birthann.jpg

  1462. Well now…so much for the esteemed cert pool at SCOTUS.
    NOW we know WHY some of these cases are not being reviewed it would seem…..

    Students of the court say there are costs and benefits to relying on pool memos, which are prepared by smart but relatively inexperienced law clerks. “The benefit is efficiency,” said David R. Stras, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who has studied the subject…. But the pool system “does put enormous influence and power in a single clerk,” Professor Stras said, adding, “I’m quite sure there are cases that fall through the cracks.

    http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2008/09/justice-alito-j.html
    At least one of our JESTERS is seeing the light finally!

    1. Greek:
      He could answer, but I do not know how it would make sense to me. I am just trying to speak some truth in this matter. You, Juan and I have asked them tough questions. I know there are legal requirements to be met, but legal requirements should be able to expose the pertinent facts without great interference. In a sense, what good are legal requirements is those requirements bury and suppress the facts.

  1463. Rich:
    So, you know more in all you Constitution studies than Edwin Vieira? Dr. Vieira has a PhD and JD. Please tell us, if you will, what are your esteemed qualifications?
    I have listened to Edwin Vieira and read some of his articles, and I can assure you that he is not given to muddled thinking!

    1. I have listened to Edwin Vieira and read some of his articles, and I can assure you that he is not given to muddled thinking!

      I’m pretty certain that’s more than our friend Rich can boast.

  1464. Rich,
    Even the State of Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program.

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

    Now, if the State of Hawaii is so uncomfortable with their own COLB that it requires additional verification even for it’s homestead program, you would still want everyone to just roll over and willingly accept Obama’s computer generated copy (so he says) of a COLB without further verification and validation?
    You can’t be serious……..but then again, I guess you are!
    Like P.T. Barnum once said…..”There’s a fool born every minute”…..and it looks like we are getting lots of evidence of that FACT for sure!
    Time to take your head out of the sand and look around. If the State of Hawaii won’t accept it without additional verification for something as simple as applying for a homestead, why would ANY rational person be willing to accept it on face value (such as it is, with all the allegations regarding it’s suspicious truthfulness) for the office of President of the United States?
    Again…….LAUGHABLE!!!!!

    1. If the State of Hawaii won’t accept it without additional verification for something as simple as applying for a homestead, why would ANY rational person be willing to accept it on face value (such as it is, with all the allegations regarding it’s suspicious truthfulness) for the office of President of the United States?

      Makes me think Hawaii is very well aware of their very real birth records problems.

  1465. Highlander Juan:

    Anyone born to two U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen. Being born on Panamanian soil is what kept McCain from being NBC. Being born to only one U.S. citizen (and maybe not even on U.S. soil) is what keeps Obama from being NBC.

    The problem here is that you and Edwin Vieira don’t know what you are talking about. The Supreme Court ruled in 1898 that there are only two types of citizens, citizens by birth (natural born) and naturalized citizens — United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 (1898). I suggest that you read it.
    As for me lying, every time I have posted links to Supreme Court decisions and other authoritative sources, you and the other Obama-haters here have ignored them or responded with ad hominem attacks. If you aren’t interested in learning, and it you aren’t interested in having a real dialogue with people who have different opinions than you, just say so.
    No less authorities than Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe have thoroughly rejected your claim that McCain is not a natural born citizen.
    http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/files/McCainAnalysis.pdf

    1. Rich,
      I suspect you are referring to the following quote:

      We have analyzed whether Senator John McCain is eligible for the U.S. Presidency, in light of the requirement under Article II of the U.S. Constitution that only “natural born Citizen[s) … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5. We conclude that Senator McCain is a “natural born Citizen” by virtue of his birth in 1936 to U.S. citizen parents who were serving their country on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone. The circumstances of Senator McCain’s birth satisfy the original meaning and intent of the Natural Born Citizen Clause, as confirmed by subsequent legal precedent and historical practice.

      The only problem with this statement is that McCain was not born on a U.S. military base, but on Panama national land, and so the claim is patently false.
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/9934044/John-McCain-Birth-Certificate
      But, you know what? This is a copy of a real BC. Nobody’s screwed with it to hide anything. Amazing, considering everything Obama has done to hide his own birth records. Don’t you agree.

      1. The problem here is that you and Edwin Vieira don’t know what you are talking about.

        And, by the way, forget the body slams. You are not God, and your word is not the end of the conversation. In fact, every time I read comments like this one, the more I am disgusted in the logical thinking process of my fellow man.
        Are you, in reality, a troll visiting us from The Daily KOS?

        1. Highlander Juan,

          In fact, every time I read comments like this one, the more I am disgusted in the logical thinking process of my fellow man.

          That’s pretty funny, coming from you.
          Obama will be inaugurated tomorrow. Not a single lawsuit filed by Berg and the rest will go anywhere. All will be denied. Obama will not be removed from office.
          If you and your pals want to spend the next four years spinning your wild theories and patting each other on your backs, have at it.

  1466. Hugh,

    Concerning Broe v Reed, the case was dismissed without comment. In effect the State of Washington just set the case up for appeal to the next highest court.

    That’s putting a positive spin on it, but the reality is that whatever the precise reasons were, the Washington Supreme Court decided that the lawsuit has no merit. I distinctly recall that Pidgeon was trumpeting the fact that the Washington court was going to hear his case, and when it was dismissed his tune changed and now he supposedly is happy that it is going to be appealed. The reality is that a centerpiece of his lawsuit was a request for a court order to require Hawaii to release Obama’s ‘vault” birth certificate — a request which the Washington Supreme Court denied.

    All dismiss real facts like Obama Sr. being Kenyan born

    I don’t know anyone who has “dismissed” the fact that Obama’s father was born in Kenya. Everyone knows that is a fact. What I have “dismissed” is the notion that it means anything. Anyone born in the United States is a “natural born citizen.” That’s what the 14th Amendment and subsequent Supreme Court cases have established.

    the COLB having no legal standing before a court.

    And your evidence that a Hawaii COLB has no legal standing is — what? The State of Hawaii says that it meets all legal requirements, the State Department says that it meets all legal requirements for obtaining a U.S. passport. Can you cite one case in which a court has ruled that a Hawaii COLB is NOT prima facie evidence of where a person was born?

    1. Anyone born in the United States is a “natural born citizen.”

      Anyone born to two U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen. Being born on Panamanian soil is what kept McCain from being NBC. Being born to only one U.S. citizen (and maybe not even on U.S. soil) is what keeps Obama from being NBC.
      How many times does the definition have to be given to you before you get it? Do you feel the more often you promote a lie the more truthful it becomes?
      This is why I said in an earlier post that this conversation is getting tiring. If you can’t take my word for this definition, go to Edwin Vieira or some other constitutional lawyer and ask them to define it for you.
      Do your homework before you preach garbage.

  1467. Rich:
    Concerning Broe v Reed, the case was dismissed without comment. In effect the State of Washington just set the case up for appeal to the next highest court.
    You are willing to believe Obama, a mere man who is not honest with others or himself. I find it curious the you Obama supporters, Obama himself, the Congress, and the Courts have at least one thing in common: All dismiss real facts like Obama Sr. being Kenyan born, and the COLB having no legal standing before a court.
    It is quite easy to hide and dismiss things and “say it ain’t so, Joe”. Its quite another thing “to act like real American citizens”, displaying your facts in the court of law. Juan, Crazy Greek, and I would really like to see that. We would be impressed. You throw a lot of crow around. Are you will to eat it?

  1468. Rich wrote:

    Now WHY would a man feel the need to suppress information from his school records, up to and including his High School, if not for the purpose of evasion?
    Obama hasn’t sealed those records. Those records are sealed by LAW. Try obtaining copies of my school records and see how far you get.

    Rich…..who said anything about ‘sealed’…..I believe, if you would read what I posted I asked “WHY would a man feel the need to suppress…”
    When one knows that there is controversy over something, one would think that that someone (Obama in this case, since he is the ONLY person who can have the information released) would WILLINGLY release said information, unless there was something contained within that information that might prove, let us say, embarrassing.
    I don’t understand something Rich…maybe you can explain it so the rest of us can fathom your reasoning………..why is it that you, along with most Obama supporters, are so williing to believe everything Obama is dishing out, given his propensity to associate with known criminals and terrorist?
    In my book, a person having the KNOWN associations that Obama has, gets extra special scrutiny……..but then of course, I’m sure that you Obama supporters would be fine with the idea of Obama sittin down to boiled goat and pullets with Osama Bin Laden.
    You know, as everyone else knows, that if a person were to put the known associates that Obama has down as references on an application for the FBI, CIA, Homeland Security or a job as a security officer anywhere in the USA, their application would more than likely be DENIED, and yet you want this guy running OUR country!
    We are talking about OUR country here…..OUR country, democrat and republican alike….AMERICA…..and yet there are some that are unwilling to ask for even the simplest of PROOF that a person IS who they say they are.
    UNBELIEVABLE!

  1469. Juan:
    Thanks for your help!
    “Robert, U.S. Citizenship is different that natural Born Citizenship. Neither could be POTUS.”
    Concerning this post:
    “Hugh- your data is incorrect. My brother married a foreign national, and their two children, both born in the US, carry US citizenship and passports. Oldest one registered to vote.”
    Sometimes I feel like I’m shooting a dead horse when I post and these guys respond. Concerning all this I will listen to men like Stephen Pidgeon, Edwin Vieira, and people who support them.

  1470. It’s kind of interesting how the Democratic majority and Obama did a flip-flop on the Roland Burris controversy. First they weren’t going to seat him because he was “tainted” by the process that named him (translation: Blago is a crooked shake-down artist) and then they reverse course and decide they will seat him. According to Rahm Emanual on today’s Meet the Press, it was all about the Illinois Secretary of State reversing course and signing the paperwork. (Insert pause, to smile up sleeve, as we pretend “as if” the Illinois SOS wasn’t taking instructions from higher up.)
    But consider this … coming from Roland Burris whose only NECESSARY qualification for U.S. Senate is that he be a CITIZEN of requisite age and period of residency …
    http://images.stltoday.com/stltoday/resources/burrisaffidavit.pdf
    When someone uses a pointed reference to “natural born” in an affidavit, and for an office which doesn’t require that the office-holder even be “natural born”, you have to think that the long trail of actions potentially taken under threat of “blackmail” (picking Biden of Senate Intelligence Committee fame as running mate, Clintonista appointments up to the rafters) just got a little longer.

  1471. From the link HighlanderJuan provided…………..

    “Obama has sealed all educational records which might reveal his stated citizenship. These include Punahou High School, Occidental College, Columbia University, and Harvard Law School.”

    Now WHY would a man feel the need to suppress information from his school records, up to and including his High School, if not for the purpose of evasion?
    Someone care to try and answer this one? (Please..something other than “He don’t have to” crap..)

    1. Crazy Greek,

      Now WHY would a man feel the need to suppress information from his school records, up to and including his High School, if not for the purpose of evasion?

      Obama hasn’t sealed those records. Those records are sealed by LAW. Try obtaining copies of my school records and see how far you get.

      1. Right. And as part of my (BHO) open and transparent administration, and to show that I have nothing to hide, I’ll make all of those records publicly available.
        Never happen. You know it, and we all know it.
        Give up the ship Rich – your guy is just a fraud and a usurper.

      2. Hey Rich, send me your name, DOB, and Social, and I’ll tell you things about you that only you and your mother would know.

        1. Highlander Juan:

          Hey Rich, send me your name, DOB, and Social, and I’ll tell you things about you that only you and your mother would know.

          I’m not impressed. I can do what with just a name and an address.
          But even if you had that information, it wouldn’t get you access to my school records.

  1472. Robert wrote:

    Now- onward. We have definitively established that there ARE cases pending against Bush, and that your objection to Obama and Roberts meeting are null.

    Cases pending….yes….NUMEROUS (YOUR word)…NEGATIVE!~
    My objection to Obama and Roberts “null”? HARDLY!
    What don’t you start smellin what you’re shovelin.
    Just because someone doesn’t agree with YOU does NOT mean that their opinion is “null”. Also, someone with a whole lot better credentials than you believes the same……..guess you would say the good Dr.’s opinion is ‘null’ also………again, LAUGHABLE!
    Nice try though, I’ll give you that. It would seem that you believe yourself the only one on this forum (judging from YOUR post) to be the only one capable of figuring all this out and the rest are just idiots.
    Like I said before, you speak VOLUMES (what little your post reveal about you) on this forum.

  1473. Sorry I misapplied the quote CG.
    Now- onward. We have definitively established that there ARE cases pending against Bush, and that your objection to Obama and Roberts meeting are null.
    Thanks.
    Hugh- your data is incorrect. My brother married a foreign national, and their two children, both born in the US, carry US citizenship and passports. Oldest one registered to vote.

    1. Robert,
      U.S. Citizenship is different that natural Born Citizenship. Neither could be POTUS.

  1474. Eligibility battle rages on 3 fronts
    Court, Congress and college challenged on constitutionality
    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86325
    By Bob Unruh
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily
    Officials at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Calif., have been served with a demand to produce records concerning Barack Obama’s attendance there during the 1980s because they could document whether he was attending as a foreign national – in one of three fronts now established by those contesting the president-elect’s constitutional eligibility for the Oval Office.

    1. Also in that same article is something I mentioned earlier today:
      The lawsuit on which USJF is working was filed on behalf of presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others, and describes the potential damage an ineligible president could create.
      “Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void,” argues a case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a presidential candidate. “Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”

  1475. Warren,
    I’m certain there is a good reason why my posts are held aside for moderation, and if you can tell me why, I would appreciate it.
    Thanks.

  1476. Rich:
    My source is the Broe v Reed Argument section, as follows:
    “Hawaii, under HRS 338-17.8 allows for the registration of births to parents who gave birth while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii [emphasis added] and who declare the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
    Because HRS 338-17.8 exists, a Certification of Live Birth in the form provided by Barack Obama is insufficient to establish native birth. Instead, he must produce a Certificate of Live Birth, which sets forth his name, his mother’s name, his father’s name, the hospital where he was born, the attending physician, and which includes his mother’s signature, the attending physician’s signature, and the signature of another witness.
    As a matter of law, there is no official Hawaiian “birth certificate” – there is only the Certification of Live Birth, and the Certificate of Live Birth.
    As of the present moment, Barack Obama has not produced a single piece of evidence demonstrating that he was born on U.S. soil. Even his birth announcement in the Hawaiian press is inconclusive, given that he was born in August of 1961, and the article was published in August, 1962, and at that time, his father was already back in Kenya.”
    Now, Rich, please explain to me and all the others how Obama has provided clear, convincing evidence that he was born on U.S. soil.
    Fuurthermore, Obama Sr. was born in Kenya, and never naturalized in the U.S. So he held British and Kenyan citizenships during his lifetime. Obama Jr. became a British citizen at birth, and he was adopted by his Indonesian step-Dad.
    According to the Broe v Reed: “Because of his multiple citizenships, Barack Obama does not have automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
    Barack Obama has never demonstrated that he was naturalized as an American citizen, which requires a residency period, a test, and an oath of allegiance.
    Barack Obama is not qualified under 8 U.S.C. §1401(g).
    In 1986, Congress amended the statute, replacing the phrase “ten years, at least five” with “five years, at least two.” Pub. L. No. 99-653, § 12, 100 Stat. 3655 (1986), now codified at 8 U.S.C.§ 1401(g). The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act also replaced the “residence” requirement, found in the earlier Nationality Act of 1940, with a requirement of “physical presence” for transmission of citizenship to a child born abroad. See Drozd, v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 155 F.3d 871 at 87( 2nd Cir.1998) (citing to the Nationality Act of 1940, ch.876, § 201(g), 54 Stat. 1137, 1139). That change in language “compel[s] a strict adherence to the plain terms of the Act.” Id. Further, the change from “ten years, at least five” years to “five years at least two” applies only to those born after 1986. U.S. v. Flores-Villar, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1160, 1162-64 (S.D. Cal. 2007) aff’d, 536 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2008). The amendment had no retroactive application that would change the legal analysis for Senator Obama.
    You seem to put great faith in the Hawaiian COLB. It is not sufficient evidence. Where is the evidence? Obama has certainly not given us any competent evidence. Any U.S. birth evidence is greatly in doubt at this point. I do not assume the Obama is born in Hawaii.
    Again from Broe v Reed: “A child born overseas, of an American citizen and a foreign national is not a “natural born citizen,” and the child’s citizenship can only be established by a process of naturalization.
    A child born in the United States of an American citizen and a foreign national is also not a “natural born citizen” if the child obtained citizenship of another nation automatically at the time of his birth.”
    I understand that I am using Broe v Reed’s argument as to reasoning. But it appears to be sound. It seems more productive to me that hiding behind a Hawaiian COLB. If Obama does produce a vault copy of his birth certificate then he has no problem in that area.

    1. Hugh,
      You are a good person, and I hate to see you wasting time bantering with these win/lose arguments. If you argue with these guys, you will lose because they just don’t care about right and wrong – they care only with suppressing your comments and thoughts.
      And you will never teach them anything – they just don’t care about learning, otherwise they would have done their homework and would agree with you in the first place.
      I keep waiting for one of these guys to make a post saying they are concerned about the lawfulness of some act of the messiah, but it will never happen. They are apologists, not law enforcement.
      Too bad. This whole lawless attitude is our own fault because we have let them get away with it for so long.
      “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.” -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

    2. Hugh,

      I understand that I am using Broe v Reed’s argument as to reasoning. But it appears to be sound.

      Broe v. Reed has been DISMISSED. Arguments made by a lawyer in legal pleadings are not law, and arguments made in a case which has been dismissed carry no legal weight whatsoever.
      Regardless of what Stephen Pidgeon claims, a Hawaii COLB has the same legal authority as my New York birth certificate. The fact that Hawaii allows people born elsewhere to obtain a Hawaii COLB is irrelevant, because the COLB is required to state the city and country of birth. Obama’s COLB states that he was born in Honolulu. End of discussion unless someone comes up with proof that Obama was born somewhere else.

  1477. Robert: I got the from the Arguments section for Broe v Reed at http://www.stephenpidgeon.com. This whole section is a definite read.
    “Natural born citizen” means a person born in the United States to parents that were both citizens, and to children born out of the United States to parents that were both citizens, provided that no citizenship would be allowed for a person whose father was not a resident of the United States. Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, First Congress, Sess. II, Chapter 3, Section I, approved March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.

    1. Hugh,

      “Natural born citizen” means a person born in the United States to parents that were both citizens, and to children born out of the United States to parents that were both citizens, provided that no citizenship would be allowed for a person whose father was not a resident of the United States. Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, First Congress, Sess. II, Chapter 3, Section I, approved March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103.

      The 1790 law has been superseded by the 14th Amendment and numerous court decisions regarding citizenship. For example, U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):

      The fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in the declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,’ contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,-birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

      Note that SCOTUS decreed that there are only two types of citizenship, citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization. It logically follows that anyone who gains citizenship by birth is a “natural born citizen.”

      1. WTF is wrong with you people. Once again it appears you are quite willing to throw the Constitution under the bus so that your ‘messiah’ can get anointed on Tuesday.
        Be very much aware that if Obama does get crowned POTUS on Tuesday and it is learned at a later time that he is, in fact a usurper, every single piece of legislation he signs is null and void, and in the eyes of the law do not exist.
        Why aren’t you striving for the best person available for POTUS? Why do you settle for a Chicago-bred lawyer with shady past? Is that the absolute best candidate the Dems can provide?
        You guys really do need to educate yourselves and turn your angst into something positive like following the law. Go read up on some of Edwin Vieira’s articles – he is one of the best Constitutional lawyers in the country today.
        This whole conversation is a waste of time because, being based on Constitutional issues, you guys refuse to try to understand and follow the law, choosing, rather, to get into this win/lose bantering.
        Have a nice day.

        1. BTW, the proof of qualification for office is squarely on Obama – no-one else.
          The cover-up within our own government regarding this issue shows just how lawless our representative government has become.
          We have for too long just let these idiots run things according to their own needs and desires, and not according to the limitations imposed by the Constitution.
          Our children are screwed unless we start making changes to resume control of our own government asap.

  1478. Robert wrote:

    Author: Robert
    Comment:
    The last line was a quote from CG:

    A lot of the lawsuit chatter seems to be with Bush-haters who just don’t want to let go, so I’m not certain how legitimate the idea of lawsuits are.

    Now I KNOW you must be smokin somethin Robert. Why don’t you try gettin your FACTS STRAIGHT before trying to accuse someone of saying something they didn’t say…………………………to frickin wit…………………………………….
    HighlanderJuan says:
    January 17, 2009 at 1:14 pm
    I haven’t heard of any specific litigation against Bush or Cheney. To be honest, though, I haven’t given the subject much thought. A lot of the lawsuit chatter seems to be with Bush-haters who just don’t want to let go, so I’m not certain how legitimate the idea of lawsuits are.
    Maybe Robert or Rich can provide some lawsuit info. They seem to come from that camp.

    Now I’m SURE you are either smokin something or you are nothing more than a TROLL…………………….
    Now, who’s WRONG………..willing to admit it?

  1479. Robert…just WTF are you smokin Man?
    YOU are the one that used the word NUMEROUS…go look at your own post.
    If this is the best you got…you just spoke VOLUMES on this forum!

  1480. To be a natural born both of your parents must be American citizens and you must be born in America.

    Link, Hugh?

  1481. The last line was a quote from CG:

    A lot of the lawsuit chatter seems to be with Bush-haters who just don’t want to let go, so I’m not certain how legitimate the idea of lawsuits are.

  1482. Ah, CG- more smoke from you?
    We were told a president elect (or president) shouldn’t meet with USSC justices, and YOU challenged me to come up with a lawsuit on Bush:

    Hugh, so far I haven’t found any mention of ANY case against Bush, Cheney or any other person in the current Republican administration listed on the Supreme Court Docket.

    Done. You were wrong.
    As far as “numerous,” you could not even find ONE.

    Could it possibly be that this is just another of the “frivolous cases” you have been railing about?

    You lose again CG. WHO complained of frivolous lawsuits? YOU:
    A lot of the lawsuit chatter seems to be with Bush-haters who just don’t want to let go, so I’m not certain how legitimate the idea of lawsuits are.

    1. You guys have to get away from the zero sum games you play. It’s not win or lose, it’s merely following Constitutional law.

  1483. Robert said to Hugh:

    Robert says to me: “I suggest you do a simple check of the USSC docket to verify that their are NUMEROUS cases pending against George W. Bush.

    Now, Robert says to CG:

    Look harder, CG
    http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-8145.htm

    But, when looking at the link provided by Robert (only ONE CASE, btw) I find nothing about “NUMEROUS” cases………and this from a guy that almost DEMANDS correctness from others?
    NUMEROUS? You aren’t really serious, are you? Please define NUMEROUS for us. While I appreciate your efforts to bring to our attention this one case, how many other cases against Bush are you referring to? I would think that you would be more than willing to post should they be there.
    LAUGHABLE Robert!
    I also don’t find anything regarding the intricacies of the case. What is it in reference to? Could it possibly be that this is just another of the “frivolous cases” you have been railing about?

  1484. Rich, concerning your comment to my post:
    “Think for a second about what you just said. If what you said is true, then it doesn’t matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kenya,. or on Mars, because he freely admits that his father was not a U.S. citizen.
    There is not a single court in the country which agrees with your assertion that to be a “natural born citizen” you must be the child of two United States citizens.”
    May I suggest you look at Stephen Pidgeon’s site http://www.stephenpidgeon.com and this related link from his site. Pidgeon is the lawyer for Broe v Reed out of Washington State. I have heard Pidgeon speak on Plains Radio Network.
    Obama reporting Obama Sr as of Kenyan birth is part of Donofrio and Wrotnowski’s cases.
    http://decalogosintl.org/?p=65 is the summary of arguments.
    You are welcome to read it for yourself!
    In so many ways I agree with Pidgeon because what Obama has provided will not be valid proof in a court of law. I am a conservate Republican. I don’t agree with Obama on very little, if anything. Even if I agreed with all his positions, Obama would still be ineligible to hold the Office due to the facts about his parents and the best evidence of his birth location. I actually think he was born in Kenya. This is my best opinion in the matter until better evidence appears.

    1. Hugh,

      May I suggest you look at Stephen Pidgeon’s site http://www.stephenpidgeon.com and this related link from his site. Pidgeon is the lawyer for Broe v Reed out of Washington State.

      I know who Stephen Pidgeon is. In case you missed it, Broe v. Reed was dismissed by the Washington Supreme Court, so I’m not inclined to include Pidgeon among the country’s leading constitutional authorities. His arguments are as lame as all the others which have been raised in unsuccessful lawsuit after unsuccessful lawsuit.

  1485. A lot of the lawsuit chatter seems to be with Bush-haters who just don’t want to let go, so I’m not certain how legitimate the idea of lawsuits are.

    Hilarious post of the week, Juan!! The Obama-hater who doesn’t want to let go calling out the Bush haters who don’t want to let go,over illegitimate lawsuits!
    Thanks

    1. Thanks. I’m good for one hilarious post per week.

      The Obama-hater who doesn’t want to let go calling out the Bush haters who don’t want to let go,over illegitimate lawsuits!

      More distrust and belief that Obama is a usurper than hatred. I don’t know him well enough to hate him. Yet.

  1486. Rich….Hugh wrote the following:

    Robert says to me: “I suggest you do a simple check of the USSC docket to verify that their are NUMEROUS cases pending against George W. Bush.

    Key word here being ‘pending’ as Robert has claimed, not cases that have already been heard by SCOTUS. 😉

  1487. Chuck:
    We have an honest difference of opinion, and that is fine. May I suggest that you take a listen to http://www.plainsradio.com. It is a reasonably good source to keep up with the Obama lawsuit matter. I hope you do well!

  1488. Perhaps Robert was referring to the numerous cases where the Supreme Court IN THE PAST has ruled against Bush on certain instances, but like I said, I don’t see anything PENDING before SCOTUS at the present time against Bush or anyone else in the current administration.
    {Shrug}

  1489. Hugh wrote:

    I agree with you about the Federal Reserve. Do you or Crazy Greek know if there are any lawsuits against G.W. Bush on the SCOTUS’ docket?
    Robert says to me: “I suggest you do a simple check of the USSC docket to verify that their are NUMEROUS cases pending against George W. Bush.
    In any case, you disagree with Scalia, and think USSC justices should recuse themselves from any cases that bear on government officials that they know?”
    This comment was in response to my words concerning Obama’s visit to Chief Justice Roberts.

    Hugh, so far I haven’t found any mention of ANY case against Bush, Cheney or any other person in the current Republican administration listed on the Supreme Court Docket. Here are a couple of links that I went to…maybe I’m just not hittin the right link…I don’t know…………………………………….
    http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/index.html
    http://www.onthedocket.org/
    I’ll keep looking but one would think that with all the mentioning of the cases that have come before SCOTUS recently (and in other courts as well, up to and including Hawaii) that if there had been something against Bush, etc. on ANY docket, the Dems would have been shouting it from the rafters.
    Don’t ya think?

    1. Crazy Greek:
      I think the Democrats would be raising a stink. Also, SCOTUS seems to take a reasonably short time (months) to resolve any case. Any case they do not resolve is sent back to a lower court with instructions as to resolution. It is possible that the could be a Bush lawsuit but it would not hang around a long time at SCOTUS.
      I was speaking of the verifiable docket of the current cases before SCOTUS and, also the cases the SCOTUS is aware of that have not officially hit the SCOTUS. They should know by now that there are many cases. The volume of cases in this matter alone should tell SCOTUS something.

  1490. Hugh –
    (Shrug)
    What can I say – left wingers give me grief for giving GW and Bush 41 and Reagan the SAME “benefit of the doubt” I give to Clinton and Obama. And for being CONSISTENT with my principles, I catch flack from the right wingers too…(shrug) I dont believe any of these Presidents were malicious, evil folks as their opposition claims… Some of them were WRONG policy speaking, and made bad political and personal decisions, but I feel they all loved America and wanted the best for this nation. That is my honest, no Bravo Sierra assessment…
    Again, I judge ALL Presidents going forward from the time they take office. To me, that is all that matters – the rest is in the past and is done and over with. YES, we can form OPINIONS about them based on past actions, beliefs, statements, positions, etc. but in my mind, it should not become an all-encompassing picture of their ENTIRE Presidency. We should place more weight on their actual ACTIONS in office…
    If Obama proves to be the socialist, “anti-Christ” (and I dont mean that literally…) that all of the right wing fanatics and blogs say he is, then so be it and I will join you in voting him out of office and voting someone else in there 4 years from now. That is all I can tell you, my friend…. I said the same things about Bush 41, Clinton, and GW – it is, what it is…LOL
    Cheers!!!

  1491. Robert, concerning your comment:
    “I suggest you do a simple check of the USSC docket to verify that their are NUMEROUS cases pending against George W. Bush.
    In any case, you disagree with Scalia, and think USSC justices should recuse themselves from any cases that bear on government officials that they know?”
    Please give me the case numbers currently on the SCOTUS’ docket.

  1492. Juan:
    I agree with you about the Federal Reserve. Do you or Crazy Greek know if there are any lawsuits against G.W. Bush on the SCOTUS’ docket?
    Robert says to me: “I suggest you do a simple check of the USSC docket to verify that their are NUMEROUS cases pending against George W. Bush.
    In any case, you disagree with Scalia, and think USSC justices should recuse themselves from any cases that bear on government officials that they know?”
    This comment was in response to my words concerning Obama’s visit to Chief Justice Roberts.

    1. I haven’t heard of any specific litigation against Bush or Cheney. To be honest, though, I haven’t given the subject much thought. A lot of the lawsuit chatter seems to be with Bush-haters who just don’t want to let go, so I’m not certain how legitimate the idea of lawsuits are.
      Maybe Robert or Rich can provide some lawsuit info. They seem to come from that camp.

        1. Rich,
          Thanks. This was a 2007 Gitmo habeas corpus case and was remanded. The justices seem to have decided along party lines, which is NOT good.
          Interesting read.

  1493. Juan:
    I did listen to Vieira and Pidgeon on Plains Radio. I found the Vieira’s comments concerning the several States’ Militia to be fascinating, especially in context with We the People Foundation and its Congress. Their Congress would not have effective authority, but “Militias re-instituted will have real Constitutional authority.” I have just sent out a money order to purchase Constitutional Homeland Security, volume one, Nation in Arms. Vieira is a true scholar. He makes the complex simple. I loved his bank robber anology. He not only helped me, you and the rest of the listeners, but also Stephen Pidgeon. Have a great day!

    1. Hugh,
      Great. I think these two guys have given us some ‘hope’ of getting our constitutional government back. What a good thing that would be!
      They need to be on the air more often, and since they didn’t seem resistant to the idea, maybe we’ll see and hear from them again soon.
      Have a good one.

      1. One other thought. The topic of legitimate money (opposed to Federal Reserve Banking Notes) is also crucially important. The Founders didn’t want a central bank for a very good reason – a central bank ends up controlling the country, as it appears to be doing right now.
        This is another area of huge significance in the return of the People’s government. I studied this problem some years ago, and everything we were worried about at that time has come to pass.

  1494. Robert:
    I certainly disagree with Obama’s positions! Obama’s will develop policies according to his positions. So we will have increased abortions, increased Governmental interventions in the free market, nationalized health care, increases in gun control laws, etc. Obama is a Marxist, and he associates with them. Consider William Ayers and Reverend Wright. All that Ayers want to do is have a revolution. Reverend Wright hold to Black Liberation Theology which mirrors Socialism and Communism.
    Now concerning facts, Obama COLB provides no legal proof in a court of law as to his actual birth place. The COLB does not prove thing as to Obama’s citizenship since Hawaii allowed foreign borns the right to receive certificates. I have heard attorney Stephen Pidgeon for Broe v Reed speak about no legal poof with the COLB.
    What facts does Obama really have to support his eligibility? Show us legally admissible evidence. If Obama is actually born in Hawaii, that is fine. But then you must look at the fact that Obama Sr. was born in Kenya. To be a natural born both of your parents must be American citizens and you must be born in America.
    So the Obama birth certificate issue is not a “non-question”. The issue is not a far right wing issure, entirely, or a Republican issue. Berg, Donofrio, and most probably Wrotnowki, are Democrats. If there was not Constitutional question in this matter. the lawsuits would not even exist. Robert, you have your head in the sand! You are not even honest enough with yourself to admit there is a question about the issue so you relegate the issue as a “non-question”.

    1. Hugh,

      But then you must look at the fact that Obama Sr. was born in Kenya. To be a natural born both of your parents must be American citizens and you must be born in America.

      Think for a second about what you just said. If what you said is true, then it doesn’t matter if Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kenya,. or on Mars, because he freely admits that his father was not a U.S. citizen.
      There is not a single court in the country which agrees with your assertion that to be a “natural born citizen” you must be the child of two United States citizens.

  1495. Robert…personally, I find your line of thinking when it comes to Obama…flawed.
    Evidently, you would like us to believe that, with your belief in your guy, we should just fall in line, roll over and bark………….or drop to the ground to kiss the anointed ones feet. Ain’t about to happen!!
    Thus far, your guy has……………………………………………………………………………………………
    1. Appointed a man that believes anyone that opposed Obama should “DIE” as his Chief of Staff!
    2. Touted that he was gonna “change” government and then went on to appoint over 70% of his administration from the dregs of the Clinton administration……”Change we can believe in!”
    3. Appointed a man to head the Treasury Department that obviously has a problem paying his own taxes, fluffing off his appointment by stating that this man just made a ‘mistake a long time ago’. That kind of mistake, to the tune of THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS is exactly what has gotten a lot of people a new home called PRISON!
    4. Has had a past history of dealing with, and being cozy with, known terrorist and criminals!
    5. REFUSES to disclose ANYTHING regarding his past history when it comes to records of even his college transcripts, preferring to have those records SEALED!
    6. Appoints a person who has ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE in counter intelligence to head the CIA!
    These are just some of a LONG LIST of reasons why a lot of people are questioning the thinking of ANYONE who would want someone like this as the leader of our country.

    1. Crazy Greek,

      Appoints a person who has ABSOLUTELY NO EXPERIENCE in counter intelligence to head the CIA!

      How much experience in counter-intelligence did George H.W. Bush have when he was appointed the head the CIA?

      1. Bush the senior had served as ambassador to the United Nations from 1971 to 1973, director of the CIA 1976–1977. Agreed no direct intelligence experience, but he did get to know the international opponents while serving in the U.N.

  1496. Although I don’t personally know Obama, I do know something about his associations (Ayers, Wright, Rezco, etc.). I know the Obama voted numerous time against pro-Life positions while an Illinois Senator, and he advocates not only partial birth abortion but also not giving babies who survive abortions any support. In October 2008 I heard the testimony of Gianna Jessen who survived a saline partial birth abortion.

    And there you have the real reason for all of this- people like Hugh disagree with Obama’s positions, and- instead of arguing the facts and issues of policy- in the wake of the election, their desperation has led them to these non questions about Obama’s birthplace, etc.
    It’s a losing argument, but it is all the far right wing has left.
    AND- no matter how Obama does overall, and no matter if he does well enough to win a second term, he will be successful in judicial appointments that keep the wall between church and state (commence to howling), etc. in place…

    1. Robert,
      .
      You guys just don’t get it. It’s not an argument, and this is not a debating society – it’s answering the question of respecting and following the highest law in the land – our Constitution. Obama doesn’t respect the Constitution, and he surely isn’t following it. Neither does a very large percentage of our elected officials.
      .
      I suspect that you also did not listen to the Plains Radio show last night. Too bad. Would have expanded your mental horizons by orders of magnitude.
      .
      We’re coming to a time for change – back to a Constitutional government.
      .

  1497. Concerning your post of SCOTUS meeting with Obama, George Bush can certainly meet with the Justices but there are currently no lawsuits against him. But if there were current lawsuits their meeting would fall under the same shadow. From your rational any person could not meet with any judge because of possible lawsuits. We are not talking about possible lawsuits, but lawsuits currently at SCOTUS.

    I suggest you do a simple check of the USSC docket to verify that their are NUMEROUS cases pending against George W. Bush.
    In any case, you disagree with Scalia, and think USSC justices should recuse themselves from any cases that bear on government officials that they know?

  1498. Robert, subject your comment:
    “Actually, it happens all the time and there is nothing wrong with it so long as they don’t discuss the case.
    Think about it: can GW Bush meet with a USSC Justice?? And how many nitwit lawsuits do you suppose he has piling up against him?”
    Concerning your post of SCOTUS meeting with Obama, George Bush can certainly meet with the Justices but there are currently no lawsuits against him. But if there were current lawsuits their meeting would fall under the same shadow. From your rational any person could not meet with any judge because of possible lawsuits. We are not talking about possible lawsuits, but lawsuits currently at SCOTUS.

  1499. Chuck:
    You seem to be able to give everyone the benefit of the doubt! I am able to give the average Joe that I know the benefit of the doubt. But I don’t blindly give people the benefit of the doubt.
    Although I don’t personally know Obama, I do know something about his associations (Ayers, Wright, Rezco, etc.). I know the Obama voted numerous time against pro-Life positions while an Illinois Senator, and he advocates not only partial birth abortion but also not giving babies who survive abortions any support. In October 2008 I heard the testimony of Gianna Jessen who survived a saline partial birth abortion.
    Now, Chuck, here is evidence that Obama “knows exactly what he is doing and has extremely malicious intent.” In a prior post you said there is not evidence of malicious intent. Well, Obama’s Illinois record certainly indicates otherwise. Concerning his associations…bad company ruins good morals.
    All this will affect Obama’s (or any man’s) Presidency. I will not give any benefit of doubt to any man who is committed to foolishness and folly! Now, if a fool want to turn from his foolishness, that is another issue.
    All this does not relate specifically to natural born and age limit Constitutional qualifications, but I do think that the President should respect life. Yes, the Declaration of Independence expresses the desire for “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; the Constitution expresses the means thereto.

  1500. Yeah, I agree. With Obama’s unwillingness to be forthcoming, the guy is just sittin on a powder keg that will eventually blow up in his face.
    Just hope he doesn’t take down the entire country in the process.
    Right now, that is highly possible considering just how many people could be considered complicit in this should the fact come out that Obama is indeed not qualified (for whatever reason) to be POTUS,

    1. But, you know, Vieira has many irons in the fire, and is actually making solid suggestions on how to get out of the mess we are in and return to the Constitutional government we need.
      .
      Let’s keep following this line of thought in the coming weeks. I think we can win our country back.

  1501. Well Juan..how did you like the show?
    I thought the guest brought up some very valid points and was especially interested in hearing him say (which I agree with, btw) that Chief Justice Roberts should have NEVER had that meeting with Obama since there are currently cases pending before SCOTUS against Obama.
    Man, IF ( and it’s probably a done deal) Obama IS sworn in on the 20th, there is gonna be a whole new can of worms opened up for sure.
    Me thinks this year is gonna be interesting for sure!

    1. I loved this show. It actually started earlier than I thought, so I missed some of it, but the three hours I did listen to was great.
      .
      Edwin Vieira is one well educated and competent Constitutional lawyer, and to hear him talk about the Obama NBC situation in such clear terms made me quite happy. The discussions with Stephen Pidgeon and some of the callers was outstanding.
      .
      I’m happy we have guys like this in America, and that they are willing to take on the ‘hot potato’ topic of Obama’s qualifications without hesitation.
      .
      Great learning experience for me.

      1. Greek,
        .
        Regarding the Roberts meeting with Obama, maybe it was a ‘put up’ or ‘shut up’ meeting. Let’s see who administers the oath. If it’s not Roberts, then we can know he’s one of the good guys.
        .
        You’re right. Ancient Chinese curse is ours now – we do live in interesting times.

        1. Highlander Juan,

          Regarding the Roberts meeting with Obama, maybe it was a ‘put up’ or ’shut up’ meeting. Let’s see who administers the oath. If it’s not Roberts, then we can know he’s one of the good guys.

          You guys don’t seem to have a very good understanding of how SCOTUS works.
          There is nothing for Obama to “put up” as far as Justice Roberts is concerned, or as far as SCOTUS as a whole is concerned. The issue of Obama having to do or produce anything hasn’t been something which SCOTUS has even considered.
          Thus far, the only issue which SCOTUS has considered is whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the Berg, Donofrio and Wrotnowski lawsuits. In the one case which is remaining, Lightfoot v. Bowen, Obama isn’t even a party to the lawsuit. And even if the Lightfoot case had any merit, SCOTUS could not use it to issue an injunction against Obama’s inauguration, because the Lightfoot petition is limited to California’s electors.
          As for Roberts, he is no position to demand anything of Obama. It requires the consent of four justices to grant cert on a case — which only serves as a reminder of why it was so stupid of Orly Taitz to demand that Roberts recuse himself from her case. There are only four justices who might be philosophically inclined to rule in her favor — Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. Take Roberts out of the mix, and she has no chance of getting the four votes she needs.
          The right-wing blogs have repeatedly and consistently misconstrued the significance of these appeals. Remember back in November, when all the blogs were saying that Obama had until December 1 to show his birth certificate to SCOTUS?
          Berg, Taitz and the others can file as many lawsuits as they want, but they are all doomed to meet the same fate — dismissal.

          1. Rich,
            .
            Two points.
            .
            1. You’re right – I’m dumber that a post.
            2. You evidently didn’t listen to the radio show.
            .
            Have a nice day.

  1502. ROFLMFAO
    Robert wrote:

    Actually, it happens all the time and there is nothing wrong with it so long as they don’t discuss the case.

    Just how do you propose it be proven that neither discussed the case?
    Washington may indeed be a ‘pretty small circle’, as you describe it, but there is still protocol that must/should be observed. For a sitting judge to meet with someone when that someone could possibly be a defendant in a case before said judge is questionable behavior at best and just plain WRONG at worst.
    Either way, it just ain’t right………………….but then again, we ARE talking Washington, D.C. here so I would venture to guess that ANYTHING GOES. 😉

  1503. To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement. A ‘ceremonial’ meeting between a president elect and justices of the Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it’s flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation.

    Actually, it happens all the time and there is nothing wrong with it so long as they don’t discuss the case.
    Think about it: can GW Bush meet with a USSC Justice?? And how many nitwit lawsuits do you suppose he has piling up against him?
    Kind of like what Scalia said when he was asked to recuse himself in a case where Cheney was the defendant, and the two had recently been hunting together: Washington is a pretty small circle when you get down to it, and to suggest that people have to avoid relationships with politicians/ government officials is unworkable.

  1504. Hugh –
    Agreed. We can learn from folks past desicions, positions, associations, etc. Obama has been a relative LEFTIST in the past (voted most Liberal Senator, if memory serves), but that doesnt mean he will NECESSARILY continue that now and in future. I HOPE not – the last thing I want America to become is a SOCIALIST nation… But in reality, both parties have been taking us down the “road to socialism” more and more each decade since the New Deal. The leftists want to take us there QUICKER than the conservatives, but the so-called “compassionate conservatives” and/or NEOCONS are STILL taking us down the path to socialism. So do we want the FAST train or the SLOW train!?!?! LOL And anyone who says GW is a “conservative” is stark raving MAD…
    All I am saying is that unless something major happens and the election results are overturned, we dont have much choice and have to go with the only horse in the race. And given that, we have to see what he does from henceforth and judge him accordingly… What else is there to do?!?!?! Everything is just “spinning” our wheels on past events that we can no longer change or have ANY impact on the election (it is done and over with…) – there was a chance for the GOP (and Clinton, for that matter…) to do that by making an issue of these things and they failed MISERABLY to do so. Frankly, the MEDIA gave Obama a pass on a LOT of things and it is HUGELY their fault as well that he wasnt challenged on some of this… (shrug)
    So I say, lets just friggin move on…LOL

  1505. A formalized objection to the Chief Justice conducting the swearing in was sent by Orly Taitz as lawyer for the Lightfoot and Keyes lawsuits, based on conflict of interest. It also took advantage of some historical research which found that judges other than Supreme Court judges have administered the oath of office.

    1. Highland Juan,

      A formalized objection to the Chief Justice conducting the swearing in was sent by Orly Taitz as lawyer for the Lightfoot and Keyes lawsuits, based on conflict of interest.

      Good luck with that one. Think about the stupidity of her objection. She wants Roberts to look favorably on her application for a stay, and then she claims that he has a conflict of interest? That’s a great way to get him to look at her in a favorable light! There is nothing that judges like less than having their integrity and impartiality questioned.

      It also took advantage of some historical research which found that judges other than Supreme Court judges have administered the oath of office.

      Historical research? There’s nothing new about that. It’s a well known fact that several presidents were not sworn in by the Chief Justice, including Teddy Roosevelt (first inauguration). In fact, George Washington wasn’t sworn in by the Chief Justice at either of his inaugurations. Most recently, LBJ was sworn in by a U.S. District Judge after JFK was assassinated. There is no requirement that the Chief Justice be involved.

  1506. To Juan and Chuck:
    I totally agree!
    We Americans need good governmental house-cleaning! If Obama fails to qualify as a natural born, and it is a coup, the Democrats and any others involved will take a big hit.

    1. Highlander Juan:
      I have seen both articles on oilforimmigration.org. I go there and to Investigating Obama most of the time…plus this blog.

  1507. Chuck:
    I certainly agree that we really don’t know what Obama is going to do. But we can learn what kind of man a person is by looking at past record, associations, etc. That gives people some indication of a man’s character. Past record and associations are not necessarily 100% set in concrete as to a person’s future actions.
    I hope you have a great day!

  1508. …And trust me, if Obama screws up, we and the rest of America will boot his BUTT out of Office in 4 years – of that, we can be certain…
    Let’s wait and see what he does….;o)

  1509. Hugh –
    I understand what you were saying – I was just indicating that I DISAGREED with Juan’s statement that Obama knows exactly what he is doing, meaning he is doing this MALICIOUSLY. All I am saying is I DONT KNOW AT THIS POINT; everything re: these allegations are speculative at this point. I recall seeing HUNDREDS of left wing blogs about GW Bush being SATAN himself, Cheney being “Darth Vader”, and his Administration being the worst in history. Some of this was before he even took office – everything from him being a drunk, to a draft dodger, to being AWOL in the reserves, etc. I mean come on – sooner or later we have to let go of that kind of tabloid press coverage. In truth, I dont trust the media – the left wing leaning press or the ultra right wing leaning press. They ALL have an agenda. We dont know how much of the coverage on GW was true, how much wasnt, etc. anymore than we know about Obama’s coverage. So why waste a lot of time debating it? For every right wing blogger and report about Obama being a malicious, lying, SOB, you got one left wing praising him and attempting to dispell the allegations against him. So WTF?!?! Depending upon what our own personal beliefs are, we can choose to believe one side or the other and it STILL doesnt matter one bit. So I say SCREW the press at this point b/c we cannot believe half of what they say anyway – he has been elected and will be the next President of the United States. What MATTERS is what the POTUS DOES IN OFFICE….
    MY SOLE point is that me personally, I prefer to look at him/the President (whomever that is) and judge him based on his actions as POTUS and NOT based upon past rumors, partial truths, partial lies, etc. I dont know what is true, what isnt, what is half true, etc. – NOONE REALLY knows. The other point I was making was that these same kinds of speculative reports existed about Clinton, Bush 41, GW Bush, etc. and what was my position on them? THE SAME AS IT IS FOR OBAMA — look at what he DOES in office…

    1. Chuck,
      .
      You said:
      .
      “I dont know what is true, what isnt, what is half true, etc. – NOONE REALLY knows.”
      .
      Two points I would add:
      .
      1. Someone does know, and I maintain that is Obama, and maybe casts os thousands in government.
      2. The reason for forums like this, in absence of government truth telling, is to determine the truth.
      .
      I believe the whole NBC thing stinks of lawlessness and corruption, but if we keep at it long enough, we will know the truth. And the truth shall set us free.

  1510. Robert wrote:

    Because there is no need for it.
    There you go. Sorry you don’t like the reason, but there it is.

    Ahhh Robert….therein lies the jest of a debate. Just as you don’t seem to like my/our (Non Obama fans) reasoning, you would then seem the thingk that we should like yours? Or at the very least want to ‘fall in line’ simply because your side thinks there is “NO REASON”?
    Come on man…I think you are smarter than that.
    Robert wrote:

    Aside from that- there is still not one good reason for him to PRODUCE the certificate.

    Here again, we seem to disagree. Since there have been so many questions raised regarding the BC that Obama put up on his web site, I feel that MORE than justifies Obama’s need to have the BD said to be held by the State of Hawaii (that has been in a system where it hasn’t been touched by ANYONE since being filed) made public for verification. What better form of verification could one possibly have?
    Again….trust but VERIFY! Besides your contention that “he doesn’t HAVE TO, can you think of any reason why Obama would not want this copy of his BD scrutinized?
    Robert wrote:

    By the by- per your challenge? If Obama is proven to be born outside the US, not only will I come in here and take my medicine, I will travel to you to personally apologize.
    And how about you?? When the USSC has spoken and says by dint of inaction that there is NO Constitutional question here, will you admit that you are wrong?

    No need to ‘take any medicine’, at least not from me. Also, no need for travel to apologize cause none is need. I would however, should you be in the area or I in your area, be more than happy to sit down with ya and discuss anything over a couple of cool ones…how’s that?
    Eddy……sure hate to see you taking that attitude. Like I pointed out to Robert, this IS a debate forum with differing opinions. While true that sometimes the wording may get a little hostile, it’s the nature of the beast, since we really can’t be sittin at a table with one another and seeing all the other inflections that are normal to a conversation. I hate to see ya go and like I said to Robert, that moment with a couple of cool ones would go for you too. I harbor no animosity toward any man, especially over politics. Now, if we were talking about a cute redhead, I might feel a little differently! 😉
    If you DO decide to hit the happy trails, all I can add is It’s been…It’s been…FUN!!

  1511. Chief Justice John Roberts meets Obama in private
    .
    To say I was floored when I read the news item is an understatement. A ‘ceremonial’ meeting between a president elect and justices of the Supreme Court is somewhat traditional. HOWEVER, in this instance, it’s flat out wrong. Chief Justice Roberts has cases on the docket where Obama is the defendant or is the subject of the litigation. Roberts and the other eight justices have already held two ‘Distribution for Conferences’ on the Donofrio and Wrotnoski cases on Obama’s citizenship ineligibility. They just turned away one of Phil Berg’s cases a few days ago; that one is still in the Third Circuit. Tomorrow is the fourth case; another…….
    .
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd428.htm
    .
    by Devvy Kidd

  1512. Chuck:
    Thanks for your comments. Concerning my opinion of Obama, it is possible that I have been too hard on the man. I do not know what the future holds for Obama or actually what he will do. But down in “my knower” the man does not sit well with me.
    Concerning your response to my comments, I was actually responding to Highlander’s note to you on January 13 at 1:45 PM., as follows: “BTW, I am also of the opinion that Obama knows exactly what he is doing, and is extremely malicious in his intent.”
    I was saying is that I basically agree with Highlander!

  1513. Hugh –
    As I said earlier,
    “…I dont know about that. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt – there is no “hard evidence” to support malicious intent on anything. I recall when the left wingers had all of this same kinda talk about GW Bush (”he lied, people died…” etc.) and I cast it off then, too. I dont beleive any of that nonsense about GW Bush. I DO however, think he made some mistakes on some MAJOR issues during his Administration but I DO believe that whatever he did, he THOUGHT he was doing the right thing for this country. Right or wrong, he did not have “malicious intent.” I dont think Obama is “the anti-Christ” or anything near it. Of course, I could be wrong…LOL”
    I am giving Pres. Elect Obama the SAME benefit of the doubt that I give every President. Let’s see what he does before passing judgement. I said the same thing with Bush 41, Clinton, GW Bush, and now Obama. (I wasnt old enough to vote in 1980.) I do not believe he is a BAD, MALICIOUS, man. I do not believe he is the SAVIOR of America, either. He is just a man. HOPEFULLY he is a GOOD man and not a BAD, MALICIOUS, man. If he proves to be that later, then I will say so but at the moment, I cant say that I do think he is.
    Folks on the left HATED GW and Cheney before they even took office; folks on the right HATED Clinton before he took office, etc. I am sorry – I am not going to do that with ANY president, Dem or GOP. I am going to judge Obama by what he does going forward NOT based upon what he has said, done, thought, written, etc. in the past. Sorry – not my thing…
    Sure, folks come with some baggage, whomever they are but the Presidency is a new office and I beleive that when given the chance, folks can and will change if they want to. Additionally, change is a normal part of evolution of character from experience anyway, as I see it. So I dont care about the past at this point – show me what you are gonna do to fix the PRESENT and the FUTURE problems. Frankly, I think that Obama realizes that his previous LEFTIST leaning ways are NOT going to be acceptable and that he MUST lead from the CENTER. That is my initial assessment at THIS point – but, once he actually takes office and starts implementing his policies, we shall quickly see what the REAL Obama has to offer America. We should ALL PRAY that he will make the RIGHT decisions for American – I pray for whomever is POTUS…
    Having said that, all of Obama’s past supposed baggage, mistruths, questionable previous policies, etc. dont mean squat to me. I dont know what is true nor what isnt true about the man. I am sure some of it is true, some of it isnt true, and some of it is half true – the same can be said about any President. Clinton had his issues, Bush had his issues, etc. So what?!?! He is in a new office, with new responsibilities, new expectations, etc. and, quite frankly, has a new SPOTLIGHT on his every move and is not going to be able to get away with things thay he used to (whatever that may be…).
    Hugh – You and I AGREE about Israel…. I will leave it at that…LOL
    Eddy – There are ALSO pragmatic reasons why we should support Israel above and beyond Biblical ones. Israel is the ONLY nation in the region we can trust – the only democracy….So even for the “non-beleivers” or skeptics, our alliance with Israel makes sense…
    For the record again, I BELIEVE one should be a NBC to be President and if Obama is not, he should not be POTUS. Period. As much I BELIEVE this case NEEDS to be resolved ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, I do not believe it is going to go anywhere. As has already been stated in this blog, the SCOTUS is not going to touch this, the electoral college votes have been carried without objection from ANYONE in the GOP or Dem about his citizenship issues, etc. This thing isnt going anywhere – I personally believe it SHOULD be resolved, but what I think doesnt matter. I am, however, fearful about the possible problems to America if his Presidency was deemed illegal, illegitimate, etc., but I do beleive the issue should be looked at and resolved. As I have also REPEATELY stated, this matter shouldnt even be an issue – it should have been vetted at the front end and NOT now. But it is, what it is so we have to deal with it – and I am saying the powers that be DO NOT want to deal with this. The SCOTUS has looked at it and decided not to deal with it – that is their right. We cannot FORCE them to hear the case and MAKE them rule on it! What the heck more do you want to happen here? You all can keep wishing and hoping that this case or that case is going to gain some traction and get folks to move to challenge this election but I think you are wasting your energies – it aint going to happen. Our energies should BEST be spent on trying to solve the HUGE problems facing our nation. Write your Congressman, volunteer to work campaigns, get involved with local government, etc. – MAKE A DIFFERENCE! All of this woulda’, shoulda’, coulda’ doest accomplish anything productive… (If I am wrong and he does not become and remain the next President, I will eat crow and buy cyber-drinks for EVERYONE…LOL)

  1514. Please give us one good reason why, since you seem so sure of your guy Obama, that you would NOT want to see the vault copy that Hawaii says is in their possession compared side by side with the copy that Obama claims is his original birth certificate.

    Because there is no need for it.
    There you go. Sorry you don’t like the reason, but there it is. Officials of the state have verified his citiezenship, so that is it.
    Aside from that- there is still not one good reason for him to PRODUCE the certificate. Exactly who is ranting and raving about this garbage? NO ONE outside the far right conservative crowd.
    Who cares what they think?
    By the by- per your challenge? If Obama is proven to be born outside the US, not only will I come in here and take my medicine, I will travel to you to personally apologize.
    And how about you?? When the USSC has spoken and says by dint of inaction that there is NO Constitutional question here, will you admit that you are wrong?
    Of course not. Which is more proof that Obama is handling this issue exactly as he should…

    1. You said:
      .
      “Exactly who is ranting and raving about this garbage? NO ONE outside the far right conservative crowd.
      .
      Who cares what they think?”
      .
      I don’t care what you think of me personally. I do, however, expect you to care about the rule of law and your very own Constitution, and that’s what I see you NOT doing. When did you last say you are concerned about the problem of a usurper getting into the White House, and are working to make certain that Obama is qualified for the Office?
      .
      You guys need to stay away from the personal attacks and just focus on the problem at hand.
      .

  1515. Unlike you and your style of thinking, conservatives (at least this conservative) are far more concerned about the laws of the land. We don’t get emotional or bitter about it, we just try to stick to the facts and get the answers when questions arise.

    When I joined the military in 1961, my oath was sworn to the Constitution of the United States. Not the president.

    Thanks for that non sequitur, Bill. Let me know when the USSC decides to declare Obama ineligilble for office…
    Oh- wait. My bad. The justices are in on the Big Conspiracy, aren’t they??

  1516. Highlander Juan said:

    OK, Rich, this is getting tiring. You want to see the doc, you go get it. Stop trying to get other people to prove to you that you are right. You do it.

    I couldn’t agree more except that Highlander ought to be directing those words to himself and to Crazy Greek. Rich is satisfied with the documentation that has already been provided; evidently, so is our current government since no one is bowing to your repeated and incessant demands for them to produce it. So, how about you guys doing what you told Rich to do…”you go get it”. Yeah, yeah, I know…they won’t give it to you. Guess what! They won’t give it to Rich either. You knew that though and it’s proof that you’ve resorted to playing posturing word games and ‘put down’ talk.
    Last I looked, we still operate on a principle of “innocent til proven guilty”; you are the ones who have taken the stand of “guilty til proven innocent”…the burden is on you to either prove his guilt or to create enough doubt that someone with legal governmental authority will go after that proof you crave. But you appear to have taken the coward’s route. You blog under handles –rather than writing to actual people in authority– in the hopes that you’ll create enough of a stir that someone will champion your cause. That hasn’t worked and the time is getting very very short. So blog away! Congratulate one another on how right you are, how smart you are, how stupid people who disagree with you are. But, when you’re done, consider where it got you.
    I lost whatever remaining respect I had for you, Highlander, with your morning post directed to Crazy Greek which was really just thinly veiled ‘put down’ talk again. You didn’t say who ‘they’ were–the ones who were content to see our Constitution trashed. Since this site isn’t in favor of backhandedly trashing other bloggers without naming names or providing back-up, (how can you defend yourself against an accusation when the accuser lacks the guts to say who he’s accusing or present the merits of their accusation?) I can only assume that the ‘they’ who don’t care about our Constitution are President Bush and those who have served in governmental roles during this current election process ; they are the ones charged with the responsibility of defending our Constitution. And since Crazy Greek gave you a hearty approval to your comment, it’s obvious he feels the same way. If you were trying to suggest that Rich and/or I don’t have a love and respect for the Constitution that is at least equal to yours, that’s a statement that I find personally slanderous and I DEMAND that you provide evidence from our statements here that supports your allegation.
    While you pretend to love the Constitution and all that it represents, the disrespect that you’ve spoken against those now serving our government (and, by extension, its Constitution) is far more revealing. You continue to dig up more earth-shattering dirt but speak with disdain about those who have any real authority to address it. You continue to ignore the conventional channels–like actually contacting your representative, senator, congressman, President–in favor of fanning the blog flames. Again recently, you’ve provided a direction to your flaming, attempting to justify disobedience and rebellion against a seated POTUS, even though you have no proof that he is, in fact, a usurper. You may not like the term, but, in common English, you are anarchists. You trust your own views and opinions more than you trust those who are the elected representatives of the people. Good luck with that.
    Blast away, boys. Like Highlander said, “this is getting tiring”…and it’s really not as amusing as it used to be to hear you rant and witness you stroking each other. I’m ‘unsubscribing’ to this thread. (I’m human, of course I’ll read the rants that this posting might provoke but I’m praying for the strength to resist responding to the digs or character assassination that I expect from you.) I further encourage anyone else who disagrees with these ‘tin hat representatives’ to move on as well. Over a thousand posts proves that this is a ‘conversation’ that’s busily going nowhere and is more repetitive than it is constructive. Please be aware that if there’s wind of any real news re this matter, Warren will post it—and rational people will discuss it in the fresh topic rather than in this doomed pit.
    It’s been…it’s been…well, it’s just been.

      1. Eddy,
        .
        You said:
        .
        “(I’m human, of course I’ll read the rants that this posting might provoke but I’m praying for the strength to resist responding to the digs or character assassination that I expect from you.)”
        .
        Digs? Character assassination? Where does that come from?
        .

  1517. Rich…first of all….THANKS FOR YOUR SERVICE!!
    Rich wrote:

    So if you are fantasizing about some sort of revolt by the military, forget about it.

    Not fantasizing at all Rich…just stating a FACT! One is not required to follow just ANY OLD ORDER in the military. It would be prudent to follow and THEN bring up the fact that it was an UNLAWFUL order, but you are not REQUIRED to do so.
    Let’s say Obama issued you an order to go kill all Republicans that you run into on the street………would YOU do it?
    I would hope not! 😉

    1. Crazy Greek,

      Let’s say Obama issued you an order to go kill all Republicans that you run into on the street………would YOU do it?

      Of course not. An order such as that would be illegal on its face. Refusing to obey an order simply because you have reservations about the authority behind the order is another matter entirely. Besides, when did you ever receive a direct order from a president? The president tells the joint chiefs what he wants done, and they make sure that the orders are issued.

  1518. Hugh wrote:

    We need to go to General Quarters!!!

    Spoken like a true sailor!! 😉
    Sound the call Hugh…..up and forward to Starboard……down and aft to Port!!

  1519. Rich wrote:

    I hate to break the news to you, but JCS chairman Mike Mullen was on 60 Minutes this past Sunday and said that he is prepared to obey all orders given to him by Obama.

    I suggest you read the UCMJ Rich. I highly doubt that the JCS chairman is THAT stupid!
    ROFLMFAO

    1. I suggest you read the UCMJ Rich. I highly doubt that the JCS chairman is THAT stupid!

      I have read the UCMJ, having spent four years in the Navy.
      As for Admiral Mullen, on 60 Minutes he said, “When President-elect Obama gets in and he says, ‘Here’s the decision,’ the United States military, led by me, is gonna march off and execute that decision.’
      You can read it all here:
      http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/08/60minutes/main4707798_page4.shtml#ccmm
      So if you are fantasizing about some sort of revolt by the military, forget about it.

        1. Highlander Juan,

          Interesting. Why do you think Admiral Mullen felt compelled to make that statement?

          I assume that he is satisfied that President Obama will have the authority to give him orders.

  1520. Rich wrote:

    It’s highly unlikely that Obama is “haunted” by any of this.

    Gotta agree with ya there Rich. My mistake. I forgot for a minute that one has to have a conscious in order to be “haunted”……Obama certainly doesn’t! 😉

  1521. Rich:
    When a vault copy Obama birth certificate is produced (as impossible as that seems), and his birth location is Kenya, then it will all hit the fan for Obama!

    1. Hugh,

      When a vault copy Obama birth certificate is produced (as impossible as that seems), and his birth location is Kenya, then it will all hit the fan for Obama!

      When you or anyone comes up with actual PROOF that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii, I’ll be happy to look at it.

      1. OK, Rich, this is getting tiring. You want to see the doc, you go get it. Stop trying to get other people to prove to you that you are right. You do it.

        1. Highlander Juan:

          OK, Rich, this is getting tiring. You want to see the doc, you go get it. Stop trying to get other people to prove to you that you are right. You do it.

          I don’t need any more proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. I’m satisfied with the proof I have seen, and totally unconvinced by the claims that he was born in Kenya or anywhere else.
          But let’s assume for the sake of argument that he was born in Kenya. This means that his mother, an American citizen, traveled to Kenya in the summer of 1961 and then returned to Hawaii after Obama was born. Where is the evidence of this trip?
          If Obama was born in Kenya, there must be a Kenyan birth certificate or a British birth certificate. Where are they? You keep on insisting that Obama produce the vault copy of his birth certificate, but how about someone producing the birth certificate which shows that he was born in Kenya? I seem to recall that Jerome Corsi went to Kenya last summer to search for documentary evidence and came back empty-handed.
          If Obama was born in Kenya, you shouldn’t need his Hawaii birth certificate to prove it. Just get some hard evidence that he was born in Kenya.
          Answer me this: why haven’t Taitz and Berg and the other attorneys subpoenaed the State Department and INS for records of Ann Dunham’s travels in 1961? Why haven’t they subpoenaed the records of Obama’s return to Hawaii from Indonesia in 1971? Why haven’t they subpoenaed the records of his trip to Indonesia in 1981? Maybe it’s because they know that they won’t like what they find.
          I’ve been working with lawyers for more than thirty years, and I know a flim-flam when I see one. Berg, Taitz and the others are going to file lawsuits for as long as they have enough gullible people out there who are willing to bankroll them. Does anybody have any idea how much money Phllip Berg has raised on his website? Has there been any accountability? None that I have seen.

  1522. Juan wrote:

    Greek,
    .
    What frustrates me about these people is that they are so willing to throw the Constitution under the bus so their chosen one can achieve title of POTUS.

    Yeah…I hear ya Juan…….sure makes ya wonder, don’t it?
    I don’t see why they are soooo afraid of the comparison of the birth certificates…just doesn’t make sense, unless there is an underlying reason WHY this information should be supressed.
    Also, I don’t think this is going to go away anytime soon, no matter how much it’s said “Get over it” or “Obama’s already shown a BC”..yada, yada, yada……….I know that Berg has one left before the SCOTUS right now and if that one is dismissed, he also has another set to go and then, so Berg says, he has another plan to go after Obama AFTER he is sworn in as President, going at it from a different angle. So, this is probably gonna haunt Obama unless and until he goes public with the document that Hawaii says they have on file for comparison.
    Trust but VERIFY………..Obama seems to want everyone’s ‘trust’ but ain’t about the VERIFY a damn thing! 😉

    1. Crazy Greek,

      know that Berg has one left before the SCOTUS right now and if that one is dismissed, he also has another set to go and then, so Berg says, he has another plan to go after Obama AFTER he is sworn in as President, going at it from a different angle.

      Berg will continue to file lawsuits as long as there are enough suckers who will keep sending him money. I personally wouldn’t give Berg a dime to represent me in any case, given his dubious reputation. The briefs that he filed in Berg v. Obama are so riddled with erroneous statements about the law that I would question his ability to handle a simple auto accident case.
      Incidentally, the only Berg matter currently pending before SCOTUS is Berg’s “Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari.” His application for an injunction is moot because his petition for cert is no longer “pending” — it has been denied. SCOTUS will either drop it from the conference schedule or it will simply be denied without comment.

      So, this is probably gonna haunt Obama unless and until he goes public with the document that Hawaii says they have on file for comparison.

      It’s highly unlikely that Obama is “haunted” by any of this. In spite of the unsubstantiated claimes that he has spent millions of dollars defending these lawsuit, the fact of the matter is that he is a named defendant in only a few of them, and the court filings show that Obama’s attorneys have done little or no work on them. In the cases which have been denied by SCOTUS — Donofrio, Wrotnowski, and now Berg — Obama’s attorneys didn’t file a single document with SCOTUS, because they know the there was no possibility that SCOTUS would accept any of the cases.
      And in spite of what you say, the lawsuits will not end if Obama’s vault birth certificate is produced. The people who are filing these lawsuits are claiming that Obama is not eligible EVEN IF HE WAS BORN IN HAWAII. Among the theories being floated:
      1. He isn’t a natural born citizen because his father was not a citizen.
      2. He isn’t eligible to be president because he had dual citizenship (or triple citizenship) with Great Britain/Kenya/Indonesia (take your pick).
      3. He isn’t eligible because he was adopted by Luis Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.
      4. He isn’t eligible because he became a citizen of Indonesia and renounced his U.S. citizenship.
      5. He isn’t eligible because his mother was only 18 years old when he was born.
      6. He isn’t eligible because he had an Indonesian passport.
      And that’s just some of them. I’ve even seen bloggers claiming that Obama’s real father was Malcolm X, as if that would have anything to do with anything.
      Here is what is going to happen:
      1. The final Berg application will be denied.
      2. Obama will be inaugurated on Tuesday.
      3. The Lightfoot application for a stay will be conferenced on 1/23 and then will be denied.
      And then you guys will still be complaining about this in 2012 when Obama runs for re-election.

  1523. Robert wrote:

    Crazy Greek (or was it Eddy?) himself didn’t have a straight face when he suggested that the HI vault should be opened and Obama’s birth certificate examined in public view! NO ONE could be that silly, right??

    What’s the matter Robert? Afraid there might be something on that vault copy that would not be to your liking?
    Please give us one good reason why, since you seem so sure of your guy Obama, that you would NOT want to see the vault copy that Hawaii says is in their possession compared side by side with the copy that Obama claims is his original birth certificate. (PLEASE, don’t fall back on that lame “they’ll just say it’s a fake” excuse, ok?)
    As to your military comment as the all knowing of what the military will do….anyone in the military is sworn to follow all LAWFUL orders…not ANY orders given by just ANYONE.
    You can gloat now Robert, but I just wonder if you are going to be man enough to come on here, should this BC thing be proven false and it proved beyond doubt that Obama is NOT a NBC, and put your gloating aside long enough to admit to the rest that you and everyone else who voted for this guy was wrong. Will you?

    1. Greek,
      .
      What frustrates me about these people is that they are so willing to throw the Constitution under the bus so their chosen one can achieve title of POTUS.
      .

    2. Crazy Greek,

      As to your military comment as the all knowing of what the military will do….anyone in the military is sworn to follow all LAWFUL orders…not ANY orders given by just ANYONE.

      I hate to break the news to you, but JCS chairman Mike Mullen was on 60 Minutes this past Sunday and said that he is prepared to obey all orders given to him by Obama.
      Do you really believe that there are active duty military officers who are going to refuse to obey orders because they have doubts about Obama’s eligibility to be president? If there are, for their sakes I hope that they are making plans for their new careers outside of the military.

  1524. Eddy, concerning your post:
    1. The LORD is certainly speaking to Israel in Deuteronomy 17:15. But America or any nation can learn God’s intent for those in authority over a nation’s people. I see this verse matching the natural born citizen clause in the Constitution. So France would not allow an Englishman to be in top authority. This seems reasonable to me.
    2. Basically, a person had to be a member of one of the Tribes of Israel. Marriages to foreigners were prohibited since that would cause Israel to sin.
    3. Concerning Obama, I think the weight of the evidence suggests that he is foreign born, most likely in Kenya. He does have connections to Indonesia. Now, this is my take on the situation.
    Concerning a divided Israel/Jerusalem: Psalm 122:3 says “Jerusalem, that is built as a city that is compact together;” This would indicate that Jerusalem is not to be divided. The LORD told each Tribe what their boundaries would be, a measured out inheritance.
    Scripture says to pray for Jerusalem (Israel) in Psalm 122: 6, and Isaiah 62:6-7 indicates the same support.
    The LORD gave Israel to the Jews, the descendants of Abraham and Sarah. Now He actually excluded others (such as Americans, or Palestinians). But they could certainly live in the land with permission in peace. But seizure of land would not be permitted.
    Eddy: I was responding to Juan’s response to Chuck, and Chuck indicated that I was not giving Obama the benefit of the doubt concerning what Obama might do. I picked up on Juan’s response to Chuck, as follows.
    “BTW, I am also of the opinion that Obama knows exactly what he is doing, and is extremely malicious in his intent.”
    I have yet to find Chuck’s response to Juan’s above statement. Basically, I have trouble with Obama’s character.
    So, each nation should be ruled by one of its own and not by a foreigner. The Framers caught this concept and placed it in our Constitution. This speaks of America’s trouble with Obama, and our need to really who Obama is and where he came from.
    When you balk at one verse answers you are absolutely correct. You asked some great questions!

  1525. So MUCH bitterness over a lost election???
    Seriously guys: get over it. NO ONE with credibility is buying into this “Obama is not eligible” nonsense. Heck, I’m even quite sure that Crazy Greek (or was it Eddy?) himself didn’t have a straight face when he suggested that the HI vault should be opened and Obama’s birth certificate examined in public view! NO ONE could be that silly, right??
    As opposed to- yeah, you know- listening to what state officials say! LOL, no no MUCH to logical for the Tin Foil Hat Brigade.
    Especially amusing are the references to what the military might do with Obama as C in C. Here’s news, fellas: The military will do what Obama tells them to do. They will follow orders.
    See medical attention kids.

    1. Robert,
      .
      Unlike you and your style of thinking, conservatives (at least this conservative) are far more concerned about the laws of the land. We don’t get emotional or bitter about it, we just try to stick to the facts and get the answers when questions arise.
      .
      As far as getting over it, let’s see what happens in the long term. I would hope you and Rich would be right and that everything becomes wonderful under the new messiah, but I have worked enough with law enforcement to know a fraud when I see one, so I am not optimistic about Obama having clean hands. In fact, I’m personally convinced he’s dirty as hell.
      .
      Have a nice day, fellas.

    2. When I joined the military in 1961, my oath was sworn to the Constitution of the United States. Not the president.

  1526. Oh yikes…..
    now we’re picking and choosing our way through the Bible to support our views, go figure.

    Consider that the LORD says “…you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman” in Deuteronomy 17:15.

    LOL. 1) Can you demonstrate how we know that verse was speaking to all nations everywhere and not just the nation of Israel? 2) Do you have access to God’s rules for certification of foreign status? 3) Where do you find support for the notion that Obama is not our countryman?
    Re supporting Israel: Is the Bible clear that the only way to support Israel is to give them that land to the exclusion of all other people? I honestly don’t have a solution to that crisis but I balk at one-verse defenses that don’t consider the whole. (BTW: some conservative Christians would challenge that the New Covenant in Christ gives a new twist to some of these understandings. Once again, I have more questions than answers but don’t we now have two groups of people who God calls “mine”…the Jews–particularly those living in ‘the Holy Land’ and the Christians.) But, you’re the theologian. Perhaps you’ll expound.

  1527. Chuck:
    Concerning Israel, the LORD will judge any nation that does not support her. Any attempt to force Israel to divide her land is folly!
    Concerning Obama, I can inspect his fruit of his life as I am aware of it, test what he says, (He considers the Constitution a flawed document.), look at his associations (Ayers, Rezko, etc.). He is extremely pro-choice, supporting partial-birth abortion.
    I do not agree with Bill Clinton on most issues. But then there are times when he answers with understanding and I do give him credit.
    Consider that the LORD says “…you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman” in Deuteronomy 17:15.
    Consider Joshua 9:1-27 where it speaks of Joshua’s failure with the Gibeonites and their deceit as to their identity.
    How can I support such a man who refuses to adequately identify himself, who actually may be a foreigner?
    I do believe Obama has malicious intent from what I know about the man, and I believed it apart from Juan’s opinion, expressed above, in which I fully concur.

    1. Hugh,

      He considers the Constitution a flawed document

      The Constitution is a flawed document. That’s why it has been amended 27 times. However, Obama was speaking only about the fact that the Constitution permitted slavery in the United States, and similar sentiments have been expressed by Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and even President Bush.

  1528. re: Bobby Jindal and John McCain, it is instructive to read what the requirements to be a NBC actually are. From the website http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
    As follows:
    If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.
    Natural-born citizen
    Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
    Anyone born inside the United States *
    Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
    Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
    * There is an exception in the law – the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.
    Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
    Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
    The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.
    In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain – but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.

    1. Wild Bill,
      Do you realize that what you just posted establishes that Obama is a natural born citizen, even if he was born in Kenya?

      Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years

      Obama’s father was an alien, and his mother was a U.S. citizen who had lived in the United States her entire life, so by this definition Obama is a natural born citizen regardless of where he was born.

    2. Thank you, Rich.
      Did you even begin to notice that my comment was toward Bobby Jindal and John McCain?
      Frankly, I don’t think that BHS is a NBC. But that will go on for a while until a court decides to act of fact. Until then, I remain a skeptic.
      And I really would rather have BHS produce the evidence than have it come out later and produce a real crisis.
      Just my opinion as a Viet Nam veteran.

  1529. Hugh –
    Hmmmmm…
    I dont know about that. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt – there is no “hard evidence” to support malicious intent on anything. I recall when the left wingers had all of this same kinda talk about GW Bush (“he lied, people died…” etc.) and I cast it off then, too. I dont beleive any of that nonsense about GW Bush. I DO however, think he made some mistakes on some MAJOR issues during his Administration but I DO believe that whatever he did, he THOUGHT he was doing the right thing for this country. Right or wrong, he did not have “malicious intent.” I dont think Obama is “the anti-Christ” or anything near it. Of course, I could be wrong…LOL
    But seriously, any such talk is speculation fueled by reports (some probably true, and some probably false) that to date has not been able to stick. One, such as myself, HOPES AND PRAYS he is a “good man” and is the right person for the job at THIS time. If not, we are in for a WORLD of extreme pain and despair in this country….
    I am an optimist by nature so, Lord willing, (I am also a Christian who beleives “all of this” is a part of God’s plan and providence…), regardless of what happens, America will be one of the “good guys” in the end. HOPEFULLY, Obama will be a GOOD President and get the country moving in the right direction. For example, I HOPE he will take a FIRM hard position on the SIDE of ISRAEL in this Gaza mess – we shall see. I know, wishful thinking – but we have to wait and see… The Bush Administration screwed that up — ROYALLY…. This whole “two nation state” business is a friggin PIPE DREAM and will never happen (IMHO, nor should it…I am sympathetic to the Palestinian people, but as long as they allow HAMAS to lead them, there will NEVER be peace…). Let’s see what he does with this – if he kow-tows to the Palestinians and Arabs and thumbs his nose at Israel, we KNOW are in trouble…
    Only time will tell – I am sure you, me, and everyone else in America (besides those who look at him as the savior of the planet…) will be looking at him very, VERY carefully….

  1530. Juan:
    You said to Chuck:
    “BTW, I am also of the opinion that Obama knows exactly what he is doing, and is extremely malicious in his intent.”
    I agree 1,000%. That is the reason he must be stopped “on the back-end”. We Americans cannot and must not give Obama a pass. A man does not get into this condition and into this position without a being methodical and malicious. He has had many willing helpers. He considers the Constitution a flawed document. His policies will destroy the coal industry. I could go on and on… We cannot and must not think that Obama is just ignorant. I cannot think of a good reason to support him. We need to go to General Quarters!!!

  1531. Btb, I DO NOT believe the NBC constitutional requirement to become POTUS should be changed…LOL

  1532. Juan –
    No problem with what you are saying from my end. I think, generally speaking, we agree…
    However, I am of the opinion that the law suits will fail and not go anywhere. Additionally, at this point in THIS particular case, I am unsure of it should be pressed…. Time will prove one of us right or wrong… It may do well just let sleeping dogs lie…(shrug)
    Interesting “conspiracy theory” speculation, there. Frankly, this entire thing doesnt make any sense to me (that “thing” being the fact that this problem has not been fixed in the FEC process…). It is QUITE easy to do – vet this at the FRONT end and STATE the constitutional NBC requirement in the friggin forms (which the forms currently, do NOT state, nor do they even MENTION the NBC requirement ANYWHERE…). CLEARLY STATE AND LAY OUT what documentation is REQUIRED/MANDATORY to prove NBC, etc. along with any other legal/constitutional requirements and ensure that all documentation is vetted and approved BEFORE ACCEPTING the candidacy of an individual and VOILA, problem solved!!!! How difficult is that!?!?! LOL
    Having said that, I dont have the foggiest idea why folks with questionable eligibility have been allowed to run for POTUS, but what you are saying is as good conspiracy theory as any I’ve heard. That is one of the STUPIDEST things I have ever heard of our bureacratic process doing – another e.g. was Mitt Romney’s Dad was born in Mexico for goodness sakes and yet he was allowed to run for POTUS!?!?! What sense does that make??? He could never HOLD the office had he beaten Nixon in the Primary, so why ACCEPT his candidacy paperwork!?!?! This is tantamount to saying, “You can run, but, oh, by the way, if you win, you are not eligible to HOLD the POTUS office…”
    Anyhoo, perhaps you are right – perhaps they want to do away with the NBC requirement? If so, friggin change the constitution – why cant they try this from the front door instead of the back door?
    I dont know, but maybe that is the case…

  1533. Additionally, Bobby Jindal was born to Indian immigrant parents shortly after they arrived in the U.S. on student visas. He would not pass muster under a classic definition of “natural born” and people need to know that. In an era where multiculturalism is praised as a virtue, and where the U.S. should hardly be under attack from that perspective since we’ve been a “nation of immigrants” longer than most (or, indeed, any although Western Europe is finding out what it’s like), the GOP talking heads wanted some “Great Multicultural Hope for 2012” to emerge.
    So eager were they about Jindal being the quick and easy way “out of the wilderness” for the Republican party, that the Constitution, for them, is what you throw under the bus.

  1534. Juan –
    Understood. My own personal opinion is that this thing aint going anywhere…
    At this point, I am not sure that it should, to be honest – EVEN THOUGH I believe that if Obama is NOT a “natural born U.S. citizen” then he should NOT be POTUS. I HATE the fact that there is even a question about this when there should not be ANY questions about this – these issues should be vetted at the FRONT end. But, the govt has not sought to correct the problem in the past, chose not to SERIOUSLY address it to date, and hence, I dont know if they should mess with it at this point. The potential damage done to the fabric U.S. could be far worse than just letting him be President and move forward – IMHO…. And let’s face it, the fact that folks who were NOT eligible to hold the office have been running for the POTUS in the past is still a travesty. Whether they won or not is kinda moot – the point is that they should NEVER have even been ALLOWED to run for office IF they were not fully eligible to HOLD that office. This is the first time such a candidate actually WON the office…
    We have been down the short list of folks who we KNOW were not “natural born U.S. citizens” and been allowed to RUN for the POTUS (up until now, none of those questionable candidates actually won…). And the alternative, Sen. McCain, had his OWN questionable “natural born U.S. citizen” issues so this VERY PREVENTABLE MESS was going to happen REGARDLESS of which candidate won.
    It is ASININE that this is even an issue and I am frankly sick of it… FIX THE DAGGUM PROBLEM SO IT DOESNT HAPPEN AGAIN….

    1. Chuck,
      .
      Again I am in general agreement with your comments. Having said that, I believe one or more of the legal challenges will succeed due to the sheer numbers of lawsuits involved and the determination of us and our neighbors to reach a conclusion. We are either a nation or laws or we are not.
      .
      Actually, to add to the conspiracy theory a bit more, it is conceivable that both non-NBC candidates were intentionally thrown into the fray in an effort to kill the NBC requirement in the Constitution. Now, you have to ask, why would anyone want to do that? What happens if the door is opened to non-NBC POTUS candidates?
      .
      And, yes, we have to figure out a means of preventing this problem in the future. I believe the problem starts at the state level, and if state elected officials, Congressmen, and Senators had the NBC requirement imposed on them this would help dilute the problem immensely. Add to that that at least one Secretary of State be legally required to vett all POTUS candidates for NBC status.
      .
      Trust but verify. Works every time.

    1. Chuck,
      .
      The clock is running out for legal action before Obama gets inaugurated, but that doesn’t stop the legal processes. In fact, depending on exactly what Obama does while in office, it may leave him exposed to additional legal trials.
      .
      For example, what happens to the laws Obama has signed if he is subsequently found to be a usurper.
      .
      How does the military respond if their CinC is not legally elected?
      .
      IMHO, there are just too many questions being asked, and the answers will have to come at some point.
      .
      BTW, I am also of the opinion that Obama knows exactly what he is doing, and is extremely malicious in his intent.

  1535. Hugh –
    I understand that. All I am saying is that it aint gonna happen… This thing is done… After 1/20/09 and the inauguration happens, I will remind you that “I told you so…”
    If by some chance what you suggest DOES happen, I will buy you a cyber drink of your favorite alcoholic beverage b/c you were right!!! LOL

  1536. Chuck:
    President-elects can fail to qualify for the Office of the President of the United States. The Constitution does provide for this possibility. Any valid notice of failure up to the point of Obama’s swearing in ceremony can still disqualify the man.

  1537. Guys…
    I hate to say I “told you so…” but…. I told you so…
    This thing was a done deal. The SCOTUS wasnt going to get involved…
    At this point, let us look at ways of PREVENTING problems like this in the future. As I have said many times, it is a TRAVESTY that ANY candidate could get beyond the 1st step in the candidate process without having ANY and ALL questions about “natural born U.S. citizenship” (and other constitution and legal requirements) status addressed and resolved in the affirmative. If they are not resolved at step 1, the potential candidates need to be prohibited from moving forward in their campaign UNTIL such as time as they are proven to be “natural born U.S. citizens.” Period. If they cannot meet the constitutional requirements to hold that office, they are done. I HOPE we can get the bureaucrats in Washington to friggin’ change the FEC filing forms to REQUIRE that proper documentation be submitted and verified to avoid these kinds of problems in the future…
    As we have discussed in this blog, it is not the first time Presidential candidates have had these questions about citizenship posed but it should be the LAST time. If it happens again, we have no one to blame but ourselves for not ensuring that these “loopholes” are fixed…

    1. Chuck,
      .
      I agree with everything you have said except that the matter is over. There is too much legal work still in process to consider this over.

  1538. THE TRAITORS IN CONGRESS
    .
    By Lynn Stuter
    January 13, 2009
    NewsWithViews.com
    .
    “On January 8, 2009, with no objection being raised, Congress — House and Senate — voted unanimously to certify the Electoral College.
    .
    Not one legislator, Republican or Democrat, Senator or Representative, could or did refute even one of the undisputed facts concerning the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of president under Article II, Section 1, United States Constitution. Not one!”
    .
    Read the whole article at: http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter138.htm
    .
    We need to understand that so far, not one elected official has chosen to abide by, and to support, the United States Constitution. Our whole government system is flagrantly lawless at this point, and we, The People, need to force the return to lawfulness in American government. The problem didn’t happen overnight, and it will not be fixed overnight, but we need to fix it. For us, and for our children.
    .

  1539. I hear ya Hugh! Some of us Texans have that gift of just saying what we mean and lettin the chips fall…..know what I mean? 😉

  1540. Crazy Greek:
    The first thing I want to say is that you are not “Crazy”! I have been wanting to say that for awhile.
    I was coming back to encourage you to listen to Ed’s show on Friday night at 07:00 CST 01/16/09.
    Ed will have Edwin Vieira, Jr. and Stephen Pidgeon, the lawyer for Broe v Reed. I listened tonight and Obama’s noose is tightening in the land of Obamalot as far as I can tell according to what Stephen Pidgeon told Ed.
    I know Ed can speak before he has all the information, but he is an good ole Texas boy, but he does have a heart for America. Vieira and Pidgeon will be excellent!
    Also, consider that Ed has posted actual evidential documents on his PRN. They are true documents. That is more than I can say about Obama!

  1541. Also, there is THIS on tape….Kenyan Ambassador admitting that Obama was born in KENYA………..and here’s the proof that he could NOT have misunderstood the questions…………………………………………………
    Kenyan Ambassador Confirms Obama Birthplace
    There’s a new development in Barack Obama’s ongoing Birth-Gate controversy. On November 6, radio talk show host Mike Clark of “Mike in the Morning” on WRIF, Detroit, placed a call to the Embassy of Kenya located in Wash., D.C. in which Ambassador Peter Ogego states the birthplace of president elect Barack Obama in Kenya is a well-known landmark.
    Joining Mike in the phone call were co-hosts Trudi Daniels and Marc Fellhauer. Here’s a partial transcript of the exchange:
    Clark: “We want to congratulate you on Barack Obama, our new president, and you must be very proud.”
    Ogego: “We are. We are. We are also proud of the U.S. for having made history as well.”
    Fellhauer: “One more quick question, President-elect Obama’s birthplace over in Kenya, is that going to be a national spot to go visit, where he was born?”
    Ogego: “It’s already an attraction. His paternal grandmother is still alive.
    Fellhauer: “His birthplace, they’ll put up a marker there?”
    Ogego: “It would depend on the government. It’s already well known.
    There is NO DOUBT about who EXACTLY was being discussed and the Ambassador even confirms that with his “his paternal grandmother is still alive” statement. He could have been talking about NO ONE ELSE but President Elect Obama.
    He has since come forth and tried to say that he thought they were meaning Obama, Sr. but the tape doesn’t lie!
    I don’t the the Ambassador OR Obama’s Grandmother were lying either when they said what they did. They were actually being very TRUTHFUL and PROUD!

  1542. Hugh,
    I started listening to Ed Hale, for one since he is a good ole Texas boy…Ha Ha….but mainly because I heard that he was going to disclose some interesting information that he had coming in from some investigator that he had hired in Hawaii concerning Obama’s citizenship standing.
    Unfortunately, Ed has left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth since he has failed to prove ANYTHING concerning this. I was hoping that someone had FINALLY gotten all their ducks in a row on this, but as it turned out, if looks like Ed misfired badly. I would have much rather him have kept his mouth shut and waited to spring his information than to have tried to get everyone’s hopes up the way he did, know what I mean?
    As for the lawyers trying to “interpret” anything the SCOTUS is liable to do…..I don’t think the person exist anymore that can tell what these bunch of JESTERS are gonna do from one session to the next. I would even venture to say that the clairvoyant that would be willing to go out on a limb and predict that the SCOTUS is gonna do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING day in and day out, would be close to being right! 😉

    1. Hugh,
      .
      That is a huge page. Can you provide the specific link you are referring to?

  1543. Juan:
    You may want to visit PRN earlier ( a day or two) to get a feel for the place. As far as I know it will be Ed Hale’s show! The website is not always easy for me to follow. I think the Obama situation is coming to a boil. I find it best to listen directly to the lawyers. See http://www.stephenpidgeon.com for Broe v Reed. Pidgeon and Vieira will be on together as I understand.
    Thanks for your support with my postings!

  1544. Then of course we have this on tape where Obama’s Grandmother in Kenya, through an interpreter, admits that she was present when Obama was born. Given that the tape is scratchy and we are unable to understand what the Grandmother is saying due to her speaking in a different language, but it is clear from the tape with this Bishop that both interpreter’s present in the room clearly understood and translated the Grandmother’s response to the question. Interestingly, she has not given ANY interviews since this one!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlFc4wCpvSo&feature=related
    Wonder why that is? Could it be that someone informed her that she just let the cat out of the bag and that any further statements on her part could jeopardize her grandson’s chance at becoming POTUS?
    What reason would she have to lie? The question was clear enough as to whom the Bishop was referring to. This, in my estimation, is just a clear case of a Grandmother proud of her Grandson and his accomplishments and indeed proud of the fact that she was present at his birth………………in KENYA!

  1545. Juan:
    Edwin Vieira is going to be on Plains Radio Network (www.plainsradio.com) on Friday night (6:00 PM CST) 01/16/09 according to Ed Hale of PRN.

  1546. Robert wrote:

    You answer your own question, CG- you tell me: For you, what IS the difference between the documents?

    The difference Robert, should this be handled as I suggested, is that we would see a government official opening a document that would have seen the light of day for the first time since it was produced and publicly reading, or having said document photographed, exactly what is written on it. THAT would satisfy me, believe me.
    However, it is your contention that this type of disclosure would not satisfy anyone anymore than the document that was placed on Obama’s web site? Are you SERIOUS?
    The document on Obama’s web site, purported to be his original BC could have been tampered with by ANYONE, since it has been in the public domain, including (if they are to be believed) several internet groups claiming to have seen, touched and verified said document. An interesting note here……..the document on Obama’s web site is noticeably missing (blacked out entirely) the certificate number while miraculously, on the Factcheck site (I believe it was), that number is clear as day…along with creases in the document (missing on the Obama site) and the image of what is supposed to be an ‘official seal’……also MISSING on the Obama web site.
    Now, in all honesty, which document (the one Hawaii says they have or the one on the Obama site) would YOU be more apt to believe?
    Time to take the blinders off! It’s a fact of life….too many unanswered questions usually =someone trying to hide something…………….especially when the question is as simple as this one regarding Obama producing the document that Hawaii says they have on file.
    Simple.

  1547. Robert, you are indeed correct in assuming that some of the ‘internet crowd’ would probably make that claim. However, I do believe that producing the document would also go a long way to quieting the majority in this crowd that feel there is something being hidden by Obama with his refusal to show this Hawaiian document.
    Nothing could be simpler really……IF he KNOWS that the documents are the same, why the hesitancy to produce for comparison?
    Again…there could only be ONE reason……they are NOT the same and Obama knows it!

    You answer your own question, CG- you tell me: For you, what IS the difference between the documents? Are you really going to sit here and try to tell us that while you appear to be certain (based on what you have read at nutjob internet sites) that the current Obama COLB is a forgery, but – for some reason- you would somehow believe that another document provided would be accepted as the real thing?
    Are you kidding me?? Why would there be any difference between the two documents.
    Face what is patently obvious. 100% of this Tempest in a Teapot “controversy” is sour grapes and bitterness over the fact that the Right got their rear end handed to them in the last election cycle. That is ALL this is about. Nothing more.
    I used to think the Left was the childish part of american politics, with the way they acted after GW Bush’s 2000 victory in Florida. But this proves that the Right is every bit as bad.
    So- are you guys going any Inaugration Balls?

  1548. A COLB is not a birth certificate, and it with not, and does not stand up to legal scrutiny.

    OF COURSE it does, Hugh!! How else did Obama get his passport?

  1549. Janice Okubo does not speak for Dr. Fukino.

    LOL, Drums.
    Tell us, then: What IS the role of a “spokesperson?”

    1. Hugh:

      I also need to add that Obama’s COLB has be proven to be forgery.

      It has not been “proven” to be a forgery. No forensic expert with any ethics or professionalism would claim to be able to “prove” anything about a document only by looking at photographs of it on the Internet.
      Those who claim that it is a forgery say it has no certificate number. But the certificate number was merely blacked out by staffers before it was posted on the Internet because they mistakenly thought that posting the number might have some privacy implications. They say that is has no signature or raised seal. That is because the Obama campaign posted only the front side of the COLB. The signature and seal are clearly visible on the back side of the COLB.
      http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_7.jpg
      And this is what the right-wing World Net Daily reported on August 23, 2008:

      However, FactChecker.org says it obtained Obama’s actual birth certificate and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama’s campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document.
      A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.

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

        1. Highland Juan:

          Have you reviewed this affidavit regarding the posted Obama COLB?

          Yes, and her affidavit is worthless.
          1, She has not examined the actual COLB which Obama has in his possession. She has only viewed pictures of it on the Internet. No examination of photographs of a document can be considered to be an actual forensic examination of the document, which she herself admits.
          2. She implies that she examined the photographs of the COLB on factcheck.org, but then she makes a big deal about the COLB not having a certificate number. If she had actually looked at the factcheck.org photos, she would have seen the certificate number plain as day.
          http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg
          3. Even at that, she doesn’t claim that the COLB is fake. She only says that it “cannot be relied upon as genuine.” That’s a far cry from claiming that it is a forgery. She goes on to say that “any image offered on the Internet cannot be relied upon as being a copy of the authentic document.” Well, duh. That’s why the factcheck.org reporters examined it IN PERSON. Nobody has ever claimed that a mere photograph of the COLB would pass muster in a court of law.
          And, contrary to what many people have claimed, the COLB does in fact meet every legal requirement for obtaining a U.S. passport. The regulations state that “A birth certificate must include your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records.” Obama’s COLB meets all of those requirements.
          In the purely legal sense, the affadavit has no probative value at all because no one ever contended that a photo of the COLB is LEGAL proof of where Obama was born. That may be one reason why the lawsuit (Keyes v. Lingle) was dismissed a day after the affidavit was filed.

        2. Highlander Juan:

          You sure are a dreamer, Rich.

          That’s funny. The last time I looked, I wasn’t the one who was fantasizing that these birth certificate lawsuits had a snowball in hell’s chance of succeeding.

  1550. Rich:
    You are right about it being “absolutely breathtaking”. I would agree with you if Hawaii had no provision for foreigners to receive Hawaiian certificates.
    Here is a post that supports my position, with pro and con comments:
    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=632#more-632
    Here is another post: http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?paged=5 concerning the COLB.
    Also “absolutely breathtaking” is the fact the most of the news media, and all three branches of the Federal government are eager to put the hush on the Obama controversy. I did not say “birth certificate controversy”. For Obama’s trail of distortions is like a mult-faceted road map.
    I have questions about his draft registration, his application for the Illinois Bar, his shady relationships, etc.. I certainly don’t have all the answers. Obama is the most liberal candidate for President according to “some who know such things”. He is violently pro-choice, advocating the most strict anti-life positions; he would give no support to babies that conceivably would survive abortions. He is arrogant in the sense that he would demand our obedience (especially the military), and yet thumbs his noise at any attempt to prove Presidential eligibility.
    The Framers of the Constitution would not abide Obama.
    So, Obama, AKA, Barry Soetoro, is in hiding! This is not good. Also, America is in hiding, since most are afraid to call his bluff.

    1. Hugh,

      I would agree with you if Hawaii had no provision for foreigners to receive Hawaiian certificates.

      Time for a reality check. HAWAII DOES NOT ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN PEOPLE TO OBTAIN HAWAIIAN CERTIFICATES WHICH SAY THAT THEY WERE BORN IN HAWAII! They simply allow them to get certificates to prove their age. Apparently this is because of the fact that a large number of people born in Japan live in Hawaii, and their Japanese birth certificates are inscrutable to anyone who doesn’t read Japanese. If this were some loophole which would allow foreigners to claim U.S. citizenship, don’t you think that Homeland Security and the FBI would be all over it?
      Obama’s COLB says:
      City, Town or Location of Birth: Honolulu
      Island of Birth: Oahu
      County of Birth: Honolulu

      He is arrogant in the sense that he would demand our obedience (especially the military)

      It is arrogant for the Commander-in-Chief to demand obedience from the military? That’s an interesting concept.

  1551. Monday, January 12, 2009
    .
    Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Primary Lawsuit Challenging Obama’s Constitutional Eligibility to Serve as President
    .
    By Jeff Schreiber
    .
    http://www.americasright.com/2009/01/supreme-court-denies-certiorari-in.html
    .
    “Today was a big setback,” Berg said, “but sooner or later, I’m confident that we can find the proper legal avenue to expose the truth about this unbelievable hoax, this circle of lies which has been thrust upon the American people. Barack Obama has lied to all of us, and he needs to be held responsible for doing so. More importantly, we all need to know that our Constitution still controls, that the president of the United States is constitutionally qualified to be there.”
    .

    1. Hugh,

      A Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is not an original birth certificate due to the fact the Hawaii allowed foreigners to receive Hawaiian certificates. Due to Obama’s foreign connections a Hawaiian COLB will not pass legal muster.

      But Obama’s COLB states that he was born in Honolulu.
      http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg
      Try to look at this logically. Obama has a U.S. passport. He has been registered to vote in both Hawaii and Illinois. He has a Social Security Number. He has filed Federal and State tax returns. He has had driver’s licenses from both Hawaii and Ilinois. So you are essentially claiming that he was able to do all of those things without proof of his citizenship. That would mean that the State Department, the Social Security Administration, the I.R.S., the Board of Elections in two states and the Departrment of Motor Vehicles in two states are all incompetent and/or part of a conspiracy. And add to that list the U.S. Immigration authorities, who have allowed Obama on numerous occasions to enter the United States after trips to foreign countries.
      The scope of this is absolutely breathtaking.

  1552. I reckon their is a few possible answers to that question
    1)The Republican governor has not seen the Certificate of Live Birth for themselves and is simply relying on an unclear statement by Fukino.
    2) Obama has not given any permission to the governor to see his COLB.
    3) The Governor could care less about the possibility that our Pres-elect may be a fraud and is about to become a usurper.
    4)No judge of any district court or ScOTUS has ordered the relase of documents to the court therefore the Gov could care less because the Gov has no spine and does not want liberal public opinion to work against their seat in office.
    Ermm..there are alot of possibilities.
    If he does have a a COLB in the Lonmg form that states he was born in Hawaii, we then still have the issues as to wether or not he gave up his citizenship when he became Barry Soetoro upon his adoption.
    The Berg case has many fronts. All of which need to be cleared up.

  1553. Dr. Fukino did not say that Obama was born in Hawaii and till this day I have not seen any evidence of her saying so.
    Janice Okubo does not speak for Dr. Fukino. Only Doctor Fukino can elaborate on the facts of her statement.

    1. Drumsalot:

      Janice Okubo does not speak for Dr. Fukino.

      Actually, that is exactly what spokespeople do. When Dana Perino answers questions from the press, is she speaking for herself or for President Bush? When Janice Okubo speaks officially, she is speaking for Dr. Fukino and the Hawaii Department of Health.
      Answer me one question. If Obama was not born in Hawaii, why is the Republican governor of Hawaii letting the state’s Department of Health get away with this? No one has yet explained why Governon Lingle would allow this “charade” to continue. Do you have an answer?

  1554. Rich…thanks for posting that…I had not seen where you posted the actual link before. However, now that you have posted it, let me take issue with two points here.
    When those of us that post that we do not believe Obama and we site our sources, a lot of times we are accused of ‘just posting from a blog’, etc. I find it interesting that your source for this statement does indeed come from a blog.
    Secondly, IF that is what Dr. Fukino is saying

    Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

    …….why wouldn’t Dr. Fukino (realizing the importance of her supposed statement) come out and state so herself? Instead, we have this ‘spokeswoman Janice Okubo’ stating that this is what Dr. Fukino MEANT?
    Questionable……..HIGHLY questionable.
    We don’t want more heresay…..we want to see the PROOF………and it still looks like Obama ain’t no where near ready to provide it, now is he?

    1. Crazy Greek:

      When those of us that post that we do not believe Obama and we site our sources, a lot of times we are accused of ‘just posting from a blog’, etc. I find it interesting that your source for this statement does indeed come from a blog.

      It isn’t just any blog. It’s the blog of the Chicago Tribune’s Washington bureau. James Janega is a reporter for the Tribune.

  1555. Juan……that ‘The Hell wish Bipartisanship’ is a very interesting read. I especially found these statements of interest……..gonna be interesting to watch, that’s for sure!

    “If they, too, claim the material is somehow privileged from disclosure, the pot will really have reached the boiling point. As a 501(c)(3) they could be sued for disclosure by any contributor, who could claim his contribution was obtained by a fraudulent misrepresentation that they were actually vetting the four candidates, when in fact they were not (or were hiding what they found).”
    As my readers know, my State Records Act to the Illinois State Board of Elections produced one letter from their General Counsel (addressed to the wrong person) who stated they have not one single piece of paper from Obama for his 1996 candidacy for the Illinois State Senate. In other words, what Sandvoss is saying is that a candidate for the Illinois State Senate simply got on the ballot without any notification or application to the state. The Secretary of State responded they have no documents, but the State Board of Elections does. I have already filed a complaint with the Director.

  1556. This problem with Obama’s lack of legal qualifications is NOT going away. We have seen merely the tip of this problem. There will be more during the coming months.

  1557. Robert,
    I think Rich’s last two sentences alludes to what he was ‘babbling about’, as you put it.
    Rich wrote:

    They would not abide fools!
    But now the politically correct Americans are afraid to offend anyone!

    In other words, as you say the guy was ‘spying and committing treason’, which as I stated before, would be the same thing Obama would be guilty of (the treason part) should it be found out later that he KNOWINGLY assumed the office of POTUS with full knowledge that he had no right to be in that office. Since we are currently at war and the President is the C in C of the armed forces, ANY order he gave regarding United States military could be considered a TREASONOUS act.
    As to your first statement……………………

    Nope, CG. The STATE where Obama was born says he is a citizen and that he was born in that state, and that is the end of it. SImplest thing in the world, really.

    As I stated previously also, I have yet to see anything where any Hawaiian official has publicly stated that they have seen the document, that it does exist and is in their possession AND that said document CLEARLY STATES THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII. I have asked for that quote, but as yet have not seen it here on this forum other than a mention of where it was found. I went and took a look and as of right now, still have not seen it.
    Now, knowing that there is a document that has been shown by Obama to be a true copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate and knowing that said document has been said to be fake, wouldn’t a prudent person, knowing that there is ANOTHER document (It could be the same, but no one knows because it has yet to be produced publicly) want to see the two documents together in order to compare them as to authenticity? Supposedly, the document that the State of Hawaii has in their possession is a form that has been filled out by HAND…..not COMPUTER GENERATED as the form is on Obama’s web site. If both are indeed true and Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, again, why the hesitancy to show for comparison?
    There could only be one answer to that question…..the two are not going to contain the same information. Otherwise, it would be so simple for Obama to say “See..I told ya so” and anyone who knows anything about Obama knows that this is exactly what he WOULD do, due to his arrogance.
    Robert wrote:

    Beyond that, you make another excellent point in Obama’s favor when you mentioned the document he has already released. Sure as we are here today, if his true vaulted HI Birth Certificate was released, the internet crowd would claim that it to was a forgery.

    Robert, you are indeed correct in assuming that some of the ‘internet crowd’ would probably make that claim. However, I do believe that producing the document would also go a long way to quieting the majority in this crowd that feel there is something being hidden by Obama with his refusal to show this Hawaiian document.
    Nothing could be simpler really……IF he KNOWS that the documents are the same, why the hesitancy to produce for comparison?
    Again…there could only be ONE reason……they are NOT the same and Obama knows it!
    To sit here and say that Obama is refusing to produce because he knows that if he does so there are some in an ‘internet crowd’ that are going to claim it as fake is just plain laughable.
    Obama could really CARE LESS what ANYONE thinks…as long as HE gets what HE wants…………………..he’s proven THAT FACT over and over.
    You want simple? PRODUCE THE DOCUMENT FOR COMPARISON! It don’t get no easier than that. 😉

    1. Crazy Greek:

      As I stated previously also, I have yet to see anything where any Hawaiian official has publicly stated that they have seen the document, that it does exist and is in their possession AND that said document CLEARLY STATES THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII. I have asked for that quote, but as yet have not seen it here on this forum other than a mention of where it was found. I went and took a look and as of right now, still have not seen it.

      Well, I have posted it at least twice before, but here it is again. Janice Okubo, spokesperson for the Hawaii Department of Health, was questioned by Chicago Tribune reporter James Janega:

      Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
      “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

      http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html
      So unless your contention is that the State of Hawaii (which has a Republican governor who supported McCain) is part of a massive conspiracy to put Obama into the White House, this would seem to confirm that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii.

  1558. Robert:
    Concerning McCollough’s 1776, I was speaking of the Founders’ serious commitment to fight treason at its root.
    The Hawaii COLB has no control number visible, but it is blackened out. A birth certificate is an identity document. Hawaii allowed foreigners to receive COLB’s. A COLB is not a birth certificate, and it with not, and does not stand up to legal scrutiny. Surely any identity document would have a identity control number.
    Please explain why Obama’s posted COLB has no visible control number? Tell me if you will!

    1. Hugh,

      Please explain why Obama’s posted COLB has no visible control number? Tell me if you will!

      It has a control number. Actually, it’s called a Certificate Number. The number is 151 1961 – 010641.
      http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg

      A COLB is not a birth certificate, and it with not, and does not stand up to legal scrutiny.

      Not true. A Certificate of Live Birth from Hawaii meets all of the legal requirements for establishing when and where the individual was born.

  1559. Crazy GreeK:
    The greater the responsibility requires the greater accountability. The Obamalites never get this. We Joe Plummers are required to provide information for certain privileges, whereas, the Obamalites give Obama a very lenient pass. In 2004 Obama said he considered the Constitution to be a “flawed document”. And we Americans just say “no problem!” No, America definitely has a problem! Obama is a despicable, an evil man, and he will do America much harm. People may see this as off the chart. Watch what Obama says and observe the fruit.

    1. Hugh,

      In 2004 Obama said he considered the Constitution to be a “flawed document”.

      Not quite. Obama made his comments in 2001 during a panel discussion about slavery. The “fundamental flaw” which Obama was referring to was the fact that the Constitution permitted slavery. Last July, Condoleeza Rice said pretty much the same thing:

      “In our first Constitution, my ancestors were three-fifths of a man. What does that say about American democracy at its outset? I’ve said it’s a great birth defect. And we have had to overcome a birth defect. And, like any birth defect, it continues to have an impact on us. It’s why we have such a hard time talking about race, and dealing with race.”

      http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/06/106138.htm
      In fact, I think that it is fair to say that the Constitution as originally ratified contained a number of flaws, which is evident by the fact that it has been necessary to amend it 27 times.

  1560. Just my personal opinion here, but if ANY American citizen does not have standing to question to eligibility of a candidate for President of the United States, who in the heck does possess this ’standing’ that SCOTUS seems to want? Someone in Russia perhaps, or any other foreign country you would care to name?

    Nope, CG. The STATE where Obama was born says he is a citizen and that he was born in that state, and that is the end of it. SImplest thing in the world, really.
    Beyond that, you make another excellent point in Obama’s favor when you mentioned the document he has already released. Sure as we are here today, if his true vaulted HI Birth Certificate was released, the internet crowd would claim that it to was a forgery.
    He has done what he has to do. Time to move on to governing.
    As far as Hugh’s comment goes, can you tell me what he is babbling about?? The man in McCullough’s book SPIED and COMMITTED TREASON. What does that have to do with any of this?

    1. Robert,
      .
      The states are very inconsistent in their approach to candidate requirements.
      .
      ‘Trust but verify’ works every time. Unfortunate that no states (I am aware of) assumes that approach.
      .
      We’ve been conned in this election, and are now in a backup mode, trying to figure how to get this usurper out of office and out of our lives. I’m clearly concerned about his qualifications, but equally concerned about the economic damage we will go through if he does, indeed, implement his socialist economic plans.
      .
      Interestingly enough, there was no request by Cheney for objections during the Official Electoral College Ballot Count as required by 3 USC ¶ 1 § 15 (“… the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.”). This is hugely unusual as well as being against the legal proceedings. (See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode03/usc_sec_03_00000015—-000-.html for details)
      .
      CSPAN video recording of the ballot count proceedings are below.
      .
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3268535214706484890
      .

      1. Highlander Juan:

        Interestingly enough, there was no request by Cheney for objections during the Official Electoral College Ballot Count as required by 3 USC ¶ 1 § 15 (”… the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.”). This is hugely unusual as well as being against the legal proceedings.

        Are you suggesting that Dick Cheney is part of a conspiracy to make Obama president?
        Actually, there is nothing unusual about what transpired. The law also requires that any objections be made in writing: “Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.”
        Obviously, no written objections were filed, so Cheney apparently saw no reason to bring it up. If anyone had an objection to make, all that person would have had to do was make a Point of Order. The fact that nobody did it makes it clear that no member of either the House or the Senate had an objection to make.

        1. Rich,
          .
          I think you waste a lot of time reviewing what is meant by various posts, and can’t seem to take what is written on face value.
          .
          I cited the reference for my statement, and that cite specified the statute that requires the inquiry. Cheney did not follow legal procedures. Watch the CSPAN video.
          .
          Conspiracy? I have no idea, but I do know that politicians do too many back room deals, and so the question of conspiracy can be asked, although getting the answer to the question will be challenging at best. Conspirators usually don’t leave written or verbal trails of their conspiracy for the rest of the world to find.
          .
          So, what is your opinion? Conspiracy or no conspiracy?
          .

  1561. You are absolutely correct Hugh! My point exactly…when there was the slightest question of a persons reason for doing/saying something, questions were quick coming and the answer given had better have been in keeping with the tone of the times or there would have been hell to pay. Now it seems, some just don’t seem to care anymore but would rather ignore the basic premise and underlying principles this country was founded on in order to push their own agenda.
    It’s not as if some of us are asking a tough, unanswerable question or being demanding in our reasoning. We simply want the Constitution followed to the letter of the law, since the Constitution is indeed the supreme law of the land.
    No one is asking someone to “prove the impossible” here. No one is asking the President elect to do something that millions of Americans aren’t asked to do at one point or other in their life.
    The State of Hawaii has stated that they have a document on file which is purported to be Obama’s birth certificate. Obama has stated that he was born in Hawaii and has posted a copy of a document on his web site that he says is his birth certificate. That document’s authenticity has come into question.
    What could be simpler that having the State of Hawaii produce the document they say they have on file for comparison? Is that request difficult? I would say “No, it shouldn’t be” and the natural assumption, should one not be willing to do so is……..what is there on the document currently hidden within the file Hawaii claims to possess that shouldn’t be seen?
    Simple request…simple answer……PRODUCE THE DOCUMENT……….if said document is found to be valid and states that Obama’s birth place is indeed the State of Hawaii, all this GOES AWAY and there is nothing more to be held as a cloud over Mr. Obama’s Presidency.
    Any ‘normal person’ in this position, with nothing to hide, would have that document released for public perusal immediately……and since it’s for a person that is running for the Presidency, one would think that it would be released with PUBLIC FANFARE, opened on the steps of the Hawaiian capitol building with every reporter who would want to be in attendance there to verify it’s authenticity!
    Obama has not done this and his very actions (or better still, lack of action) is what is keeping some people wondering what information this document contains that is of such a nature that he would NOT want it publicly released.
    Further, the actions of our courts (or rather lack of action) in this matter only adds fuel to the fire and will continue to do so until one (Obama) produces, or (the courts) demand that this document be produced.

  1562. Crazy Greek:
    Concerning your reply to Robert, you are right on!!!
    Any faint hint of teason, disloyalty, etc., and the Framers would hop on it like a duck on water. David McCollough’s 1776 reports of a minister spying for the British. The Colonial Army executed the man. They would not abide fools!
    But now the politically correct Americans are afraid to offend anyone!

  1563. Robert wrote:

    I think we can all agree that the USSC should be commended for dealing with all these nonsense citizenship lawsuits in the most efficient way possible, though..

    Not all I’m afraid Robert. Personally, I don’t find the way SCOTUS has handled this to be commendable at all, since most of their rulings are based on the ‘no standing’ issue.
    Just my personal opinion here, but if ANY American citizen does not have standing to question to eligibility of a candidate for President of the United States, who in the heck does possess this ‘standing’ that SCOTUS seems to want? Someone in Russia perhaps, or any other foreign country you would care to name?
    I don’t think the founding fathers wrote the Constitution in the manner they did to have questions regarding a persons eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States just thrown out without so much as a “Would you mind clearing up this little misunderstanding” question to the person in question.
    What will YOU say if at some time in the future Obama’s status as a ‘natural born citizen’ is shown to be a lie? Is it going to remain, in your mind, a “nonsense citizenship lawsuit’ then? Perhaps we should change the wording of the Constitution to ensure that these types of questions can never be asked of anyone again?
    I think the best time to find out the worst (if it be that) would be BEFORE someone (not just Obama) is sworn into office rather than AFTER they have been in for some time and while still holding that office, verification is brought forth which would make them ineligible to have held that office in the first place.
    Call me old fashioned………………………..;-)

  1564. Did diversity put him over the top? Or was it the unenlightened youth vote? Or was it the black vote? Or was it his youth compared to McCains age? Or his running mate (successor if he dies in his office) as contrasted with McCains? Or was it that McCain didn’t distance himself enough from a message of ‘4 more years of the same thing’? I personally think it’s foolish to pin either Obama’s win or McCain’s loss on any one issue. Seems to me there was a whole lot going on. People voted. The majority, for whatever their reasons were, went with Obama.

    Probably some combination of all of the above, Eddy. i.e., Obama was the better candidate.
    I think we can all agree that the USSC should be commended for dealing with all these nonsense citizenship lawsuits in the most efficient way possible, though.. at the second filing, schedule for conference so the thing doesn’t go to nine seperate justices each time.

  1565. But we’re all so focussed on this black democrat that flips our stuff that we can’t stop and recognize that this is the first time the White House has included ‘extended family’…

    Not true.

    Plenty of in-laws have taken up residence in the White House before, not to mention cousins, grandchildren and other relatives.
    “Throughout history there have been many extended first families in office,” said Robert Watson, author of “Life in the White House.”

    http://www.examiner.com/a-1785973~Obama_mother_in_law_to_join_family_in_White_House.html

  1566. Eddy wrote:

    Let’s not get sidetracked. I don’t want anybody that close to the buttons if I don’t know a little more about them.
    I don’t think that’s tin foil thinking; it’s just precautionary.

    Eddy…looks to me like, if more folks had used that kind of thinking BEFORE voting, we wouldn’t be having these discussions now. Interesting that this is exactly what the NON supporters of Obama are being ridiculed for in our questioning regarding Obama’s eligibility to hold office.
    Yep…….would have been nice, but then again, we just HAD TO BE STYLISH, didn’t we? ;-(
    JMHO, of course. 😉

  1567. LOL. But we’re all so focussed on this black democrat that flips our stuff that we can’t stop and recognize that this is the first time the White House has included ‘extended family’…and although you might not require references at your house, the White House is MY house. Let’s not get sidetracked. I don’t want anybody that close to the buttons if I don’t know a little more about them.
    I don’t think that’s tin foil thinking; it’s just precautionary.

  1568. Sorry, I just can’t resist this (the DEVIL made me do it, ok?), but it does kinda fit right into the main topic on this thread……………………………………………………………….
    Eddy wrote:

    I’m assuming she has to go through a background check and all.

    Why? Obama seems to have gotten by without one!
    Bwwwaaahhhhaaa!! 😉

  1569. Thanks,CG! LOL, this has got to be the first mother in law in the White House! I can’t wait for a Saturday Night Live send-up of the whole domestic thing. Or a sitcom. I’m assuming she has to go through a background check and all.

    1. LOL, this has got to be the first mother in law in the White House!

      Actually, it’s happened several times before. For example, Harry Truman’s MIL lived in the White House, and previously she lived with the Trumans at Blair House while Truman was vice-president. Mamie Eisenhower’s mother also lived at the White House for extended periods of time.

  1570. This may be just a bit off topic but what tha heck………………..
    NEWS FLASH!!
    Barack Obama announced today that his MOTHER – IN – LAW will be moving into the White House with the First Family!!!!!!
    ROFLMFAO
    I told ya this one was gonna be one for the books!
    What a HOOT!! In a way, I actually feel sorry (well…….just a little) for the guy.
    Bwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaa! NOT!!

  1571. Did diversity put him over the top? Or was it the unenlightened youth vote? Or was it the black vote? Or was it his youth compared to McCains age? Or his running mate (successor if he dies in his office) as contrasted with McCains? Or was it that McCain didn’t distance himself enough from a message of ‘4 more years of the same thing’? I personally think it’s foolish to pin either Obama’s win or McCain’s loss on any one issue. Seems to me there was a whole lot going on. People voted. The majority, for whatever their reasons were, went with Obama.
    At least for me, you’ll have to explain your “October” surprise question. I’m assuming it’s from Dunn’s book but don’t want to read the book just to answer your question. (LOL. Somehow, although you end with “Just asking”, I’m guessing the reference to an “October” surprise possibility is your way of making a statement that you think that’s a likely possibility.) Anyway, can you elaborate for the benefit of those who haven’t read the book?
    I should note that the bulk of the conversation on this thread has dealt with Berg’s (and other) challenges to Obama’s citizenship. Other stuff does get touched on but it does tend to stick close to topic. (This site has had dozens of Obama topics but I don’t think we’ve had one on ‘Why or How He Won’…so I guess this as good a place to slip in that POV as any.)
    BTW, I’m needing some context regarding “Regarding the Bill Clinton Impeachment fiasco, we found…” Not knowing the book, I don’t know if she views Clinton’s behavior as the fiasco, the notion of impeaching as a fiasco or the way this impeachment went as a fiasco. That’s making the rest of the sentence difficult to understand completely.

  1572. It seems to me that Obama successfully frustrated the COnstitution to
    win the election and make a mockery of it. Diversity put him over the top.
    That if the will of a majority cannot be trusted where there are
    diversified and conflicting interests, it can be trusted nowhere.
    Regarding the Bill Clinton Impeachment fiasco, we found it’s extremely
    dangerous to undo what the voters appear to have done
    Some of the above info was from SOMETHING THAT WILL SURPRISE
    THE WORLD by Susan Dunn
    Was Obama our “October” surprise? Just askig!!!
    Phyllis Kunz

  1573. Rich,
    That was certainly an interesting read.
    It simply blows my mind that qualifications to be Potus are so simple and yet these qualifications do not have to be verified when any one single indivdual questions the candidates eligibility. Once proven in the court of law , No other doubt of eligibility could or should have standing.
    Maybe the worse case scenario in that article will take place in the year 2012 and we’ll have a New World Order. Skull & Bones anyone? Free Masons?

  1574. To Crazy Greek: Thanks for the comments. I find Edwin Vieira, Jr. logic fascinating.
    Other articles linked are as follows:
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm
    http://gunowners.org/by-edwin-vieira-militia/
    I have included all the Vieira links that I have in this spot. The militia article is a group on http://www.gunowners.org. Look at #4. Vieira is a real Constitutional scholar. Basically, I was going after Rich’s position, and so far he has not answered me. I do not think he can effectively and logically do it. I am determined not to live in the land of Obamalot!

  1575. Can’t believe you’re laughing because I am dead serious. I made the suggestion somewhere up in the first 200 posts. If the risks to our country and our Constitution are as critical as you’ve all been saying, and, absolutely everybody, including the top dog, can stand around and say ‘it’s technically not my job’…then your worries are needless because we’re already down the toilet.
    Sleep well!

  1576. Hey Eddy…before I go to bed…..please let us know what you think the reaction would have been out of the Dems had G.W. done what you suggest…please? 😉
    I can’t wait to hear this one……………………..but I’ll just go to bed a laugh myself to sleep…………….hopefully.
    G’night

  1577. I knew it would only be a matter of time before someone in the Obama support group would get around to blaming this all on Bush!
    ROFLMFAO
    Oh Jeezzzzzzzz…how funny! I literally cannot stop laughing…..and that’s a shame cause I really need to go to bed now since I have to get up really early in the morning for work.
    DAGNABIT Eddy…..why did you do this to me?
    Ha Ha Ha Ha He He He He He He………oh C R A P………Bwaaahahahahahah!!
    G’night Gang!!

  1578. I maintain that defending the Constitution is one of the primary responsibilities of the POTUS. If G W were to step up and say, “I’ve been hearing talk, strongly divisive talk, about whether our President elect has the Constitutional right to become President based on the circumstances of his birth. Our nation can’t afford division at this juncture and I feel it’s exceedingly important to bring this matter to a conclusion. I am requesting the State of Hawaii to turn this document over to ________ who I have designated as my official representative in this matter.” If only…if only…. He’d get to exercise his lame duck legs and, if he handled it tactfully, wouldn’t suffer in his post-Presidential pursuits.

  1579. Eddy wrote:

    I’ve named my suggestions several times…the current POTUS was my first suggestion ages ago. Other than that, your state representative or supreme court.

    Well, since this does not fall under the duties of the current POTUS (verification of a person’s eligibility to be POTUS) and since it has now been showed by their unwillingness for anyone to object when Congress did their thing today…..and since it is OBVIOUS TO A BLIND PERSON that SCOTUS has turned tail and refuses to do THIER SWORN DUTY………………any other suggestions? 😉

  1580. Eddy wrote:

    LOL. I’m mildly amused that we Obama people are the ones supposedly set out to trash America but that your the one saying that absolutely NO ONE in the government has any… that this current (not near future) that this current government needs a serious overhaul… and you’re reading from the Pravda!

    Actually Eddy, me saying that no one, etc., should tell you something. I am not a republican OR democrat and………..I will stand and speak what I perceive to be the truth no matter WHO is in those elected seats. Heck, I don’t even agree with what most of MY STATE’S senator or rep has to say on most issues…and neither does a lot of people in my State…except for those with their heads buried so far up their respective party’s rear they couldn’t tell the difference between the truth and fiction anyway.
    As for Pravda…I don’t think I quoted from them specifically when I said up topic that Pravda was now commenting on this situation (paraphrased here) since I DO NOT include Pravda in my readings at all. However, I will admit to be willing to go to ANY SOURCE and be open minded enough to take a look at their take on any given situation.
    I think it’s called being a ‘free thinker’…of something like that. 😉

    1. The Pravda writer is an American who has written for other publications (based in the U.S.) but who found himself utterly frustrated in his attempts to get a berth with any of them in order to report on the Obama and McCain “natural born” issues.
      .
      Pravda — oh supreme irony — was the only media source which is “national” (indeed, “international”) in scope where he could find some freedom of the press.
      .
      Ironic, don’t you think?

  1581. Here is one reason why the question keeps popping up and will continue to do so until officially verified…………………………..
    http://www.earthfrisk.com/blog/?p=135
    Yeah, I know, it’s a blog, but what the heck……..they have a right to question also and this site (if to be believed) looks like it has gone overboard in their quest to find the answer to the question “Just where, exactly, was Barack Hussein Obama II actually born?”

  1582. I’ve named my suggestions several times…the current POTUS was my first suggestion ages ago. Other than that, your state representative or supreme court.
    LOL. I’m mildly amused that we Obama people are the ones supposedly set out to trash America but that your the one saying that absolutely NO ONE in the government has any… that this current (not near future) that this current government needs a serious overhaul… and you’re reading from the Pravda!

  1583. Eddy wrote:

    And I still disagree about the conclusion that Obama, himself, is the only.one Hawaii will release to. That wasn’t a law they were quoting; they were making a statement to the press. “The only person with any right to this document is Obama himself–so stop asking already!” (My paraphrase) I still believe that a viable legal request would extend that right to government appointed agents.

    Yeah..now all we gotta do is find someone with enuf HUEVOS to make that ‘viable legal request’ you speak of….any suggestions?
    ROFLMFAO

  1584. If it is indeed part of a strategy to weaken the ‘born a natural citizen’ proviso, ‘we the people’ have four years before the next presidential election to pressure our elected ‘defenders of the Constitution to plug the holes so that it doesn’t happen again. A precedent can be both an open door or a warning flag.
    But I think it was merely a coincidence that the two who ended up being their parties choice were in such circumstances. Now, if we find out the other top contenders in both parties also had questionable birthplace issues, we could suspect that something was being orchestrated.
    LOL. And I still disagree about the conclusion that Obama, himself, is the only.one Hawaii will release to. That wasn’t a law they were quoting; they were making a statement to the press. “The only person with any right to this document is Obama himself–so stop asking already!” (My paraphrase) I still believe that a viable legal request would extend that right to government appointed agents.

  1585. HighlanderJuan wrote:

    From Pravda, there is an article today that reaches the conclusion that both major political parties are involved in this “evolution” out of Constitutional restrictions. The fact that McCain and Obama both had problems and things got glossed over sure does hint that it might be the correct conclusion.

    Juan……McCain never had any ‘problems’ as far as him having ‘natural born citizen’ status………he was born to parents outside the United States, both of whom were United States citizens and his father serving in the Armed Forces of the United States.
    Compare that to Obama’s situation and the difference is plain as day.
    The fact that Pravda is taking this up only goes to prove our point that this situation regarding Obama’s legal status to hold the office of President of the United States MUST BE RESOLVED!
    IMHO, of course. 😉

    1. Crazy Greek,
      .
      The copy of John McCain’s birth certificate shows his birth in Colon Panama, and not on a Navy Base as we have been told. This would state that John McCain has the same NBC problems that Obama has. S.R. 511 can’t legislate away constitutional constraints.
      .
      This dual NBC problem is what caused me to say earlier: “In fact, this election makes me think that this “not-natural-born” citizen versus “not-natural-born” citizen race for the U.S. Presidency may be about establishing the PRECEDENCE for eligibility of the next “not-natural-born” citizen to run for the U.S. Presidency.”
      .
      If anyone is interested in seeing McCain’s birth certificate, I’ll try to get it up on a link. Right now the B.C. is a JPG file image.
      .

  1586. From Pravda, there is an article today that reaches the conclusion that both major political parties are involved in this “evolution” out of Constitutional restrictions. The fact that McCain and Obama both had problems and things got glossed over sure does hint that it might be the correct conclusion.
    .
    http://newsfromrussia.com/world/americas/08-01-2009/106908-obama-0
    .
    When our enemies agree with me, my first thought is ‘oh sh-t!’
    .

  1587. Rich wrote:

    Congress Officially Declares Obama Next President
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008603247_apelectoralvotes.html
    Apparently, no objections were lodged.

    What’s surprising about that Rich…we already know that no one in THIS Congress has any HUEVOS to do anything.
    ROFLMFAO
    Thankfully, Congress is just part of what is considered “We The People” and not the final answer in this instance. Believe me, this ain’t gonna just go away because Congress ‘declares’!

  1588. Excellent post Hugh!
    This has been my contention all along…….how can one say that no citizen has ‘standing’, when it is the very citizenry that stands to be harmed.
    The one judge’s ruling has never made sense to me and for all the rest to follow and use his ruling as a basis for them not wanting to rule is just plain ridiculous!
    Thanks again for the post Hugh….insightful! It’s a shame we can shove that quote down SCOTUS throat and make them EARN their fat paycheck, ain’t it? 😉

  1589. Broe v Reed is being argued before the State of Washington Supreme Court today January 8, 2008. The case has full standing with evidence being submitted.
    To HighlanderJuan: Thanks for your comments. I have been following the Obama situation for awhile and your comments are helpful and rooted in reality.
    To Crazy Greek, you are right on!
    To Rich: I am a natural born citizen. I have a friend born in Indonesia who whose Dad was born in Indonesia. My friend now is a naturalized American. He is not an American natural born citizen, nor will he ever be. But is an American citizen. He can never be President of the United States.
    Concerning Obama, his Obama Sr. was born in Kenya, not America. Obama Jr. is hiding behind an invalid Hawaiian COLB, invalid on its face. Obama Jr. is refusing full disclosure so I will not believe he has American birth credentials unless proven otherwise. Of course that is the great contention! I have absolutely no problem believing Obama Jr. is of Kenyan birth. None!
    What is the difference between my friend and Obama? I will admit that my friend does not have a Hawaiian COLB. You tell me the difference.
    Concerning legal precedence, certainly it is important. However, when there is a case of first impression which this seems to be should SCOTUS hold off from ruling because there is seemingly no precedent (no case like it)? The case certainly poses a Constitutional question!
    If Obama is indeed a not a natural born citizen and usurper in the Office every American citizen will be harm. Let me quote Constitutional lawyer Edwin Vieira, Jr., PhD., J.D., in his October 29, 2008 column in NewsWithViews.com:
    “…These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”
    Here is the site for my reference:
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

    1. Hugh,

      Broe v Reed is being argued before the State of Washington Supreme Court today January 8, 2008. The case has full standing with evidence being submitted.

      Broe v. Reed was dismissed by the Washington Supreme Court today.
      http://www.tri-cityherald.com/945/story/438851.html

      I am a natural born citizen. I have a friend born in Indonesia who whose Dad was born in Indonesia. My friend now is a naturalized American. He is not an American natural born citizen, nor will he ever be. But is an American citizen. He can never be President of the United States.

      You haven’t told us what the citizenship status of your friend’s parents was when he was born. From what you have said, I assume that neither of his parents were American citizens. If that is was the case, that alone distinguishes your friend from Obama, because Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born.

      I have absolutely no problem believing Obama Jr. is of Kenyan birth. None!

      Nobody needs proof in order to believe what he wants to believe. Show me some PROOF that Obama was born in Kenya and i’ll be happy to look it.
      However, as I have pointed out numerous times, even if he was born in Kenya, or Timbuktu, it doesn’t necessarily establish that he isn’t eligible to be POTUS, regardless of how many uninformed opinions you may have heard. Many legal scholars believe that “natural born citizen” simply means “citizen at birth” and has nothing to do with where the birth took place. Obama was a citizen at birth no matter where he was born.

  1590. Crazy Greek,

    I would think that Obama would have to provide it IF SCOTUS were to rule on one of the cases before it being as these cases are specifically questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility and the vault copy would then become an exhibit in said case….or am I wrong?

    Not quite. The only issue before SCOTUS is whether to review the lower court dismissal of the Berg lawsuit and the Lightfoot lawsuit. If SCOTUS were to rule that the lawsuits should not have been dismissed, the cases go back to the lower court,, and any evidentiary issues would be dealt with there. This gets real tricky for the plaintiffs because they probably have a better (albeit slim) chance of prevailing in state court — but it’s questionable whether a state court could order Hawaii to release the vault copy.
    However, keep in mind that the conferences scheduled for this month are only to consider IF the appeals should be heard. If SCOTUS were to review either case, then we are back to square one, and it is not a speedy process. For example, next week SCOTUS is hearing oral arguments on cases which were filed with the Court a year or more ago. So even if SCOTUS agreed to accept the Berg appeal, it likely would not be argued until late in 2009 and there would not be a decision until sometime in 2010. And that would be just to send the case back to the lower court.
    A worthwhile website is http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/, which is run by a politically non-patisan law firm that specializes in Supreme Court appeals. Each week they post a list of SCOTUS petitions which they believe have a reasonable chance of being accepted. Notably, the Berg case does not appear on the list for either 1/9 or 1/16.
    http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Petitions_to_Watch

    this is EXACTLY the kind of information that is being sought which is not readily available from the COLB that Obama and his team posted on their web site. This kind of information would have been on the original (and therefore any copy of that original) long form birth certificate

    I personally have never seen a “long form” birth certificate. My own New York birth certificate contains the date and city of my birth and the names of my parents, but it doesn’t name the hospital nor does it identify any doctors. I suspect that the same is true of most people. When I requested a duplicate birth certificate twenty years ago, I was issued a short form certificate, which contains the same information as the certificate which my parents were issued when I was born.

    I have not seen the quote you allude to where the question is asked and answered ’so this means Obama was born in Hawaii……answer…Yes, it does”.

    The source is Chicago Tribune reporter James Janega.
    http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html

    Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

  1591. Rich wrote:

    The Supreme Court does not hold evidentiary hearings. The Supreme Court could conceivably order the production of the “vault copy” to a lower court, but this idea that Obama would ever have to provide it to SCOTUS is simply wrong.

    I would think that Obama would have to provide it IF SCOTUS were to rule on one of the cases before it being as these cases are specifically questioning Obama’s constitutional eligibility and the vault copy would then become an exhibit in said case….or am I wrong?
    Rich wrote:

    This means that even the basic records of the hospital admission were eligible to be destroyed when Obama reached the age of 43, which occurred in 2004. The actual hospital records were eligible to be destroyed when Obama reached the age of 25. The likelihood that the records were destroyed in the ordinary course of business is high, since no business likes to keep records longer than required.

    Gotta agree with ya on this point…how convenient for Obama…;-) (Little joke there)
    Actually, when you cited this……………

    Basic information
    from a healthcare facility shall include the patient’s name and
    birthdate, dates of admission and discharge, names of attending
    physicians
    ,…….

    , this is EXACTLY the kind of information that is being sought which is not readily available from the COLB that Obama and his team posted on their web site. This kind of information would have been on the original (and therefore any copy of that original) long form birth certificate and the State of Hawaii has stated that they are in possession of this document. As stated previously, I have seen the quote where the person in charge is saying that they have a copy but as yet, and as requested from you, I have not seen the quote you allude to where the question is asked and answered ‘so this means Obama was born in Hawaii……answer…Yes, it does”.
    IF all this is true, then why are the questions still being asked? I’ll tell you why……because Mr. Obama has not been open and above board and told Hawaii to release that copy of the birth certificate they say they are in possession of, which tends to make folks think he is trying to hide something.
    Wish he would get off his high horse and act like a MAN…….but I doubt that is gonna happen anytime soon. LOL

  1592. Crazy Greek:

    I think the only “evidence” the Supreme Court is gonna look at with a critical eye would be someone producing that vault copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate with it stating that Obama was born somewhere other than the United States, and we all know that probably isn’t going to happen since Obama is the ONLY person who could obtain said copy and he isn’t about to do that!

    The Supreme Court does not hold evidentiary hearings. The Supreme Court could conceivably order the production of the “vault copy” to a lower court, but this idea that Obama would ever have to provide it to SCOTUS is simply wrong.

    I also find it strange that someone hasn’t tried looking into hospital records via the freedom of information act.

    It isn’t clear that the hospital records exist any longer. Per Hawaii State Law:

    Hawaii Rev. Statutes Section 622-58
    Healthcare medical records must be retained for a minimum .
    of seven years after the last data entry. Medical records for
    minors shall be retained during the period of minority plus
    seven years after the minor reaches the age of majority.
    X-ray films, electro-encephalogram tracings, and similar
    imaging records shall be retained for at least seven years,
    after which they may be presented to the patient or destroyed.
    The healthcare provider or the healthcare provider’s successor
    shall be responsible for the retention of basic information from
    the medical records for 25 years from the last entry, or in the
    case of a minor, for the duration of minority plus 25 years
    after reaching the age of majority. Basic information from a
    physician or surgeon’s record includes the patient’s name and
    birthdate, a list of dated diagnoses and intrusive treatments, and
    a record of all drugs prescribed or given. Basic information
    from a healthcare facility shall include the patient’s name and
    birthdate, dates of admission and discharge, names of attending
    physicians, final diagnoses, major procedures performed, operative
    reports, pathology reports, and discharge summaries.

    This means that even the basic records of the hospital admission were eligible to be destroyed when Obama reached the age of 43, which occurred in 2004. The actual hospital records were eligible to be destroyed when Obama reached the age of 25. The likelihood that the records were destroyed in the ordinary course of business is high, since no business likes to keep records longer than required.

  1593. Hugh wrote:

    Lack of evidence is becoming less of an issue since documents are being gathered through private investigators.

    I think the only “evidence” the Supreme Court is gonna look at with a critical eye would be someone producing that vault copy of Obama’s long form birth certificate with it stating that Obama was born somewhere other than the United States, and we all know that probably isn’t going to happen since Obama is the ONLY person who could obtain said copy and he isn’t about to do that!
    I also find it strange that someone hasn’t tried looking into hospital records via the freedom of information act. I know…I know…..now we are gonna hear that hospital records are PRIVATE and that no one can see them, however…………
    We DO have a supposed record where SOMEONE had it printed in the Honolulu Advertiser (I believe that was the newspaper) where Sydney Obama gave birth to a child. Since THAT bit of information is public, there should be a chance that someone could find out exactly which hospital that record of birth came from and that record of birth should be available to the public.
    I’m just not sure how that would work according to Hawaiian law. It would seem to me that if that record did not contain any medical history other than the birth history that it would be alright for it to be made public, wouldn’t you think? Also, one would think that a hospital, since the birth announcement was made public via a newspaper, would not feel obligated to keep silent regarding them being the birth place of Barack Obama and yet, no hospital as far as I know has come forth stating that Obama was indeed born in their institution.
    Strange that!

  1594. To HighlanderJuan:
    I agree concerning the filter questions. What do you think is the “right question” and what are “the proper conditions” for SCOTUS to act? Lack of evidence is becoming less of an issue since documents are being gathered through private investigators.
    Thanks!

    1. Hugh:

      What do you think is the “right question” and what are “the proper conditions” for SCOTUS to act? Lack of evidence is becoming less of an issue since documents are being gathered through private investigators.

      There are two basic conditions, per the an election law expert at Ohio State University.

      The plaintiff must show an “injury in fact.” That requires that the injury be “concrete and particularized” as well as “real and immediate, not conjectural or hypothetical.” There is no bright-line rule for ascertaining whether an injury is sufficiently imminent to satisfy the injury-in-fact prong, but the Court has said that an asserted right to have the government act in accordance with the law is not sufficient….The injury-in-fact requirement is the most serious barrier to Article III standing in the presidential eligibility cases. To meet this requirement, plaintiffs must have a “personal stake” in the controversy that goes beyond that possessed by other members of the public.

      This means that the plaintiff must have sustained an actual injury to have standing to sue. This is why lawsuits challenging the legality of the war in Iraq were tossed out of court — the various plaintiffs could not establish that they had personally been injured or damaged because of the war. And this is why the latest lawsuit filed by the retired officer will fail. He has no standing because his claim of injury is conjectural or hypothetical. At the very least he would have to wait until he actually receives an order before he could challenge the legitimacy of the person who issed the order.

      Even if plaintiffs challenging the candidates’ eligibility could meet the requirements of Article III, they would still have to satisfy the prudential requirements for standing…prudential standing presents formidable difficulties for these plaintiffs and, indeed, for anyone seeking to challenge a presidential candidates’ qualifications in federal court. The “generalized grievance” component of prudential standing is especially germane to the eligibility cases. This requirement partly overlaps with the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III, but it sweeps even more broadly. The interest in not having a president who is eligible to serve is quintessentially “generalized,” since it is shared with every other American citizen. The Warth-Newdow language suggests that federal courts should be especially reluctant to find standing in cases asserting a “structural” constitutional violation—like the prohibition on members of Congress serving in the executive branch or the requirement that a president be a natural born citizen—as opposed to the violation of individual rights.

      This is a bit more complicated, but essentally it says that people can sue for violations of their individual rights, but not for an alleged violation of generalized rights. This is the legal principle upon which SCOTUS threw out Michael Newdow’s lawsuit to stop the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. From that decision:

      Consistent with these principles, our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitution’s case or controversy requirement, see Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 559—562 (1992); and prudential standing, which embodies “judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction,” Allen, 468 U.S., at 751. The Article III limitations are familiar: The plaintiff must show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an “injury in fact” that a favorable judgment will redress. See Lujan, 504 U.S., at 560—561. Although we have not exhaustively defined the prudential dimensions of the standing doctrine, we have explained that prudential standing encompasses “the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff’s complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Allen, 468 U.S., at 751. See also Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947, 955—956 (1984). “Without such limitations–closely related to Art. III concerns but essentially matters of judicial self-governance–the courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions and even though judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights.” Warth, 422 U.S., at 500.

      One problem with both the Berg case and the Lightfoot case is that both are so riddled with erroneous assertions of law that it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS would take them seriously, even if the standing issues could be overcome. As I have pointed out in other posts, there is no legal precedent for the proposition that Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was a British subject. There isn’t even legal precedent for the proposition that a U.S. citizen born in a foreign country is not a natural born citizen. And the claims that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship due to adoption or being naturalized by Indonesia are contrary both to specific statutes and Supreme Court precedent. That is why you need highly experienced, competent Constitutional lawyers to handle cases such as these, because they would not make such blatant errors.

    2. You asked:
      “What do you think is the “right question” and what are “the proper conditions” for SCOTUS to act? ”
      .
      I’m not an attorney, and so I have not practiced before the Supreme Court. The ABA site has a SCOTUS primer (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/scprimer.pdf) that will help understand the Court a bit, although the ABA does expect you to be legally savvy before you start the primer.
      .
      Also, the SCOTUS Rules of the Court (http://www.scribd.com/doc/9916071/US-Supreme-Court-Rules) will describe what formal procedures you must practice.
      .
      In general, I think the Court has to know that 1) you have exhausted all of your lower court legal means to that point in time, 2) that the matter hasn’t been already reviewed and decided by SCOTUS, 3) that the Court has jurisdiction in the matter, 4) that there is an urgent need for SCOTUS involvement, and maybe a few other basic requirements, including personal interest cases.
      .
      A brief review of the cases heard by SCOTUS during the 2007-2008 session are found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/9916531/Constitutional-Cases-20072008-Term and they will tell you what the Court has recently reviewed.
      .
      I hope this is helpful.

  1595. Oops…My mistake Juan…please accept my apology….those statements WERE made by the Dr.
    I just went to the link you provided and read the stuff on it.
    Unfortunately, she seems to be reading a LOT into what Roberts seeing her filings means…..me thinks. I base that assumption on the FACT that our Supreme Court has yet to do ANYTHING about any of this.
    Man…wish I could draw a paycheck for doing NOTHING! Maybe I outta throw my hat in the ring for appointment to the SCOTUS!
    ROFLMFAO

    1. SCOTUS has about 15 reasons to ignore or refuse to hear an issue brought before it. So far, it would seem that most cases have been trapped by one or more of the filter questions.
      .
      My belief is that when SCOTUS is asked the right question, and the conditions are proper for it to respond, it will.
      .
      IMHO.

  1596. Warren wrote:

    Most likely, this case will be conferenced and denied without comment.

    I’m almost sure you are correct in this assumption Warren. Like I’ve said, I seriously doubt our Supreme Court JESTERS ain’t about to do anything about it.
    Eddy wrote:

    Crazy Greek–
    Last evening, when I suggested that when Hawaii said they’d release Obama’s birth certificate to no person other than Obama they really weren’t speaking about government agents at all, you went to great lengths to tell me I’d be better off taking things literally. And now, one day later, you’re bringing news from Dr. Orly saying the feds can demand the certificate from Hawaii. That’s the very possibility I was allowing for in my interpretation of what they said. So, there is someone else besides Obama that they’d release the records to…someone with governmental authority.

    Not me Eddy. I didn’t bring this news, I just quoted what Juan has posted previously. Also, if you will ready what Juan posted up page, I think you will find that Juan was actually the one stating what he thought the message would be that SCOTUS was sending and NOT something that this Dr. had written regarding her petition finally going to be read by Chief Jester Roberts…..at least that’s the way I read it.
    I still stand by what I said in regards Obama, and ONLY Obama, being the only person that bring this to a close, since I still maintain that Hawaii has stated that they will release a copy of the document the maintain that they have on file to Obama alone.
    Does that make sense?

  1597. It may be just me, but my wife and I have talked about strategy in this case for a number of days. Since BHO hasn’t taken the oath – yet, – he hasn’t really committed a crime as far as we can see. HOWEVER, after he takes the oath, if he isn’t a NBC, he will have. I think perhaps Chief Justice Roberts used timing on this.

    1. Wild Bill,

      It may be just me, but my wife and I have talked about strategy in this case for a number of days. Since BHO hasn’t taken the oath – yet, – he hasn’t really committed a crime as far as we can see. HOWEVER, after he takes the oath, if he isn’t a NBC, he will have. I think perhaps Chief Justice Roberts used timing on this.

      That’s highly unlikely. If that were a consideration, why is the Berg case being conferenced BEFORE the inauguration?
      The reality is that the case was scheduled according to when it was filed. There is no other significance to the date.

  1598. LOL. I’d like to know what Dr. Orly is a doctor of. Loving the Esq. after the name. I had an aunt who was great at sending cards. The graduation one was special though, cause she’d address to Mr. Your Name, Esq.
    My biggest problem with Dr. Orly was this ‘fact’ that I question.
    .

    During this investigation original birth certificate from Hawaii will be subpoenaed. All other pertinent documents will be subpoenaed: Obama’s immigration records, any and all passports from Indonesia, Kenya and Great Britain; University enrollment records, showing if he was enrolled in US schools and universities and received financial aid as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia or Kenya. All of it can be subpoenaed and obtained within a day or two.

    LOL. All ominous and scary sounding but it’s really nothing more than the ‘wish list’ we’ve been hearing throughout. Absolutely NOTHING has happened except that the thing got ‘distributed’. There hasn’t been any discussion yet…so Dr. Orly’s statement of what will happen is really just a list of what he wants to happen. But it gets tucked right in there amidst some real facts in the hopes that you’ll swallow it too.
    Crazy Greek–
    Last evening, when I suggested that when Hawaii said they’d release Obama’s birth certificate to no person other than Obama they really weren’t speaking about government agents at all, you went to great lengths to tell me I’d be better off taking things literally. And now, one day later, you’re bringing news from Dr. Orly saying the feds can demand the certificate from Hawaii. That’s the very possibility I was allowing for in my interpretation of what they said. So, there is someone else besides Obama that they’d release the records to…someone with governmental authority.

    1. Eddy,
      Dr. Orly is a dentist AND an attorney. An unusual combination, but without checking her out further I would suspect that her area of legal expertise is dental malpractice.

  1599. @Crazy Greek:
    Dr Orly must be a PR person as well as an atty. This case is the same as Berg’s and Donofrio’s case in the sense that the conference is scheduled to decide whether to hear the case. The certiorari request will be conferenced which is not the same thing as the case being heard. Rich is correct about what it “means.” When someone gets it so wrong or willfully inflates the meaning of the events, as Orly has, then I am not inclined to give her credibility. Most likely, this case will be conferenced and denied without comment.

  1600. Rich,
    With all due respect, it doesn’t matter what the procedure is factually. What matters is that these cases (which, in my opinion are NOT going to be going away, even after Obama, IF he is, sworn into office) are hitting the Supreme Court with regularity now and at some point in time, these guys are gonna have to get off their ass and start earning their paycheck by actually DOING SOMETHING in regards these cases other than just saying “Hell with it…we ain’t gonna look at it…” or they may very well find themselves in the position of being IMPEACHED and thrown out of the office they currently hold.
    Like old Abe said…”You can fool some of the people some of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”. Sooner or later, this country is going to wake up and realize that the majority of it’s citizens are NOT being represented by those sworn to do so and there will be an uprising like hasn’t been seen in this country for over 200 years.
    Our Constitution was written to protect ALL OF US, not just a SELECT FEW.
    If I had my way I would clean house TOTALLY of every dang one of those politicians currently holding office, including the Supreme Court, and get laws passed that NO ONE would ever again be able to hold a ‘lifetime appointment’ to any office and that there would be no more ‘retirement club’ members of our House or Senate. Specific standards would be set as to how many terms one could hold office and then it’s ‘out on the streets bud and live under the laws you just passed’.
    This country club mentality is what has gotten us in the shape we are in today. Take a look…..ALL of the mess we are in with Freddie/Fannie, etc. is being overseen by folks that have been in our hallowed halls for far too long……the exception of course being the number 2 guy at the Fannie/Freddie trough of money. Obama figured out how to be the number 2 guy suckin up the money while only holding his seat for what………142 days?
    Yet, some people want this to continue by electing someone like this as President?
    Tell ya what, if and when you need surgery of ANY type, give me a call. I’ll go to the library and study up on it for 142 days and do the surgery for ya at half price of any current Dr. you can find.
    Wanna be MY patient? 😉

  1601. HighlanderJuan wrote:

    Wednesday, January 7, 2009
    Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts agreed to hear my case
    Press Release from Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ01.07.09.
    Good news,
    Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear my case Lightfoot v Bowen, challenging eligibility for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. He distributed the case to the full conference of the Supreme Court. The timing of this decision by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate, whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States

    Well now..this IS good news. Now we will see if the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court possesses the HUEVOS to actually do something about forcing Obama to come clean with this information. Indeed, Chief Justice should be the one to do this, since he is the one that will be administering the oath of office to the new President of the United States and having him swear to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
    Very appropriate, in my opinion.
    Maybe, just maybe, the American public will finally get something like the truth out of Obama…………..but I ain’t gonna hold my breath…….ROFLMFAO

  1602. Wednesday, January 7, 2009
    Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts agreed to hear my case
    Press Release from Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ01.07.09.
    Good news,
    Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear my case Lightfoot v Bowen, challenging eligibility for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. He distributed the case to the full conference of the Supreme Court. The timing of this decision by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate, whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them: “Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it. Hawaiian statue 338 allows Foreign Born children of Hawaiian Residents to obtain Hawaiian Birth Certificates, it allows one to get Hawaiian Certification of Life birth based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborating evidence. You need to investigate, you need corroborating evidence. If only one Congressman or one Senator presents a written objection, then there has to be a formal investigation by the joint session of Congress and Senate. During this investigation original birth certificate from Hawaii will be subpoenaed. All other pertinent documents will be subpoenaed: Obama’s immigration records, any and all passports from Indonesia, Kenya and Great Britain; University enrollment records, showing if he was enrolled in US schools and universities and received financial aid as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia or Kenya. All of it can be subpoenaed and obtained within a day or two. Each and every member of US Congress and Senate owes it to 320 million American citizens to do his due diligence and demand all necessary records. When American servicemen are told to risk their lives defending Constitution of this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, each and every Congressman and each and every Senator can spend a day or two of their time defending this Constitution, reviewing necessary documents, in order to see if Barack Hussein Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, if he is a citizen at all.” This is the message that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is sending to them, and if they are not listening, there has to be a massive petition drive to recall them. Truth will come out, no matter how many millions Obama is spending to hide it.
    .
    Dr.Orly Taitz, ESQ
    drorly.blogspot.com
    [email protected]
    .
    No. 08A524
    Title: Gail Lightfoot, et al., Applicants
    v.
    Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State
    .
    Docketed:
    Lower Ct: Supreme Court of California
    Case Nos.: (S168690)
    .
    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Dec 12 2008 Application (08A524) for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 17 2008 Application (08A524) denied by Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 29 2008 Application (08A524) refiled and submitted to The Chief Justice.
    Jan 7 2009 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2009.

    1. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to hear my case Lightfoot v Bowen, challenging eligibility for presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. He distributed the case to the full conference of the Supreme Court. The timing of this decision by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate, whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them

      More nonsense. Sending a message? Justice Roberts has done nothing of the kind. All he did was follow SCOTUS standard procedure. When an application is denied by one justice and then submitted to a second justice, the second justice routinely has it distributed for a conference.
      And there is nothing remarkable about the timing, either. The application was refiled on December 29 and this week is the first time since then that SCOTUS has been back to work. It’s purely routine. If Roberts thinks that it is so important, why did he schedule it for a conference which will take place AFTER Obama’s inauguration? Surely he could have added it to Friday’s conference, or the one schedule for January 16. But in fact he is giving it no preference at all.
      Now, if Roberts had GRANTED the stay, that would be news. But this is being handled the same way that the Wrotnowski case was handled, and it will meet the same fate.
      To show you how inexperienced this attorney is, she is suggesting a petition drive to “recall” the SCOTUS justices. Justices of the Supreme Court can’t be recalled. They can be impeached and removed from office, but there is no provision in the Constitution for recalling them.

      1. Rich,
        .
        That’s Dr. Orly’s comments – not mine. She’s an attorney and that is her assessment of the SCOTUS decision. She may be wrong, or, she may be right.
        .
        Are you an attorney, and do you have professional reasons for disagreeing with her comments?
        .
        I don’t think this subject has any legal clock that will run out. IMHO.

        1. That’s Dr. Orly’s comments – not mine. She’s an attorney and that is her assessment of the SCOTUS decision. She may be wrong, or, she may be right.

          It’s not a decision, it’s merely a procedural action. And she is wrong. This is essentially the same sequence of events which occurred with the Wrotnowski case and the Donofrio case, and I’m sure that you recall how they turned out.

          No. 08A469
          Title:
          Cort Wrotnowski, Applicant
          v.
          Susan Bysiewicz, Connecticut Secretary of State
          Docketed:
          Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Connecticut
          Case Nos.: (SC 18264)
          ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Nov 25 2008 Application (08A469) for stay and/or injunction, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
          Nov 26 2008 Application (08A469) denied by Justice Ginsburg.
          Nov 29 2008 Application (08A469) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
          Dec 8 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 12, 2008.
          Dec 8 2008 Application (08A469) referred to the Court by Justice Scalia.
          Dec 9 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Cort Wrotnowski filed. (Distributed)
          Dec 15 2008 Application (08A469) denied by the Court.

          No. 08A407
          Title:
          Leo C. Donofrio, Applicant
          v.
          Nina Mitchell Wells, New Jersey Secretary of State
          Docketed:
          Lower Ct: Supreme Court of New Jersey
          Case Nos.: (AM-0153-08T2 at the New Jersey Appellate Division without a docket number)
          ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          Nov 3 2008 Application (08A407) for stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
          Nov 6 2008 Application (08A407) denied by Justice Souter.
          Nov 14 2008 Application (08A407) refiled and submitted to Justice Thomas.
          Nov 19 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.
          Nov 19 2008 Application (08A407) referred to the Court by Justice Thomas.
          Nov 26 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Leo C. Donofrio filed. (Distributed)
          Dec 1 2008 Letter from applicant dated November 22, 2008, received.
          Dec 8 2008 Application (08A407) denied by the Court.

          Everyone got all hot and bothered when they learned that those cases were distributed for conference, but in the end it meant nothing. Almost all cases which are referred for conference are denied.
          Besides, it seems to me that Lightfoot v. Bowen is now moot, since it is a petition for a stay of the vote of the electors, and that has already taken place. How does the court stay a fait accompli?

          Are you an attorney, and do you have professional reasons for disagreeing with her comments?

          Not an attorney, but I have worked in the legal profession for more than thirty years.

          I don’t think this subject has any legal clock that will run out. IMHO.

          There is no Statute of Limitations which would apply to this, as far as I can determine.

          1. Rich,
            .
            Thanks for your comments. By the term ‘decision’ I was referring to the Robert’s decision to conference the matter. Bad choice of words.
            .
            I think out of all of these legal exercises, someone is going to figure out just how to get the Court to adjudicate this question of natural born citizenship. I certainly do NOT want Congress to amend the Constitution to fit their perceived needs to allow another future non-NBC candidate to become President.
            .
            In fact, this election makes me think that this “not-natural-born” citizen versus “not-natural-born” citizen race for the U.S. Presidency may be about establishing the PRECEDENCE for eligibility of the next “not-natural-born” citizen to run for the U.S. Presidency.
            .

  1603. YOU DA MAN Juan…it worked for me…………..thanks a bunch!!
    I love it when I learn something new………………..who says ya can’t teach an old dog new tricks? 😉

  1604. To Rich:
    Just because the mainstream media, the congressional leaders, the Bush administration and many others have ignored this does not mean that the case against Obama (natural born and birth certificate) is not without merit.
    The State of Washington Supreme Court heard the merits of Broe v Reed yesterday 6 January 2009. Attorney Stephen Pidgeon is fighting the issue. See www. stephenpidgeon.com for more.

    1. Hugh,

      The State of Washington Supreme Court heard the merits of Broe v Reed yesterday 6 January 2009

      My understanding is that the date is tomorrow, the 8th. And it is an administrative conference, not a formal court hearing.

      1. Rich: Stephen Pidgeon says in his site’s comments for “Date Set for Broe v Reed”
        “Argument is set for January 8; however, the issue of whether Sen. Obama was an American citizen at the time he took the office of President will never be moot. Always throughout the study of American history over the next centuries, this presidency will be questioned.”
        I translate this to mean that the State of Washington Supreme Court is actually hearing oral argument in Broe v Reed.

  1605. HighlanderJuan,
    I’m workin on it ole buddy. Sometimes being limited in my puter skills drives me CRAZY…know what I mean? 😉

    1. Crazy Greek,
      Go to scribd.com, set up an account, upload your file, and then you can use the link to pass along to others.
      Juan

  1606. Ohhhhh….DARN, SHUCKS, FOOEY……..that didn’t work as a link, did it? DAGNABIT anyway!!
    I can’t figure out how to put this up as a link. Maybe someone with more puter skills that I possess can do so.
    Anyway, it’s a .pdf file showing the actual documentation presented to SCOTUS in which the plaintiff Gregory S. Hollister, a retired Colonel of the United States Air Force is claiming ‘standing’ due to the fact that as a retired commissioned officer in the military he is subject to recall to active duty and is therefore entitled to know for certain that his CIC (Commander In Chief) is who he says he is, a natural born citizen and due to the fact that there have been allegations of Obama having been born foreign born and also having been supposedly a citizen of Indonesia, plaintiff Hollister has ‘standing’ to see Obama’s original birth certificate and that Obama should be ordered to produce same for verification as to his NBC status……………………….or legalese words to that effect. 😉
    Guess we’ll have to see just how much ‘standing’ any United States citizen possesses according to our Supreme Court Jesters, won’t we?
    I personally find it UNBELIEVABLE that ANY court could say that any United States citizen DOES NOT possess ‘standing’ to question the natural born citizen clause of our Constitution.

  1607. Well……..here we go again. I don’t know how this can keep happening since “99.9% of Americans” (as alleged by Rich) don’t care. Interesting.
    The fact is, there is ALWAYS gonna be someone that is willing to step forward and challenge this guy……………and I’d be willing to bet that the number far exceeds 0.1%, but that’s just MY opinion.
    Copy%20of%20ComplaintSoetoroInterpleader122708.pdf (4383KB)

    1. Crazy Greek,
      The link didn’t make it successfully. Can you re-try, please.
      Juan

  1608. Rich, I would love to know where your 99.9% statistic came from that you use with such authority. I would guess from somewhere in space.
    Given your penchant for legalese it is interesting that you then proceed to “prove” your point by use of hearsay. I think most Americans are unaware of this matter but that does not mean that, if they were, they would not care. It certainly does not mean that they are satisfied with Obama’s status as a citizen.
    The bottom line is, as I have stated, the only way to properly resolve this matter is to have it adjudicated on the FACTS in a legal and impartial forum.

    1. Rich, I would love to know where your 99.9% statistic came from that you use with such authority.

      Obviously I was using a bit of hyperbole to express my opinion. But the fact remains the the Republican Party leadership has shown no interest in this, no prominent Constitutional attorneys have stepped forward to get involved in the various lawsuits on behalf of the plaintiffs, and no one is talking about this outside of blogs such as this and partisan web sites such as World Net Daily. To my knowledge there isn’t a single impartial legal expert who believes that any of these lawsuits has a chance of prevailing.

      1. Rich:
        Well I guess you could say that 99.9% is a “bit of an exaggeration” but it seems a little over the top to me if you are trying to make a legitimate point. I noticed you did not respond to the part about using Hearsay to “prove” your point, I wonder why???
        Seriously though, in my opinion, the only thing about this entire issue that is important is the possible impact on the country. That is what should concern 100% of us and that is not a hyperbole!

  1609. Rich wrote:

    Crazy Greek….You need to read Perkins v. Elg, the 1939 Supreme Court case cited by HighlanderJuan. It specifically rejects the opinions of both Rep. Bingham and Secretary of State Bayard. Anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. No ifs, ands or buts.

    Ahhh…FINALLY…..congratulations Rich, you have finally cited the MOST IMPORTANT premise in this issue.
    What you say is INDEED TRUE….”Anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen….” however, therein lies the issue regarding Obama and will continue UNLESS AND UNTIL Obama makes public his vault copy of the birth certificate that the State of Hawaii says they are in possession of.
    I haven’t seen ANYWHERE this statement that you allude to………………….

    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

    Would you be so kind as to provide a source so that we can read that statement for ourselves?
    Make no mistake here, there are TWO kinds of United States citizens (and ONLY two kinds)……………natural born citizens (who can hold the office of President) and naturalized citizens (who CAN NOT hold the office of President) and given the fact that Hawaii had, at the time of Obama’s birth, the propensity of issuing a CERTIFICATION of live birth to children that WERE NOT BORN in Hawaii, is the fuel that keeps this discussion alive and will do so UNTIL that vault copy is produced. The ONLY person, according to the State of Hawaii, who can obtain said copy of the document they say they hold in their possession is Barack Hussein Obama and to my knowledge, as of this writing, he has REFUSED to make this document public.

  1610. Eddy wrote:

    This could be my bad–or, then again, my take could be right. When Hawaii said it wouldn’t release Obama’s original birth certificate to anyone other than him, I didn’t take them literally. I took their ‘anyone’ to be ‘inquiring people’…you, me, Berg…I think I’ve always assumed that a judge or government agency or representative could request the certificate as part of a hearing, review or trial. I honestly don’t know; I just now realized that I’ve read that statement with my own interpretation since the get-go.

    Eddy, I have worked with government agencies in my State quite closely (if you can call being on the phone with them around 4 – 6 hours a day close) and there is one thing I learned from the get go. ANYTIME you are dealing with government, you had better take what they say or state in their papers literally…the minute you try ‘reading into’ what they have said, you are gonna be in DEEP TROUBLE!
    I once received a phone call from one of the heads of a dept. of a State agency…the conversation went something like this (I’ll leave out the pertinent parts for security reasons here)
    Agent: “Well Bill, don’t you think that if you haven’t received documentation of ____________ fact that you should then remove the ____________ from the person until you do receive the documentation?”
    My Answer: Absolutely NOT! If there is one thing I have learned in dealing with you people is to follow the letter of the law as you have written/stated it.”
    Agent: “Well, I still think you should _________________ until you receive documentation.”
    My Answer: NEGATIVE! Your rules state that as long as my employees paper work is received by you and stamped received PRIOR TO expiration of said document, my employee is good to continue on as if a new license has been issued even though his/her current license is expired. I’ll be glad to contact the head of your department for clarification and get back with you regarding his answer to this question.”
    Agent: “Yes, do that please…but I still think that your employee should not be allowed to _____________________ until he/she receives their new license.”
    So…I called the head of the organization in question and explained my problem and his agent’s thinking, ending my conversation with “If there is one thing I have learned in dealing with this agency is to follow the rules verbatim and your rules state that my employee is good to go since their renewal was received in your offices PRIOR TO expiration.”
    Head of Agency’s response: “You are absolutely right Bill!”
    I spent the next few hours trying to contact the person who had been telling me I was wrong, finally getting him on the phone just at the close of business hours. I told him that I had been in contact with Dr. ___________ regarding the issue and that Dr. _____________ had affirmed that I was correct.
    Agents response: “Yeah…..I heard”………………and then he hung up on me!
    These people don’t like it when they are called on something, especially when it is on procedures that they themselves have written that are supposed to be followed by the general public.
    Take it to heart………….NEVER try to ‘read into something’ that ANY government agency has written, cause all they have to do is come back with “It’s right there in black and white..what part is it that you don’t understand”……blah, blah, blah……and you just had your legs chopped out from under you.
    ROFLMFAO 😉

  1611. Robert–
    This website has over a thousand topics/threads. There were quite a few campaign related discussions. The Berg appeal is the actual topic so you can’t fault these guys for sticking to topic.
    If you go to the sidebar on the right and scroll up towards the top, you’ll find ‘recent comments’, ‘recent topics’, ‘popular topics’, perhaps you’ll find something that interests you there. (Even if a topic appears long dead, if you comment, it could resurrect the conversation or take it in a new direction.)

  1612. Eddy wrote:

    But, whatever the motivation, that isn’t happening. Obama isn’t here conversing with us; we don’t have his ear at the moment. The press isn’t bringing it to his ears.

    Two of the truest statements I have heard in a long, long time concerning Obama….ROFLMFAO (Sorry…couldn’t resist) 😉
    Eddy wrote:

    This hasn’t, even yet, become a major blog ‘topic of interest’.

    Ahhhh…..there might be a problem with this statement. Last I heard (on some radio show that doesn’t normally address this issue) they were saying that there have been something like OVER 80 MILLION hits on the various blogs, etc. concerning this Obama birth certificate issue.
    To say that this is not a major topic of interest is a bit of an understatement, wouldn’t you think? Also, I’ve seen it stated here, and on other forums by Obama supporters, that Obama himself is probably not very aware of all this hoopla and that it probably hasn’t been brought to his attention by the media. (Or words to that effect…..not quoting verbatim here now).
    IF Obama is NOT aware of this, he’s gotta be about the dumbest person on the face of the planet, given that this story is being carried, in one form or another, by quite a few radio stations WORLD WIDE and that it is one of the foremost topics on the internet right now…….ok, maybe foremost only in areas that are concerned with this issue, I’ll give you that. Yes, I doubt seriously that it is the main topic of conversation on a religious site or Rosie O’Donnell’s site or whatever…LOL!
    Anyway, to try and excuse Obama’s lack of action because this has not been ‘brought to his attention’ is simply LAUGHABLE.
    Gotta agree with ya on the circus that is being played out in the political arena at the present time, but that was inevitable given the way a lot of this has been handled by the Dems. They have no one to blame for their woes now…can’t say the Republicans had anything to do with any of it. If you will notice, ALL the circus players are Democrats. Heck, even Diane Feinstein has jumped ship on them and stated that she thinks the guy from Illinois should be seated as a Senator…and she is the Chairperson of the committee that oversee’s such matters for the Dems. But, once again, today the Dems decided to show the world that they are incapable of a having a unified front on ANY ISSUE, since they turned the guy away and wouldn’t even let him in the building, leaving him no choice but to hold his ’15 minutes of fame news conference ‘ out in the cold.
    One would think these people to be more intelligent, but then one just has to consider the source and move on shaking their head.
    I think Eddy, that this country is in for one heck of a roller coaster ride with this new administration. Take a look at Obama and just ONE of his campaign promises to his faithful…………….”I’m gonna bring CHANGE to Washington”……now look at who he is appointing to positions in his administration…..mostly people who served in one capacity or other in the CLINTON administration! Just recently, he appointed Paneta to be head of the CIA! Qualifications for the job? NONE!
    Yep…the next four years are gonna be a HOOT to watch politically for sure! Me thinks it’s gonna be like watchin reruns of the Keystone Cops myself….but what the heck……..maybe there will be a few good laughs along the way.
    ROFLMFAO

  1613. Boy, this issue is really growing outside the Tin Foil Hat Brigade….
    In real news, Obama has now appointed Norman Mineta to head the CIA. In my opinion, a poor choice. But there you go.
    Does anyone have any other REAL issues to discuss here?

  1614. Crazy Greek–
    This could be my bad–or, then again, my take could be right. When Hawaii said it wouldn’t release Obama’s original birth certificate to anyone other than him, I didn’t take them literally. I took their ‘anyone’ to be ‘inquiring people’…you, me, Berg…I think I’ve always assumed that a judge or government agency or representative could request the certificate as part of a hearing, review or trial. I honestly don’t know; I just now realized that I’ve read that statement with my own interpretation since the get-go.
    The notion of presenting the certificate to a judge to then pass on sounds plausible but I’m betting there are restrictions, protocols, channels, etc. that we cannot even fathom that would make that path now workable. (Not to mention the media baggage that would come from ‘being the one who brought this issue to a head’…or the suspicion of being a co-conspirator with Obama.)
    But, whatever the motivation, that isn’t happening. Obama isn’t here conversing with us; we don’t have his ear at the moment. The press isn’t bringing it to his ears. This hasn’t, even yet, become a major blog ‘topic of interest’. And the time is very very very short. My gut still goes with people getting through to someone whose job it is to ‘represent the people’. Make them earn their salaries.
    (Speaking of protocols: We had several senators who couldn’t be sworn in with the pack today. Minnesota’s Norm Coleman closed his office over the weekend. The phones refer callers to the office of our other Senator, Amy Klobuchar. Al Franken gave his acceptance speech yesterday. But he can’t be sworn in either since the close results are under appeal. So, we’re technically down one senator for the time being. And I’m assuming Blago’s choice hadn’t yet been ‘certified’…and not sure about, where was it, Georgia? I get mesmerized by political mechanisms when I first notice them. LOL. I’m envisioning Tim Russert with a white board explaining the potential ramifications of these ‘pending’ seats.)

  1615. Rich said: “Not exactly. The burden is on the plaintiff to establish (a) that he/she has standing to bring a lawsuit; (b) that there is a triable issue over which the court has jurisdiction. Until the plaintiff overcomes those hurdles, the defendants have no obligation to prove anything.”
    Rich, you miss my point. I am not trying to argue legal niceties I am saying that this matter needs to be resolved for the good of the country. Which do you think is more important? Anyone who cares about the United States of America should be in favor of having this matter decided on THE FACTS! I for one would hate to see Mr. Obama take office as POTUS and then, later, at some point it comes out that he was not legally entitled to the position. If that should happen, in my opinion, all hell would break loose here.

    1. Larry,

      Rich, you miss my point. I am not trying to argue legal niceties I am saying that this matter needs to be resolved for the good of the country.

      I understand my point, but the reality is that 99.9% of Americans don’t care about this because they are satisfied that Obama is a natural born citizen. Obama feels no need to respond to any of it because he does not see it as a legitimate issue.
      You can say all the “what ifs” that you want, but the bottom line is that it is meaningless unless there is actual proof that Obama is not eligible to be president. The State of Hawaii, which has a Republican governor who supported John McCain, has confirmed that Obama was born there.
      http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html

      “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said in the three paragraph statement.
      “No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai’i,” the statement concludes.
      Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
      “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

      End of story, as far as I’m concerned. Turn up some proof that the Hawaii Health Department is lying, and I’ll be glad to look at it. But I’m talking about PROOF, not some unsupported, cockamamie theories.

      1. Rich,
        .
        You said:
        “I understand my point, but the reality is that 99.9% of Americans don’t care about this because they are satisfied that Obama is a natural born citizen.”
        .
        Rat hole. 90+% of Americans are just not aware of the NBC issue. Not yet, anyway. Of those who are aware of the issue, 90% don’t have a clear idea of what a natural born citizen is. No-one I know (possible exception of Obamabots) who understands the NBC issue is happy with Obama’s actions.
        .
        If enough time passes, and we carefully educate the American public, there will be the law abiding folks who will be extremely concerned about the double standard that lets public officials ignore the law while they, the public, are forced to respect and obey the laws.
        .
        Your apologies for Obama’s flagrant disrespect for the rule of law is astonishing.
        .
        IMHO.

  1616. Rich,
    I may have to give it to you that travel was not “banned” to Pakistan in the 1980’s as I have not found anything stating that it was…thus far that is…..I will continue looking, rest assured.
    I have found this however………………………………………………………………………
    Travel between India and Pakistan was tightly restricted in the early 1980’s. No planes (meaning ZERO), no auto crossing points, not even cross-border transport of agricultural goods. None, zero.
    You could not mail a letter from one country to the other.
    Cite: India, Pakistan Still Lack Ties That Bind
    By Stuart Auerbach Washington Post Foreign Service. The Washington Post (1974-Current file). Washington, D.C.: Jul 14, 1980. p. A22 (1 page)
    One would assume that with situations such as listed above, travel to Pakistan if not ‘banned’ would be highly discouraged.
    Also, there is this…………………………………………………….
    The year Obama visited was also a particularly dangerous one for Americans. During a hijacking that March of a Pakistan passenger liner, three Americans onboard were singled out and threatened with death. (Interestingly, two of the three turned out to be wanted in the U.S. and Canada, respectively, for drug-related offenses. Pakistan at the time was a major source of heroin distributed in the U.S., along with fellow “golden crescent” states Iran and Afghanistan.)
    NOT a very nice place to be going for a ‘visit’, wouldn’t you say?
    Also, I have found NO EVIDENCE that Obama possessed a United States passport, under ANY name, until becoming a State Senator in Illinois. Not saying he didn’t, just that I find it funny that no evidence of one existing can be found by anyone to date.
    A final point here on Obama’s supposed trip to Pakistan. Since Obama mentioned this trip this one time, he has never mentioned it again. Neither did he make any mention of this supposed trip to Pakistan in either of his books that I can find.
    I think his silence speaks volumes.
    I’ve said it before and will continue to do so until and unless proven wrong…Obama is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

    1. CrazyGreek,

      Travel between India and Pakistan was tightly restricted in the early 1980’s.

      Assuming that is true, so what? Travel between Hong Kong and China was banned when I was in Hong Kong in the late sixties, but that didn’t deter people from visiting Hong Kong. Besides, the New York Times travel writer had no problem traveling from India to Pakistan:

      I went to Lahore after several months in India’s Punjab, where it seemed no one over the age of 40 was without stories to tell and reminiscences to share about this city. Resisting the blandishments of the new international hotels advertising on billboards along the road into town from the border crossing at Wagah, my husband, David, and I settled in at Faletti’s, Lahore’s once-grand hotel where pre-independence society congregated.

      Then you say:

      The year Obama visited was also a particularly dangerous one for Americans. During a hijacking that March of a Pakistan passenger liner, three Americans onboard were singled out and threatened with death.

      Again, so what? The Americans weren’t the targets of the hijackers, they just happened to be on the plane, and it was a domestic flight. That year an Aer Lingus flight from Dublin was hijacked, so should Americans have been afraid to travel to Ireland in 1981?

      Since Obama mentioned this trip this one time, he has never mentioned it again. Neither did he make any mention of this supposed trip to Pakistan in either of his books that I can find.

      Once more, so what? His books aren’t a travelogue about all the vacation trips he has taken during his life. He wasn’t in Pakistan on a diplomatic visit. He wasn’t there on a fact-finding visit. He went there to visit his college friend’s relatives. He was 20 years old. Why should he mention it? And if he had anything to hide about visiting Pakistan, why did he bring it up in the first place? When ABC News made inquiries about the visit, the Obama campaign provided Jake Tapper with the particulars.

      Also, I have found NO EVIDENCE that Obama possessed a United States passport, under ANY name, until becoming a State Senator in Illinois. Not saying he didn’t, just that I find it funny that no evidence of one existing can be found by anyone to date.

      Where would you expect to find such evidence? Most people don’t keep their passports when they expire. They either turn them in when they get new passports or they throw them away. Heck, I couldn’t even provide you with evidence that I had a driver’s license or owned a car in 1981. I know that I did, but the documentation is long gone.

  1617. Eddy wrote:

    Crazy Greek–
    LOL. I know you’ve said it a lot and I haven’t formally countered but you seem to strongly believe that Obama is the only one who can make this matter go away. I don’t think he can–not by himself.
    You want him to produce documentation, as do a number of bloggers and Berg, of course but NO ONE with any governmental authority seems to want it. So, even if he wanted to be totally forthcoming, who could he turn it over to who would actually want to see it and know what to do with it once they did? (Anyone that Obama chose to release the docs to would be suspect for whatever relationship they ever had with him.

    Eddy…..I have indeed said that Obama, and ONLY Obama, is the only person that can make this all go away. My reason for saying so? The State of Hawaii has publicly stated that Obama’s birth records can be released to Obama ONLY…..therefore, Obama is indeed the ONLY person that can put an end to this matter…..and thus far, he has been unwilling to do so even though he has been physically in the State of Hawaii on two different occasions and could have easily gone to the records office and obtained a copy of the much sought after vault copy (long form) of the birth certificate that Hawaii says they have on file.
    I have also stated previously that I thought the internet was the wrong choice of a medium to used to examine said birth certificate. ( We are in agreement on this point for sure! ) This is the medium that Obama himself chose to use and it backfired on him.
    I have also suggested that Obama should present said birth certificate to a judge and have that judge take it to any department of our government of his choosing for verification. The United States does have several institutions that are more than likely more than capable of checking a birth certificate….wouldn’t you agree?

  1618. Eddy, you said:
    “I recall we discussed Dinofrio’s case either in this thread or in another. I felt personally that it had more credibility than Berg’s. But I was under the impression that it was either bypassed or dismissed by the Supreme Court.”
    Lawyer Stephen Pidgeon says that Wrotnowski’s case still has some possibility with the SCOTUS. I heard him say this on PRN but I do not understand his legal reasoning. I do think that the birth certificate criteria and the natural born citizen logic go together. The birth certificate is more objective and least likely for any judiciary and SCOTUS to refute. I think that the natural born citizen is reasonable and valid, but it is possible the SCOTUS could view it with jaded eyes. But not so with a fully disclosed birth certificate.
    Concerning the cases and their eventual success, I rank them as follows:
    Broe v Reed (Stephen Pidgeon)
    Clint Wrotnowski
    Berg v Obama…hindered by faulty legal reasoning
    Leo Donofrio, denied by SCOTUS
    I have posted on Federalistblog.us.
    I am not know the others very much.

  1619. Thanks Rich.
    I had the whole Annenberg thing from way earlier in the comments. (We’re at 892 with mine if I post before anyone else does.) I went with ‘unholy alliance’ because I already sensed I was going to be long-winded. 🙂
    But I definitely needed the Donofrio refresher. I had forgotten the details.

  1620. Eddy,

    Comments sourcing ‘FactCheck’ were disregarded due to an unholy alliance between them and Obama

    Just to clarify, there is no “unholy alliance” between Obama and FactCheck.org. The only tenuous connection is that FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. APPC was founded by publisher and noted Republican Walter Annenberg. Obama has a remote tie to Annenberg because the Annenberg Foundation funded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an education reform project of which Obama was a board member. However, Obama never served the board of the Annenberg Foundation, and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge has nothing to do with FactCheck.org or the APPC. The only thing that they have in common is the name “Annenberg.”
    Walter Annenberg’s widow, Leonore Annenberg, was a supporter of John McCain for president, so the notion that the Annenberg Foundation is pro-Obama is sheer fantasy.
    As for the Donofrio case, it theoretically could be appealed further but nothing is pending at the current time. The only thing which Donofrio filed with SCOTUS was an application for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. However, the application was denied and he has not filed a petiton for cert.

  1621. Hugh–
    I recall we discussed Dinofrio’s case either in this thread or in another. I felt personally that it had more credibility than Berg’s. But I was under the impression that it was either bypassed or dismissed by the Supreme Court.
    Crazy Greek–
    LOL. I know you’ve said it a lot and I haven’t formally countered but you seem to strongly believe that Obama is the only one who can make this matter go away. I don’t think he can–not by himself.
    You want him to produce documentation, as do a number of bloggers and Berg, of course but NO ONE with any governmental authority seems to want it. So, even if he wanted to be totally forthcoming, who could he turn it over to who would actually want to see it and know what to do with it once they did? (Anyone that Obama chose to release the docs to would be suspect for whatever relationship they ever had with him. –Comments sourcing ‘FactCheck’ were disregarded due to an unholy alliance between them and Obama.– And, I see no earthly reason why he’d turn them over to someone who clearly has it in for him. A bit of muddle, yes?)
    Obama did release his COTB and the junior blog ‘experts’ had a field day speculating over the various ‘flaws’ they felt they saw. That court of public or blog opinion is not the appropriate place to wrangle through the real or imagined flaws; if the docs are to be released, I believe it needs to be to a government agency that has the authority to request it and the capacity to make a sound and reasoned judgement based on their findings. But I strongly, strongly believe that some government agency HAS to request it.
    I have a serious suggestion for both you and Highlander–and anyone else you can reach. You need to contact ASAP the highest level government official you are comfortable with…no lower than governor. I’m thinking governor, senator, congressman/woman or higher (the VPOTUS or POTUS). Don’t demand action. Present an ‘urgent concern’. “I feel that our very Constitution is in jeopardy”, “inauguration day is almost upon us” and then request assurance that your concern has been heard. Ask them if they have any advice for you? “Do you feel that my concerns are unwarranted–that this matter isn’t as serious as I believe? Or, can you tell me what the best course would be to ensure that this very serious matter is addressed? What can you do? What can I do?” Somehow, draw attention (in the heading if an email, on the envelope if a letter) to the fact that the contents are both ‘urgent’ and ‘time sensitive’. (Not screaming letters in either instance…). If comfortable with it, offer your phone # or email address for a speedier response. (Don’t know if that works…just thought it might….) Definitely cite your time in the military and how seriously and strongly you feel about our country.
    Reasoning: 1) If you just send them a demand to do something, you don’t actually beg a response. So you don’t really know if your message got through. They may or may not respond to you. 2) You don’t trip any ‘cautions’ on their part that put your letter into a ‘difficult’ or ‘problems’ pile. You put on your Sunday Best demeanor (or Eddie Haskell with Mrs. Cleaver) and get them to hear you. 3) Asking specific questions does tend to delay a response BUT it does guarantee that at least a sentence or two in the response you receive will actually be something that isn’t preprogrammed. (First two paragraphs are quite often preprogrammed. “Thank you for contacting me. As your official representative, please be assured that I take your concerns to heart and represent your concerns, and those of the people of this great state/country, as faithfully as I am able.” –if you were just sending a compliment or thank you, that generates a different opening paragraph.– LOL. And, in the response, even when it actually addresses your questions, still consider that it could have been written by an aide. Does it really say anything or does it dance around your specific questions?
    (LOL. Any politician who gets an average of ten or more letters per day requiring response is likely depending on some form of preprogrammed responses. A fascinating system. The mail is opened by a person who is a reader/coder. As they read your letter, they assign codes every few lines. What kind of letter it is: request, concern, thank you, contribution, etc. The general nature of the request, concern, etc. If there’s nothing specific or unique to your letter, your entire response letter is a series of precoded paragraphs. Yes, your politician might have written it but, once he wrote it well that first time, he had it stored for repeat usage.) (Further LOL…I learned of these methods through televangelists. How could any one person personally respond to hundreds or thousands of letters and prayer requests? One was famous for saying “I’ve personally prayed over each and every one of your letters”…the mailroom was situated directly beneath the prayer room. Oh….that ‘over’!
    Yikes….I’ve got the ‘ramble’ on. Sorry for the length. Hope you consider my suggestion seriously. Later! Over my Christmas cold…need to catch up on my karaoke practice.

  1622. In regards to Obama having natural born citizen status simply because his mother was American, I posted the following on this forum quite awhile back.
    Enjoy…gotta go do the work thingy tonight….later.
    Now we come to the “Obama’s father was Kenyan therefore he inherits his father’s ancestry” argument that you allude to. This little piece might just interest you…………………………………………………..
    “Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” This national law does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who do not owe allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.”
    “Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
    So you see, this is not as “cut and dried” as a lot of folks (yourself included) would seem to want it to be. Herein lies the problem when dealing with the law and also the solution in so many cases when the judges make their rulings. Lawyers from both sides will site case law after case law to support their own sides views. It’s up to the judges to render their decisions after careful review of all things presented as to which is more relevant to the case before them.
    However, IF irrefutable evidence were to be presented by the party in question, it would make things so much easier to decide and all this would go away.
    Now….I wonder WHO could make THAT happen?
    Hummmm???????????????

    1. CrazyGreek,

      “Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” This national law does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who do not owe allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.”
      “Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

      You need to read Perkins v. Elg, the 1939 Supreme Court case cited by HighlanderJuan. It specifically rejects the opinions of both Rep. Bingham and Secretary of State Bayard. Anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. No ifs, ands or buts.

      1. Rich,
        I suggest that YOU read the Perkins v. Elg opinion because its facts harmonize with a strict interpretation of Natural Born Citizen.
        Petitioner Elg was the daughter of two Swedish immigrants and was ruled to be a NBC upon the basis of the following FACTS:
        The two parents had immigrated and established necessary residency (length of time) up through 1906.
        In 1906, the father became a naturalized U.S. citizen, which was a formal process that would have found him swearing an oath of allegiance to U.S..
        In 1906, the statutory scheme in effect in the U.S. was that when a husband naturalized through formal procedures, his wife acquired the same citizenship. Indeed, this treatment of wives was how the citizenship laws worked up through 1922. Thus, Mrs. Elg took on U.S. citizenship in 1906, on the same date as her husband. (On the flip side of that, up through 1922, American women would lose their U.S. citizenship if they married foreign men, who were possessed of citizenship in foreign countries regardless of where they might actually reside.)
        In 1907, the Elgs had a daughter. Birth was in the state of New York. It was this daughter who was the petitioner in the 1939 case, and she was challenging a denial by the State Department to issue her a passport and an attempt by immigration authorities to deport her.
        What had happened was this:
        Her mother had returned to Sweden, taking “baby Elg” with her when the girl was about 4 or 5 (in 1911). The father had stayed in the U.S., quite likely sending money back to Sweden to support them. There was no divorce. Later, in the 1920’s, he too had returned to Sweden permanently. The case reports on enough facts to suggest that he might have renounced his U.S. citizenship at that time, and reclaimed Swedish citizenship.
        Not long after reaching age of majority, “baby Elg” had returned to the U.S. and her re-entry at that time had found the U.S. apparently recognizing her American citizenship. Indeed, the statutes in effect at the time had allowed for any such person to reassert citizenship in the U.S. by returning to the U.S. within a “reasonable time” after they had become adults capable of exercising their own free will, independent of parents. Indeed, because it was the case that “wife-followed-citizenship-of-husband” it could be argued that even as residents of Sweden after 1911, the mother and “baby Elg” were still fully Americans because the husband / father was still in the U.S., and working as a naturalized U.S. citizen.
        Later (around 1935) the immigration authorities and State Dept. started acting “fishy” about Miss Elg, with the former notifying her that they planned to deport her and, when she went in to get a renewed passport to avoid deportation and prove up her American citizenship, the latter denying her a U.S. passport. The case does not provide historically relevant facts that had a bearing on this, but people should take note of what they were:
        In 1935, the U.S. was still in the midst of a Great Depression and jobs were tight and it was Labor Dept. authorities who tried to deport Miss Elg.
        Logical question: Was she viewed as “less worthy” to hold a job than a multi-generational American?
        In 1935, there were known troubles in Europe coming out of its more northern areas like, oh for example, Germany.
        Logical question: Might State Department officials have started to look askance at anyone who had “immigrant” accents and recent ties to northern European countries due to xenophobia?
        The first paragraph of the case distills the question that the Court was asked to answer: Is someone who is born in the U.S. of parents who are “then naturalized” entitled to claim rights as an American citizen?
        The ruling answered that question and specifically pointed out that petitioner Elg had fulfilled conditions of not merely citizenship but, indeed, NATURAL BORN citizenship.

  1623. Eddy: I read you personal overview referred to by HighlanderJuan. I have listened to Plains Radio Network (see http://www.plainsradio.com). PRN has a definite anti-Obama stance and they deal with the strict birth certificate criteria and the natural born citizen issue as related through Leo Donofrio and Clint Wrotnowski cases that have reached the Supreme Court. PRN is working with a private investigator to bring hard evidence to light. That has been difficult since Obama is determined to hide. I have looked at what Obama has said, how he acts, how he deals with people, who he associates with, his stated goals, etc. Taken all together, I do believe Obama is a fraud and a usurper. He has the capacity to greatly harm America and the Constitution. Concerning conflicting evidence, I put it on the shelf and wait for resolution. What is even more troubling is the almost 100% mainstream news blackout. Even Fox News will not touch it, nor any of the conservative talk shows. The Obamagate news has come mostly the Internet and PRN. See http://www.stephenpidgeon.com for the lawyer bringing Broe v Reed to the State of Washington Supreme Court. I find Ed and Caren Hale’s show the most informative at PRN.
    I have recently studied up on the framers of the Constitution. One of my hunches about them is that they seem to be very sensitive to any tyrannical encroachment against the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the American people. They knew about tyranny first hand and the bite of its fangs. One of the issues in the War of 1812 was the British seizure of American natural born citizens on the high seas. The British did not recognize their American citizenship. Currently, some in America tend to write-off the controversial as right-wing conspiracy. We in America need to recover the framers’ sensitivity to snakes.

  1624. Eddy wrote:

    Crazy Greek–
    I just picked up a DVD compilation with a lot of old comedies…a few Bob Hope’s in the mix. I’m hoping the one you cited is in there.

    Eddy…that compilation you just got sounds like it might be just Hope’s television comdey series stuff. The clip I cited came from one of his old movies THE GHOST BREAKERS with Paulette Goddard (I believe)
    Here’s the short explanation of the plot…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_Breakers
    I think it’s one of Hope’s funniest and hope you can find it someplace.

  1625. You know we keep dancing on this issue and all make comments without proof. That is the point of a fact finding in a courtroom. This issue is of major concern to our country and it deserves a complete fact finding in a court of law. The burden of proof must be met by both sides as is shifts during the process. I fail to understand how anyone can dispute this or not understand it.

    1. You know we keep dancing on this issue and all make comments without proof. That is the point of a fact finding in a courtroom. This issue is of major concern to our country and it deserves a complete fact finding in a court of law. The burden of proof must be met by both sides as is shifts during the process.

      Not exactly. The burden is on the plaintiff to establish (a) that he/she has standing to bring a lawsuit; (b) that there is a triable issue over which the court has jurisdiction. Until the plaintiff overcomes those hurdles, the defendants have no obligation to prove anything. The courts have consistently held that a private citizen has no standing to sue in a case like this. This is the same principle which led the courts to thrown out lawsuits by people who have claimed, for example, the the Iraq War is illegal.
      What the Berg lawsuit represents is what lawyers call a “fishing expedition.” Berg has no evidence that any of the allegations he has made are true. He has no proof that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii, he has no proof that Obama ever renounced his citizenship, no proof that Obama was adopted by his stepfather, no proof that Obama ever had an Indonesian passport, no proof that Obama traveled to Pakistan with an Indonesian passport, etc. etc. etc. Berg also is dead wrong on some of his legal citations. For example, he completely misstates the law regarding the Nationality Act of 1940 and he ignores changes to the law made in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. There also is no legal precedent for other claims being made (e.g., the claim that Obama is not a natural born citizen because his father was a British subject).

  1626. Regarding Obama’s 1981 trip to Pakistan, it apparently was made in the midst of martial law in Pakistan.
    .
    Zia Regime.
    .
    When the situation seemed to be deadlocked, the army chief of staff, Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, staged a coup on July 5, 1977, and imposed another martial-law regime. Bhutto was tried for political murder and was found guilty; he was hanged on April 4, 1979.
    .
    Zia formally assumed the presidency in 1978 and established the Sharia (Islamic law) as the law of the land. The constitution of 1973 was accordingly amended (1979), and benches were constituted at the courts to exercise Islamic judicial review. Interest-free banking was initiated, and maximum penalties were provided for adultery, defamation, theft, and consumption of alcohol.
    .
    On March 24, 1981, Zia issued a provisional constitution order, operative until the lifting of martial law in the future. It envisaged the appointment of two vice-presidents and allowed political parties approved by the election commission before Sept. 30, 1979, to function. All other parties, including the PPP, were dissolved.
    .
    See this link for more:
    .
    http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=218476
    .
    So, the question for Obama would be how did you get into the country in the midst of martial law?
    .

      1. So, probably no mystery on the Obama trip

        And this page includes a photograph of a Pakistan International Airlines passenger jet at JFK Airport in New York on 8/12/81.
        http://www.historyofpia.com/unusualaircraft.htm
        Obviously, the airline would not have been flying to and from JFK in 1981 if travel to Pakistan was banned. This is further confirmation of the June, 1981 article in the New York Times which advises readers to contact Pakistan International Airlines for infomation on flights to Pakistan.

      2. HighlanderJuan,

        The Constitution is also quite clear:
        1. Both parents must be U.S. citizens
        2. POTUS must be born on U.S. soil

        And where, exactly, does the Constitution explicitly say that? The Constitution simply says:

        No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

        If what you claim happened to be true, Obama would never have been in the running in the first place, because he has never claimed that his father was a U.S. citizen. And in fact the 14th Amendment seems to say that there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized:

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

        Based upon the 14th Amendment, a person born in the United States is a “natural born citizen” regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents.

        1. Perkins v Elg (1939) is still the gold standard in describing “natural born citizen” — it’s good law, it brings the historic deVattel definition adopted by our Constitution forward into the 20th century; it can be shepardized up to the present date to show it has not been limited or overturned by any authoritative court decision.

  1627. HighlanderJuan–
    There is a glitch! The ‘Recent Comments’ cites two comments by you after mine at 6:24 but your comments aren’t visible yet. I hope Warren is checking in.

  1628. HighlanderJuan–
    I think sometimes Warren has some topics in a comments filter–so he has to screen them rather than automatically posting. But, there’s another blogger on some of the other topics who has cited that his/her comments get hung up–and sometimes lost altogether.

  1629. Crazy Greek–
    I just picked up a DVD compilation with a lot of old comedies…a few Bob Hope’s in the mix. I’m hoping the one you cited is in there.
    Highlander–
    It’s a misdefinition of ‘over-reacting’ to accuse me of such. I didn’t rail or go off on the two of you; I didn’t even try to match the irreverent tone of the posts I was referring to. Yes, I reacted. Yes, I responded. But “over-reacting” is an overstatement.
    Re the ‘mini-moderator’. It’s not an official post. I was trying to be humorous. I’ve been a regular on this site for 2 years give or take a few months. Regulars know that I have a hang-up for the English language, for generalizations and for unsupported ‘statements of fact’. Growing up I was branded as both “Mr. Dictionary” and “The Lawyer”. I’m no genius by any means whatsoever but I’m sensitive to the meaning and value of words and I’m pretty good at catching generalizations and unsupported ‘facts’. (I was the kid best at stumping the teacher–or catching them when they tried to sell us something that hadn’t yet been proven.) The best grade I ever received was ‘a guaranteed A’–at mid-term–for the semester’s course in Group Dynamics. The teacher called me in and told me that I’d often be quicker to spot a dynamic rearing its head than even he would. I confess that I often view this blog (not just this topic but the whole site) as a very challenging exercise in group dynamics. It’s challenging because we can’t see each other. Can’t read inflection, body language, nuance, winks, sarcastic smiles, humorous smiles. Can’t read the eyes. (Hey, Warren–how about becoming the first webcam blog? We could launch with just the video of us as we’re typing our post. Uh, cancel that…I just remembered how I looked this morning before I had my coffee.)
    In short, I learn best by questioning. My involvement in most of the political threads Warren had was pretty minimal. This one, due to the seriousness of the issue and all the possible ramifications if the challenge is viable, is the one I continue to follow. I’m here to learn. So, if you say that Obama has spent 800 million on legal fees re this issue, I’m gonna go “What! That’s outrageous! If that’s true, there really might be something to what these guys are saying.” I’ve been trusting in our currently in place government to address this satisfactorily (sp?–it looks wrong to me.) The fact that their concern is not escalated in any way. Skip the press. I’m talking the in place Republican advantaged government. Why don’t they see what you see? Or, if they see, why don’t they see the urgency of confronting it? So then I think “Maybe the 800 million has something to do with that? How do I find out more about this cover-up or hush money?” So, I go to the source of the info–you–for where you got the ‘facts’ you gave me. Questioning is how I learn in Blog School. I do it a lot!!!
    (LOL. My dad once told me that I was asking questions at the age of six that he hadn’t asked in his entire life…)

    1. Eddy,
      Thanks for taking the time for a personal overview. Now I understand more about your past and present comments. This is very helpful.
      Personally, I am active on several forums, all dealing with Obama’s NBC status, and I see the same arguments over and over. I actually have been discussing the situation off-line with two attorneys, so I’m kinda burned out on the NBC situation.
      I notice that you are very strong on the details, and I try to do the same, but have to admit that most of my time is spent at the 50,000 foot level where I try to see the forest for the trees.
      I’m not going to go into all of the research I have done on the subject, but it is my opinion that:
      1. The Constitution Article II overrides all immigration statutes.
      2. The Founding Fathers were emphatic in their NBC requirements for future POTUS.
      3. Obama and Clinton sponsored the S.R. 511 for McCain two years ago.
      4. Being a constitutional attorney, Obama cannot claim ignorance of the law.
      5. There is a missing video tape dating back to a 2004 conversation with Alan Keyes in which they discussed Obama’s non-NBC status and his remark (and I paraphrase) was ‘I’m not running for president, so it doesn’t matter.’
      6. The SCOTUS still has January 9 conference date set for at least one case before it, and so we all may have some things to talk about within the week.
      7. And lastly, I believe Obama is a fraud and a usurper. No secret there, and time will tell if my opinion of him is accurate.
      I have to go now, back tomorrow.
      Have a good one.

  1630. Rich….with all due respect, earlier in this discussion you made the following statement…………………………………………
    Rich wrote:

    There have on occasion been travel advisories issued by the State Department about travel to Pakistan, but I have been unable to find any record of travel to Pakistan being banned by the United States, and certainly not during the time period that Obama was there.

    My answer to you on THAT post was as follows……………………………………………..
    Crazy Greek wrote:

    ISLAMABAD April 18. The U.S. today lifted the 13-month travel ban on its citizens and certain category of employees to Pakistan and authorised the immediate return of U.S. embassy and consulate employees to Islamabad, Lahore and Peshawar.

    Right there is the PROOF you are seeking that travel bans HAVE BEEN IN EFFECT for Pakistan, at least for ONE time period!
    That is only one instance that I cited for you that you are STILL failing to respond to and in fact are IGNORING in your quest of DEMANDING PROOF of others on this forum.
    For the final time…..please pay attention…..I AM currently researching the issue of travel BANS being in effect for Pakistan during the late 70’s/early 80’s time period and WILL post same IF and WHEN I find the proof you seek.

    1. CrazyGreek,
      Yes, and when the ban was put into effect the U.S. Embassy was closed and all Embassy personnel left the country.
      Is there any record of the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan having been closed in 1981? Nope, no record at all.
      And how do you explain the fact that Pakistan International Airlines had a daily flight from JFK to Karachi in the summer of 1981?
      I promise you that i will not be holding my breath waiting for your proof.

  1631. Moderator:
    I’d like to know what causes posts to be held up for several hours. Can you help me with that, please?

  1632. For some reason, this post was never released.
    HighlanderJuan says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    January 4, 2009 at 11:17 am
    Crazy Greek,
    I’m not certain the U.S. SoS had travel restrictions in 1981, but Pakistan may have had restrictions against Americans. It was during 1981 that we renewed our alliance with Pakistan and allowed military contracts to be fulfilled.
    You might enjoy reading this article about Obama’s visit to Pakistan:
    http://rupeenews.com/2008/04/26/obama-visited-pakistan-didnt-learn-anything/
    The article author, Moin Ansari, is criticized by a couple of readers, and continues the mystery about our new leader, The One, and his 1981 trip. You should read the whole article.
    BTW, regardless of what Eddy has said, it would do everyone the most good if everyone did their own research, rather than have one person do it all and then get criticized by others for doing an incomplete job. That’s a sucker punch.
    And, Eddy, if you don’t like our research, do you own. We don’t work for you.
    ///

  1633. It’s also worth noting that even with the current heightened tensions in Pakistan, the State Department has issued only a travel advisory, not a travel ban:

    1. Rich,
      The travel restriction may have been on Pakistan’s side – not the U.S. side. They were upset with the U.S. because of the the military & financial breakdown between the countries that did not get resolved until September 1981.

  1634. I hear ya Eddy…appreciate your response.
    Hope you enjoyed Bob Hope.
    Later…gotta scoot and go do the work thingy. I work a shift schedule which does make it a little difficult at times to do all the researching I would like to do in a timely fashion.

  1635. Thanks Crazy Greek–
    It looked like one of those blog gang-ups where two or three people applaud each other while trashing the other without any real substance. But, I’ll admit…it’s something we all fall into.
    About those things that you’ve asked Rich to prove. As I recall, they were simply things that you wanted proof for. They weren’t statements that Rich, himself, made and was therefore accountable for. If you can point to any ‘facts’ that Rich has introduced without support, then it would be fair game to demand proof from him.
    (You may recall that I stepped in awhile back and asked for Warren’s intervention when a blogger was calling you a liar. Although I found some of your comments to be misleading and some to be overstatements, branding another commenter as a liar requires serious back-up since it goes to motive and usually involves a bit of mind-reading. LOL. I do try to be an equal-opportunity mini-moderator. It endears me to absolutely everyone.)

    1. Eddy,
      You’ve over-reacted to this whole situation.
      1. Crazy Greek and I did NOT conspire against Rich.
      2. Crazy Greek and I had roughly the same intellectual response to Rich’s post.
      3. Crazy Greek and I hit the ‘send’ button within a minute of each other.
      4. No conspiracy, just coincidence.
      As I noted in my post to Rich, if he wants proof of something, he should get it himself. I have seen too many sand bagging attempts on various forums by posters that invite further investigation and ‘proof’ so that the requester can subsequently tear the results apart. Happens a lot.
      And when this happens, all sense of intellectual honesty goes out the window and everybody loses face. This tactic inhibits cooperation between posters and sets up an adversarial relationship between posters. Is this what you want?
      I don’t like this when it happens to me, and when I see it happening to anyone, I call it for what it is.
      So, you’re a mini-moderator? I wouldn’t have thought so from some of your posts. My mistake. It won’t happen again.

  1636. Eddy wrote:

    Please don’t mistake the fact that you agree with each other for the notion that you are right.

    Ah, cxome on Eddy…neither Juan nor I have said that we are ‘right’ on this. It’s just our contention that there is something wrong with Obama and his background, the bc thingy being only a part of it. I don’t thing either of us has said WE were right any more than the Obama supporters have said THEY are right. Both side have their arguments and it would appear that both sides are in agreement with each other on their different takes on the matter….witness your willingness to come to the defense of Rich in his assertions here.
    If you will notice, up topic a bit, I had asked Rich to come forth with HIS PROOF of certain things about Obama, which he has failed to even mention since. You haven’t heard me going on about it and DEMANDING that he be forthcoming with his answer to those simple questions, have you?
    NO ONE is stating ANYTHING regarding Obama as “gospel truth” (to use YOUR words). That would be impossible for either side on ANYTHING regarding Obama since his entire life is nothing but smoke and mirrors, and the main reason we are having these discussions in the first place.
    I have said that I am in the process of researching this matter and I AM. That happens to be the TRUTH and like I said previously, “IF and when I find the documentation, you guys on this forum will be the first to know.”
    As to this statement of yours…………..
    Eddy wrote:

    Please be man enough to cite specific people and what they’ve written that is zombie-like…at least for the benefit of those of us who don’t see through your eyes. Then we can discuss it or refute it from the evidence at hand. But this post has had upwards of 700 (possibly 800) comments and a number of commenters. Please cite your zombie-like examples so that we can evaluate their zombieness next to yours.

    I wish ALL my answers could be as easy for me to be “man enough to cite” as this. No one is asking, or DEMANDING, that you “see though my eyes”….just ENJOY a Bob Hope CLASSIC moment.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4
    There ya go. Please try and be a little more understanding before coming on thsi forum and trying to berate what two other individuals are saying to each other in the future. I do believe, we STILL have the right to communicate OUR feelings publicly in this matter….at least for a few more days since January 20, 2009 is fast approaching.
    ROFLMFAO

  1637. Crazy Greek,
    I’m not certain the U.S. SoS had travel restrictions in 1981, but Pakistan may have had restrictions against Americans. It was during 1981 that we renewed our alliance with Pakistan and allowed military contracts to be fulfilled.
    You might enjoy reading this article about Obama’s visit to Pakistan:
    http://rupeenews.com/2008/04/26/obama-visited-pakistan-didnt-learn-anything/
    The article author, Moin Ansari, is criticized by a couple of readers, and continues the mystery about our new leader, The One, and his 1981 trip. You should read the whole article.
    BTW, regardless of what Eddy has said, it would do everyone the most good if everyone did their own research, rather than have one person do it all and then get criticized by others for doing an incomplete job. That’s a sucker punch.
    And, Eddy, if you don’t like our research, do you own. We don’t work for you.
    ///

  1638. Boys–
    Please don’t mistake the fact that you agree with each other for the notion that you are right. I too have been waiting for Crazy Greek to support his allegation. While I’m glad that he’s taking the time to look it up, it would have been far, far better if he’d done that before stating it as a fact.
    Some of us feel that the best way to handle a discussion is to first whittle away the bullcrap so that we can get down to the real issues and the real objections; this is what Rich was doing when he challenged Crazy Greek’s allegation that travel to Pakistan was under severe restriction. It’s what I and others were doing when the 800 million in legal fees and the team of 5 lawyers were introduced into the conversation. I’m sorry that you feel picked on by people who are simply wanting you to stick to facts–or to state your opinions as opinions rather than the gospel truth.
    It also does your cause no good to take slams against an entire political party that represents approximately half of these United States. Like many, I regard most generalizations and the people who spout them as ‘mindless.
    I found this line particularly childish and anti-productive:

    I’m often reminded of that good old Bob Hope line in his movie about zombies in Cuba when I read what some people write, aren’t you?

    Please be man enough to cite specific people and what they’ve written that is zombie-like…at least for the benefit of those of us who don’t see through your eyes. Then we can discuss it or refute it from the evidence at hand. But this post has had upwards of 700 (possibly 800) comments and a number of commenters. Please cite your zombie-like examples so that we can evaluate their zombieness next to yours.

  1639. HighlanderJuan wrote:

    Crazy Greek,
    I think we’re both on the same page on this one.
    Juan

    You got that right Juan….ROFLMFAO
    I’m often reminded of that good old Bob Hope line in his movie about zombies in Cuba when I read what some people write, aren’t you?
    Actor: You see them sometimes, wandering around with lifeless eyes, staring blankly, not knowing where they are…………
    Bob Hope: Oh…you mean Democrats?
    ROFLMFAO

  1640. Rich wrote:

    Oh, and let’s see some PROOF that there was a State Department ban on travel by Americans to Pakistan in 1981. If there was such a ban, PROOF should be easy to come by. So where is the PROOF?

    Dang Rich…you sure can be a hard person to talk reasonably with at times. I believe I stated that I was researching this fact, did I not? IF and when I find it, believe me, YOU will be the first to know on this forum.
    Since you want to play the “PROOF” game, where is YOUR proof that travel WAS NOT banned during the time period we are discussing.
    Sometimes your arguments make sense, while at other times (such as this) they are just plain LAUGHABLE.

    1. Since you want to play the “PROOF” game, where is YOUR proof that travel WAS NOT banned during the time period we are discussing.

      Oh, please. Now you are asking me to prove a negative? You might as well ask me to prove that there wasn’t a travel ban to Bolivia in 1981.
      The burden of proof is on those who claim that there WAS a travel ban to Pakistan in 1981. Philip Berg has claimed that there was a ban, but he has provided no evidence of such a ban. Neither has anyone else. Until proof of a travel ban is produced, there is a presumption that travel to Pakistan was permitted. However, you might want to take a minute and compare the State Department’s overview of Pakistan with that of Libya. Regarding Libya, the State Department says ” In December 1981, the State Department invalidated U.S. passports for travel to Libya and, for purposes of safety, advised all U.S. citizens in Libya to leave.” The State Department overview of Pakistan says nothing about a ban on travel to Pakistan.
      Do you need more? I found a New York Times article dated 8/12/81 which discussed the impact of the air traffic controllers’ strike. The article mentions that Pakistan International Airlines had a daily flight from JFK to Karachi. No such flight would have existed if a travel ban had been in effect.
      When you Google “travel ban to Pakistan 1981” you will see that not a single person has been able to come up with proof that such a ban existed.
      What I have proven, indisputably, is that Obama did not lose his natural born status because of his mother’s remarriage and subsequent move to Indonesia. He is and always has been a U.S. citizen. There is nothing that his mother or stepfather did or could have done to change that. I couldn’t help but notice that you ignored that fact in your response to me.

      1. Rich,
        You said:
        “What I have proven, indisputably, is that Obama did not lose his natural born status because of his mother’s remarriage and subsequent move to Indonesia. He is and always has been a U.S. citizen. There is nothing that his mother or stepfather did or could have done to change that. I couldn’t help but notice that you ignored that fact in your response to me.”
        With all due respect you have shown nothing (that I have seen) proving Obama’s NBC status, and that is all that is important for his qualification as POTUS. Nobody’s challenging Obama’s current U.S. citizenship (although that might be a really good idea).

        1. HighlanderJuan,
          You need to read more carefully. What I said is that Obama could not LOSE his natural born citizenship status OR his citizenship status because of anything his mother and/or stepfather did in Indonesia. I am, of course, operating on the assumption that Obama was born in Hawaii, and I will continue to assume that until someone provides PROOF that Obama was born somewhere else. However, as I noted in a prior post, many legal scholars believe that where Obama was born is irrelevant, as he was a citizen at birth by virtue of his mother’s citizenship. In 1968 George Romney was assured by Republican attorneys that he was eligible to run for president even though he was born in Mexico.
          The law is quite clear that citizenship can be lost only through a formal renunciation of citizenship. The law is also quite clear that “Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children.”
          http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

          A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
          1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
          2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
          3. sign an oath of renunciation
          Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States.

          So all of this talk about Obama becoming an Indonesian citizen or having an Indonesian passport is hogwash. None of that matters. The ONLY way that Obama could have lost his citizenship was by formally renouncing it, and that never happened. Even if his parents got him Indonesian citizenship (and there is no proof of that ever happening, either), it would not have been legally binding on Obama because he was a child at the time.

          1. Rich,
            The Constitution is also quite clear:
            1. Both parents must be U.S. citizens
            2. POTUS must be born on U.S. soil
            If Obama’s father was indeed Barack Obama Sr., a British subject, Obama does not have NBC status and cannot become president.

  1641. Oh, and let’s see some PROOF that there was a State Department ban on travel by Americans to Pakistan in 1981. If there was such a ban, PROOF should be easy to come by. So where is the PROOF?

    1. Hey Rich,
      This sounds like something you’re interested in knowing more about.
      Do your own research. It won’t hurt a bit. And think about all that you can learn. It’ll be like going back to school.
      Sometimes it is very frustrating to deal with people like you who demand that another poster prove a point, just so you, the requesting poster, can tear the results apart. Kind of like a sucker punch.
      BTW, are you out of school yet?

      1. BTW, are you out of school yet?

        Insults like that are not worthy of a response, but…
        I mentioned earlier that I was abroad in 1970. Does that sound like someone who is in school?

        1. Insult? Insult? That was no stinking insult.
          If you are out of school, which it appears you are, then you already know how to do independent research.
          So, there you go. You are a big boy and you can handle yourself. That’s a good thing.
          I was concerned about you.

  1642. Crazy Greek,
    You and many others have a faulty understanding of the law.
    The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, section 349 (a), provided:
    “From and after the effective date of this Act a person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by — (1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person: Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday: ….”
    Section 355 of that Act provided that:
    “A person having United States nationality, who is under the age of twenty-one and whose residence is in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who hereafter loses United States nationality under section 350 or 352 of this title, shall also lose his United States nationality if such person has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, United States nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of United States nationality by the parent unless and until the person attains the age of twenty-five years without having established his residence in the United States.”

    The law clearly states that a minor cannot lose his or her U.S. citizenship based upon the actions of the parents, unless the minor reaches the age of 25 without establishing residence in the United States. It is indisputed that Obama re-established residence in the United States when he was ten years old, so by law he never lost his U.S. citizenship, regardless of what his parents did.
    Never mind the fact that there is no evidence that Obama’s mother ever became a citizen of Indonesia. Berg cited a law to claim that she lost her U.S. citizenship when she married Soetoro, but that law only applied to marriages which took place prior to 1922. But it makes no difference — as the law clearly states, Obama would have lost his citizenship only if he failed to establish residency in the U.S. by the age of 25. In fact, he had been living in the United States for 15 consecutive years when he reached the age of 25.
    And your belief that Obama stated that he maintained an Indonesian passport is false. Obama has never said any such thing.
    Your comments about Pakistan only prove that there was political unrest in Pakistan when Obama visited. There was no particular civil unrest at that time, and there is no evidence that travel to Pakistan by Americans was banned in 1981.
    Your comments about the New York Times article are disingenous. Why would the Times publish an article in its TRAVEL SECTION with tips on how to travel to Pakistan, if travel to Pakistan was banned? It would have made absolutely no sense. And if travel to Pakistan was banned in 1981, it meant that the NY Times travel reporter broke the law. Ridiculous.

  1643. Rich wrote:

    If a travel ban to Pakistan was in effect in 1981, why was a travel writer for the NY Times visiting Pakistan that summer and providing travel tips for Americans interested in visiting Pakistan?

    Answer: Journalist oft times go where they are not supposed to go and WITHOUT the permission OR sanction of the United States government Rich…come on, you know that……….that statement is lame at best for a supporting argument.
    Rich wrote:

    Simply put, there is no evidence that an American tourist would have encountered any difficulty in traveling to Pakistan in the summer of 1981.

    Oh really? Try this on for size Rich…………from this link……………………..
    http://www.milnet.com/state/pakistan/pakistan.htm

    1977-1985 Martial Law
    With increasing anti-government unrest, the army grew restive. On July 5, 1977, the military removed Bhutto from power and arrested him, declared martial law, and suspended portions of the 1973 constitution. Chief of Army Staff Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq became Chief Martial Law Administrator and promised to hold new elections within 3 months.
    Zia released Bhutto and asserted that he could contest new elections scheduled for October 1977. However, after it became clear that Bhutto’s popularity had survived his government, Zia postponed the elections and began criminal investigations of the senior PPP leadership. Subsequently, Bhutto was convicted and sentenced to death for alleged conspiracy to murder a political opponent. Despite international appeals on his behalf, Bhutto was hanged on April 6, 1979.
    Zia assumed the Presidency and called for elections in November. However, fearful of a PPP victory, Zia banned political activity in October 1979 and postponed national elections.
    In 1980, most center and left parties, led by the PPP, formed the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy [MRD]. The MRD demanded Zia’s resignation, an end to martial law, new elections, and restoration of the constitution as it existed before Zia’s takeover. In early December 1984, President Zia proclaimed a national referendum for December 19 on his “Islamization” program. He implicitly linked approval of “Islamization” with a mandate for his continued presidency. Zia’s opponents, led by the MRD, boycotted the elections. When the government claimed a 63% turnout, with more than 90% approving the referendum, many observers questioned these figures.
    On March 3, 1985, President Zia proclaimed constitutional changes designed to increase the power of the President vis-a-vis the Prime Minister (under the 1973 constitution the President had been mainly a figurehead). Subsequently, Zia nominated Muhammad Khan Junejo, a Muslim League member, as Prime Minister. The new National Assembly unanimously endorsed Junejo as Prime Minister and, in October 1985, passed Zia’s proposed eighth amendment to the constitution, legitimizing the actions of the martial law government, exempting them from judicial review (including decisions of the military courts), and enhancing the powers of the President.

    Do you still contend, given these FACTS, that travel in that part of the world during this time period in question was not ‘hazardous’?
    Gimme a BREAK!
    Further, when Obama’s Mama moved to Indonesia with Obama, Jr. she took up Indonesian citizenship and his new step father adopted Obama, both actions resulting in Obama having INDONESIAN citizenship. Either way, Obama could never be considered a ‘natural born citizen’…pretty simple really. FACT…..Indonesia DOES NOT have dual citizenship. I believe Obama himself has stated that he maintained an Indonesian passport as an adult, which translates that he also maintained his Indonesian citizenship.

  1644. They provided a key to a better way to look for information. Sooner or later, I mean to explain further in Investigating Obama.

    I have read all seven pages, and I fail to see how they provide a key to anything. The divorce papers simply reiterate the identity of Obama’s parents and his date of birth, information which no one has disputed.

    1. And subsequently help provide the link to Obama’s non-NBC citizenship status.
      Rich, I know that as an Obama supporter, you find all of this information irrelevant and immaterial, but it is not the case. If ‘The One’ had provided a clean history in the beginning, we could all be believers. But he didn’t, so we aren’t.
      In fact, if I were you, I would be absolutely outraged that Obama is as arrogant and presumptuous as he is. He won’t fight back on this discovery process because he can’t. There’s too much truth in the allegations against him, and the complete truth will eventually surface. So, he sits and waits, pretending that nothing is amiss.
      Stay tuned, this discovery process will get worse for your false messiah.
      As Sherlock Holmes would say, ‘the game’s afoot.’

  1645. Crazy Greek,
    If a travel ban to Pakistan was in effect in 1981, why was a travel writer for the NY Times visiting Pakistan that summer and providing travel tips for Americans interested in visiting Pakistan?
    I obviously wasn’t looking for travel bans which occurred since 9/11, since they are meaningless regarding a trip which Obama made to Pakistan 27 years ago.
    As for the Kenyan ambassador, it isn’t clear that he actually understood what he was being asked, and in any event why would the Kenyan ambassador have personal knowledge of where Obama was born? That isn’t EVIDENCE, and would not even be admissible in a court of law.
    As for the reason for Obama’s trip to Pakistan, is is simple. Obama’s mother and half-sister were living in Indonesia. Obama and a college friend first visited Obama’s mother and half-sister in Indonesia. Obama’s friend had relatives living in Pakistan, so after they visited Obama’s family they went to Pakistan to visit Obama’s friend’s relatives. Nothing unusual about that. Obama and his friend stayed in Karachi. There was no civil unrest to speak of taking place in Pakistan in the summer of 1981. In fact, at the time Pakistan was a staunch ally of the Reagan Administration, and was allowing the United States to use Pakistan as a conduit to supply the Afghans who were fighting the Soviets.
    Simply put, there is no evidence that an American tourist would have encountered any difficulty in traveling to Pakistan in the summer of 1981. It should be noted that Philip Berg has not provided a single piece of EVIDENCE to support his claim that Americans were not allowed to visit Pakistan in 1981. He simply made it up.

  1646. HIghlander Juan.
    And the divorce papers make no mention of Barack Obama being born outside of the United States. They prove nothing.

    1. Obama has hidden as much of his history as he can, in an effort to avoid discovery.
      Natural Born Citizenship, a special class of citizenship in the United States, is required if you want to be president.
      For this time period, Natural Born Citizenship is only available to citizens who 1) have two (2) U.S. citizen parents, and 2) were born in the United States.
      The question of NBC status was circumvented by McCain (born in Panama) when Obama and Clinton co-sponsored S.R. 511. Some view this as a distraction to take away to focus on Obama’s citizenship status.
      Because Obama has sealed his past records, this divorce document helps establish the fact that Obama’s mother was, indeed, married to Obama Sr., a British subject.
      All of this information is helping connect the dots to a dark and mysterious past of our president-elect, Barack Hussein Obama.

  1647. Here’s a few points some might find interesting about Pakistan. After reading these, could anyone please tell me why ANYONE would be interested in travel in that region?
    One little slip of the tongue over there could mean a slit of the THROAT for the perpetrator………;-)
    Just adding a little levity into the conversation…you may now return to your normal programing…………………………………………………

    Freedom of speech is subject to “reasonable” restrictions in the interests of the “glory of Islam.” The consequences for contravening the country’s blasphemy laws are death for defiling Islam or its prophets; life imprisonment for defiling, damaging, or desecrating the Qur’an; and 10 years’ imprisonment for insulting another’s religious feelings. These laws are often used to settle personal scores as well as to intimidate reform-minded Muslims, sectarian opponents, and religious minorities. Under the Anti-Terrorist Act, any action, including speech, intended to stir up religious hatred is punishable by up to 7 years of imprisonment. Under the act, bail is not to be granted if the judge has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty; however, the law is applied selectively.

    OUCH…sure would hate to be one of the “selected” here…wouldn’t you?

    In addition, any speech or conduct that injures another’s religious feelings, including those of minority religious groups, is prohibited and punishable by imprisonment. However, in cases where the religious feelings of a minority religion were insulted, the blasphemy laws were rarely enforced and cases rarely brought to the legal system. A 2005 law requires that a senior police official investigate any blasphemy charge before a complaint is filed.

    In other words, THEY can insult YOUR religious beliefs, if other than Islam, but you darned well better not insult THEIRS!
    Wonderful society, no? ROFLMFAO
    You can read all about it here..I gotta scoot and go do the work thingy……..think I’ll save up my money for a trip to the Middle East………………sounds ENCHANTING! 😉
    BTW…this comes from the State Department and NOT just some gibberish off the internet…………………….for those concerned with such matters.;-)
    http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90233.htm

  1648. Rich,
    I don’t understand your thinking at all here. You come on here saying I don’t know what I’m talking about and then your first statement is this?

    Remember how we were told three days ago that the divorce papers would refer to one minor child, born in Kenya? Well, as it turned out they refer to one minor child, only it is Obama’s half-sister, and they say nothing about where she was born. As I said, yet another wild goose chase.

    Rich……..pay attention here……the ONLY reason that Obama, Jr. is NOT mentioned in this document is because Obama, Jr. was NOT the child of THAT union between Obama’s Mama and Soetoro. His sister IS mentioned in that document because she WAS the child of THAT union………..got it?
    In the divorce decree of Obama’s Mama and Obama, Sr. Obama, Jr. is supposedly mentioned because he WAS the child of THAT union…simple.
    As to your statement……………………………

    The only documentation I have ever asked for is EVIDENCE that Obama was not born in Hawaii.

    I guess the link I provided for the radio station audio interview of the Ambassador of KENYA, where he is CLEARLY STATING that Obama, Jr. was BORN IN KENYA is something you don’t consider evidence, right? (Well, as much ‘evidence’ as can be found on your sneaky Obama character, that is). Guess you are going to say that this tape has somehow been ‘doctored’ or something, right? Here is the link again if you are interested enough to go have a listen. Listen closely at time 20 seconds for the question and at time 29 seconds for the answer. It is clear that the Ambassador was talking about Obama, Jr. and NOT Obama, Sr. because he even states that “his paternal grandmother is still living here….”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14&NR=1
    The relevance of Obama’s college records will show where he got his funding to attend college. They will probably also show where he entered the information of where he was born. The point here is…….why has Obama had these records SEALED? I guess you will now defend with something like these records could be considered relevant to National Security or something?
    As to the ‘banned travel list’ to Pakistan….I will join you in looking for that. I know there was a ban then, just as there is a ban now on travel to Cuba by United States citizens, although quite a few go in open defiance every year. I was in the U.S. Navy in the 70’s and the government didn’t even want United States military going in those waters because of the Pakistani/ Indian was that was going on at the time. In the 1980’s, Russia had invaded Afghanistan and the area was a hot bed of turmoil. No one in their right mind went into that area then, especially just on a ‘family visit with a friend who had family there’. LAUGHABLE!
    Let me at this point apologize to you for inadvertently stating Indonesia when meaning Pakistan previously…perhaps that is what got you off track in your thinking process? 😉
    Rich wrote:

    Obama returned to the United States from Indonesia when he was ten years old. Why would you expect him to have documentation of his return?

    Again Rich….pay attention….NO ONE is questioning Obama’s return from Indonesia when he was ten years old. That is NOT the trip that is in question here…well, other than what name he was using on his passport or what nationality was listed for him on said passport at that time……….the trip in question was the one he supposedly took to Pakistan which, as Obama himself stated, makes me a better man a foreign relations than anyone running (or words to that effect) during the campaign. Obama himself is the one that pulled this rabbit out of the hat…no one else.
    Rich wrote:

    There have on occasion been travel advisories issued by the State Department about travel to Pakistan, but I have been unable to find any record of travel to Pakistan being banned by the United States, and certainly not during the time period that Obama was there.

    Well Rich….here is one mention of a “travel ban” having been lifted, as late as 2003….
    http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/04/19/stories/2003041902901200.htm
    It clearly states the following, if you would care to take a look at it……

    ISLAMABAD April 18. The U.S. today lifted the 13-month travel ban on its citizens and certain category of employees to Pakistan and authorised the immediate return of U.S. embassy and consulate employees to Islamabad, Lahore and Peshawar.

    It also states………..

    Family members of official Americans ordered to leave the country in March 2002 are not yet being allowed to return. “Because of regional tensions and continued high security concerns about terrorists in Pakistan, all U.S. citizens should defer travel to Pakistan. U.S. citizens in the country are strongly urged to depart. This supersedes the Travel Warning issued March 28, 2003”, travel advisory put out by the State Department said.

    So….there is ONE travel ban for ya..and it didn’t take me long to find it. I’m willing to bet that there WAS a travel ban in effect in the 70’s-80’s also.

  1649. Crazy Greek,
    The problem here is that you don’t know what you are talking about.
    It is not in the least surprising that the records of the divorce between Obama Sr. and Obama’s mother are not available, since divorce records are by law sealed and cannot be seen except by court order. The only thing that is surprising is that someone was able to get a copy of the Soetoro divorce papers.
    Remember how we were told three days ago that the divorce papers would refer to one minor child, born in Kenya? Well, as it turned out they refer to one minor child, only it is Obama’s half-sister, and they say nothing about where she was born. As I said, yet another wild goose chase.
    The only documentation I have ever asked for is EVIDENCE that Obama was not born in Hawaii. All we have seen is wild supposition. Jerome Corsi went to Kenya and came back without a shred of actual EVIDENCE that Obama was born there.
    Obama returned to the United States from Indonesia when he was ten years old. Why would you expect him to have documentation of his return? I was overseas in 1969 and 1970, and I have no documentation of my return. Do you really expect him to have the passport that he was using when he was ten?
    And I fail to see the relevance of Obama’s college records. If any employer were to ask for college records, they would get at most a transcript, which would show the student’s grades. How would college records shine any light on where Obama was born? My alma mater has never had any information about where I was born.
    And your assertion that travel to Indonesia was forbidden to United States citizens in the 1980s is flat out wrong. And the “issue” was never about traveling to Indonesia, it was about traveling to Pakistan. Philip Berg has asserted that travel to Pakistan was banned when Obama went there in 1981, but there is no evidence to support Berg’s claim. In fact, a New York Times article published on June 14, 1981 noted that tourtists to Pakistan could “obtain a free, 30-day visa (necessary for Americans) at border crossings and airports.” Obama was in Pakistan for three weeks.
    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0DE2DA1338F937A25755C0A967948260&sec=travel&spon=&pagewanted=5
    There have on occasion been travel advisories issued by the State Department about travel to Pakistan, but I have been unable to find any record of travel to Pakistan being banned by the United States, and certainly not during the time period that Obama was there. It is just another one of Berg’s many unsubstantiated allegations.

  1650. Rich wrote:

    This is humorous. Apparently the crackerjack P.I. found the divorce papers between Obama’s mother and her second husband, Lolo Soetoro. The divorce was filed in 1980, when Obama was 19 years old, so the papers don’t even mention him by name. There likewise is no reference to Kenya or any other country.
    http://www.plainsradio.com/Home/SOETORO%20DIVORCE%20P%201-5.pdf
    Another wild goose chase.

    The reason Obama was NOT mentioned in those papers Rich is because Obama WAS NOT the child of that union….his sister WAS and is therefore mentioned.
    Doesn’t it strike you as the least bit funny that even papers that should be readily available to the public, such as the divorce papers of the supposed union of Obama Sr. and Obama’s mother (as I stated earlier, I didn’t think they had ever been legally married since Obama’s Mama had to go to Kenya to confront Obama, Sr. and that’s when she found out that Sr. was already married and had no plans for her as an additional wife…but I probably got that wrong in all this smoke and mirrors) have never been made public either?
    Man, you Obama supporters actually tickle me to death…you REFUSE to ask the most simple questions regarding your guy while at the same time expect everyone else to swallow his swill hook, line and sinker.
    Please, since you are one that is always wanting documentation, site for us ANY candidate for POTUS, in the entire history of this country, that has had so many unanswered questions regarding his background. Bet ya can’t…cause there simply isn’t any that exist is why!
    Kindly clear up the mystery for us oh great Obama supporter. We only ask for documentation..perhaps YOU could be so kind as to supply……………………
    1. A vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate…NOT certification of live birth…there IS a difference ya know.
    2. A copy of Obama’s academic records from ANY college or university he has attended.
    3. Documentation of exactly HOW and WHEN Obama arrived in CONUS.
    4. A copy of Obamas’ passport that he used to go to Indonesia in the 1980’s…you know, when travel to that part of the world was FORBIDDEN to ANY UNITED STATES CITIZEN.
    Just these four things outta be a good start for ya.
    GOOD LUCK……….looking forward to your answers.
    ROFLMFAO

  1651. Rich wrote:

    Get used to it, folks, in 18 days Obama will be inaugurated.

    Ah yes Rich…that may very well be true, but it won’t stop the questions or the doubt in regards Obama’s truthfulness, now will it?
    You see, unfortunately for Obama and people like you who refuse to question and would rather follow blindly, there will always be those who will wonder and therefore, never stop looking for the truth.
    Simply because something hasn’t materialized in the time frame originally suggested by whomever it was that did so, does not mean that documentation does not exist that will prove Obama is NOT who he says he is.
    I wonder what you, and those of your persuasion, are going to say if and when said documentation DOES surface and Obama has to let everyone know that he is nothing more than a fraud, as many think.
    Simply because Obama has the chance (and a good one…I’ll give you that) of being inaugurated on January 20, 2009 doesn’t detract from the fact that his eligibility to hold the position as POTUS will suddenly cease to be questioned, now does it?
    What would be the easiest thing would be for Obama to simply produce said documentation. Also, consider this…why, if your guy Obama is so ‘truthful’ has he conveniently arranged for his academic records from all the colleges he attended to be sealed from anyone’s eyes? A bit strange that, wouldn’t you say? Even the most common of citizen’s in this country, when applying for the most menial of jobs, is required by most employers to show PROOF of their academic records. Of course, when one has ’employers’ such as yourself who simply refuse to question, I guess that’s not too surprising.
    EVERY action Obama takes stinks of COVERUP…now why is THAT?
    Your explanation for his actions might prove enlightening, to say the least.

  1652. The outlandish stuff I read here is truly breathtaking.
    Where is the report from the P.I. who supposedly examined the divorce records in Hawaii? First it was going to be produced on December 31, then New Year’s Day. It is now January 2 on the east coast, and no report. Wow, am i ever surprised!
    These claims about Obama spending millions on legal fees are equally ridiculous. First of all, Obama isn’t even a named defendant in most of the lawsuits. For example:
    http://goexcelglobal.com/share/c146.pdf
    In the Berg case, Obama is a defendant but his attorneys have done virtually nothing. In fact, the only defense attorney currently involved in the Berg case is the Solicitor General of the United States, representing the Federal Election Commission.
    And let’s get something straight. Even if Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he isn’t a “natural born citizen.” Many legal scholars believe that there are only two types of citizens, “natural born” and “naturalized.” Those scholars believe that “natural born” means a citizen at birth. Wherever Obama was born, he was a citizen at birth because his mother was a citizen when he was born. This very issue came up back in the sixties when George Romney ran for the Republican nomination for president. Romney was born in Mexico City, but his attorneys assured him that he was eligible to be president.
    Get used to it, folks, in 18 days Obama will be inaugurated.

  1653. Kay Mason wrote:

    I think if you have no legal way to right you have no constitution. Even the sitting complete government will in time be over thrown from the outside world upon such notice of endless postings and meaningless sections so written and quoted upon. Have the procedures been that lacks from the signing of these papers of constitutional value once voted anyway upon the flowing of waterfalls among the naked promises and oddities of “men and mice?”

    Huh?????

  1654. I think if you have no legal way to right you have no constitution. Even the sitting complete government will in time be over thrown from the outside world upon such notice of endless postings and meaningless sections so written and quoted upon. Have the procedures been that lacks from the signing of these papers of constitutional value once voted anyway upon the flowing of waterfalls among the naked promises and oddities of “men and mice?”

  1655. HighlanderJuan wrote:

    BTW, anyone seen this Andy Martin video yet?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZwON6dKHks
    Puts a whole new twist on the Obama thing.

    Wow Juan….that is certainly interesting to say the least. However, I think that Mr. Martin is awfully close to opening up a whole new can of worms here…….one we may not want opened. His last statement on camera where he is now saying that he would like to have DNA testing done to ascertain who Obama’s true father is…..well, I think that may be going just a bit overboard, don’t you?
    As to the other issue that we are discussing here, that being Obama’s status as a ‘natural born citizen’, and our current crop of judges and others (who are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States) unwillingness to do so, the matter is really quite simple. The Constitution itself is the supreme law of our land and it spells out exactly who can hold the office of President of the United States.
    Now we have some Obama supporters who are going so far as to suggest that the Constitution be CHANGED to favor Obama….utter rubbish in my opinion. The only thing that really matters is if Obama is indeed a ‘natural born citizen’…period.
    Those that support Obama are also wanting to throw up roadblocks in the form of “Well, exactly what does ‘natural born citizen’ mean. I think the following explains this clearly.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEnaAZrYqQI
    Now, couple this with the FACT (someone is always demanding ‘facts’ on here) that the Kenyan Ambassador himself clearly states that PRESIDENT ELECT Obama (bold added for clarification because now there are some saying that what he meant to say was Obama, Sr. when this is clearly NOT the case when you hear this) was BORN IN KENYA, and that his birthplace is widely known there, and you have a breeding ground for questions regarding Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH4GX3Otf14&NR=1
    Finally let me just say this in regards to ANYONE having to provide ‘PROOF’ of ANYTHING said on these forums. It is just as easy for anyone of us that do not support Obama to say “Well, you just got that off the internet” or “Well, that is just hearsay…you have no proof”, to anything that one of our Obama supporters on here would post, as vice versa. When it comes down to the final say, there is really ONLY ONE PERSON who can actually provided UNDENIABLE, VERIFIABLE PROOF of anything regarding this matter and that person is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA……………..NO ONE ELSE!
    It’s really just that simple. Anything else anyone else has to say regarding this is simple conjecture, pro OR con, FOR or AGAINST Obama. It’s a discussion folks, plain and simple and coming on here and DEMANDING that someone show proof of something is laughable.
    Suggesting that this conversation remain above board and genuine in one’s personal beliefs regarding Mr. Obama’s eligibility to hold the office of POTUS, is NOT laughable and is done so very politely by the moderator of this forum.
    JMHO..for what it’s worth. 😉

  1656. @HighlanderJuan:
    Supporters of Obama have offered evidence (state of HI, Factcheck, etc.). You and those who believe he is not a NBC contest that evidence. Fair enough. If you can show me where I do not ask for evidence of a direct claim. let me know. However, when you also make claims, you should be prepared to provide some sourcing. This is basic.
    My main issue right now is the repeated claim that Obama has spent millions fighting this issue. If there isn’t really any evidence for this, then it is fair for people to point this out.

  1657. @HighlanderJuan:
    Not sure why or what you mean. I am not a supporter of Obama but there is enough to criticize about his policies without embellishing. If there is evidence that he has spent loads of money avoiding the release of his birth certificate then the evidence should be offered. However, simply guessing is not enough.
    Also, I evaluate my sources by a higher criteria than agreement with me or ideological sympathy. Andy Martin has been behind false rumors and so his credibility is questionable. I am a social conservative but I know that social conservative websources are often slanted (like liberal sources often are).
    The forum is for people of all sides to offer reasonable arguments and solid verifiable evidence.

    1. Warren,
      If you are going to place the burden on me and other Obama critics to provide proof and verification of information provided, then you need to require the Obama supporters to do the same with information about Obama they claim is valid. But you don’t appear to require this. Double standard. No good.
      My suggestion, because we are dealing with a known shady character who hides all personal information, is that you let the chips fall where they will. The truth will come out eventually anyway, but forum posters will have had the chance to discuss the information.
      There will be no verification of Obama information until these matters get to court, or an insider whistle blows, because Obama will NOT voluntarily provide the information we seek. You are smart enough to know this.
      If you continue to require only Obama critics to provide backup evidence of the information they provide, you might as well close the forum, because it will cease to be a forum.

  1658. Eddy:
    You said: “We Obama apologists owe no apologies because we are expressing our opinions on the facts as they have been presented more than we are introducing new statements of fact into the discussion”
    I would submit that you also don’t question what you consider Obama settled facts. This is a convenience the MSM have used with regard to Obama also. No vetting allowed.
    Sorry, Charlie – it can’t go only one way. If it only goes one way, then you are being intellectually dishonest and you owe us all an apology.

  1659. HighlanderJuan—
    We Obama apologists owe no apologies because we are expressing our opinions on the facts as they have been presented more than we are introducing new statements of fact into the discussion. The presented birth certificate was the fact; what followed was discussion re its authenticity and the merits of the challenges.
    Occasionally, to support our opinions we introduce new facts to support our case. In your case, you introduced that Obama had spent nearly 600 million in legal fees to cover up this issue. Earlier, I challenged drumsalot when he introduced that Obama had a team of 5 lawyers dedicated to this issue. New supporting facts need to be ‘able to be authenticated’.
    Otherwise, we say ‘no doubt he’s spending millions defending himself’ or ‘I bet he’s got at least 5 lawyers dedicated to this issue alone’. Those are opinions and sound like opinions; we can take them as such. We might request links or backup to an opinion but we feel like we can demand it for a statement of fact.

  1660. Warren wrote:

    @HighlanderJuan:
    Are you saying he has spent 800 million on legal fees and you assume some must relate to the citizenship claims? Or do you have actual evidence that he has spent money dealing with the citizenship issue? Generally, it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to provide the evidence.

    Warren….I think what Juan is gettin at here is that Obama, or his team on his behalf, has indeed instructed their lawyers to intercede in their behalf by filing the motions for dismissal of the cases that have come before the courts……..and we all know….lawyers ain’t about to do ANYTHING for FREE, especially for someone with the deep pockets that Obama has access to, right? 😉
    As to the actual amount spent, one would probably have to rely on the Obama team to provide that number and given their proclivity for not lettin ANYTHING be known about their ‘golden one’ , I doubt seriously that the amount spent will EVER be made public.
    You are correct that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to provide evidence, but that is only AFTER the case comes up in a court and thus far, Obama’s lawyers (that cost money) have managed to side step that little ‘court issue’…..wouldn’t you say? {Evil Grin}
    It would be nice to believe that someone elected President would be forthright enough to simply stand up and say “Look, here’s my birth certificate…have anyone you want to check it out Judge and make the findings known to everyone”….but I doubt seriously THAT will happen anytime soon either!
    What a guy!!!

  1661. @HighlanderJuan:
    Are you saying he has spent 800 million on legal fees and you assume some must relate to the citizenship claims? Or do you have actual evidence that he has spent money dealing with the citizenship issue? Generally, it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to provide the evidence.
    In God we trust, all others must bring data.

    1. Warren,
      Good question. I have no idea how much Obama has actually spent and in what areas he has spent the unknown quantities of election money. Everything I learn is as you learn – by the Internet and by court documents. Obama has sealed ALL of his activities, as you well know, and he does it for a reason. Simply put, he has much to hide.
      I believe it is safe to say that he has hired 2-3 law firms to defend his position NOT to reveal his birth certificate. We all ask – why would he do that? I think you well know the answer to that question.
      I have nothing to hide. I am not running for office. I am a concerned American citizen, and I can prove my citizenship. I have no reason to lie because I have nothing to gain by lying to you or to anyone else.
      Not so with Obama. His lies allow him to continue his charade of being the certified president elect.
      It would seem that only court orders will cause Obama to reveal his documents, and my belief is that the Hawaiian documents (including the DNC cert docs) will be Obama’s ultimate downfall.
      So, getting back to your question: how does one get a criminally inclined individual to tell the world how much money he is spending to defend his crimes?
      Beat the heck out of me. I didn’t go to school in Chicago politics, and I just don’t know all of the tricks they teach there.
      But if you think $800m is too high, how about $10. That’s still too much in my book.

    2. One more thought. If your position is that all but God must bring data, where is your demand on the Obama apologists and defenders who claim the marked up Internet birth certificate is valid. I have found no credible source that states unequivocally that the Obama birth certificate has been examined and was found to be genuine.
      Here’s a bit dated, but interesting video:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecbbt72fKyo

  1662. My style, when confronted with truths that I’ve never heard about, is to question their source. I’m sorry you find that offensive. In this instance, you allude to many documents that once were there and now are not but I honestly thought you all complained earlier that he was producing nothing beyond the COLB. How do I search for documents that have disappeared? When I have no idea what I’m looking for other than ‘documents that no longer exist on the web’?
    I’ll admit that I am playing the skeptic–but that’s because I am. This is a blogsite that celebrates diversity of opinion. We listen, we question, we challenge, we counter. This issue isn’t really my primary focus in any way although the serious consequences if the allegations are true cause me to keep an ear to your conversation. I’m sorry you don’t appreciate my challenges but, hey, at least I’m still listening.

    1. Eddy,
      With all due respect, oh great skeptic that you are, why aren’t you skeptical about Obama? He has a trail of mystery, hideous colleagues, murky past activities, and he’s a lawyer. From Chicago.
      Would I have to be a politician from Chicago in order to have you not question my position on a subject?
      I don’t find your position offensive. I find it unfortunate. We could use your investigative skills to help resolve these questions.

  1663. Re Questions from HighlanderJuan:

    Have you never questioned why Obama has spent so many millions of dollars on legal fees when he has not been accused of a crime?

    Please link to your documentation for ‘Obama has spent so many millions of dollars on legal fees’.

    Have you never questioned why so many Obama documents have disappeared from the Internet?

    I thought the issue was that Obama wasn’t giving us anything except that Certificate of Live Birth. Can you name, say half a dozen ,of the ‘many Obama documents’ that have disappeared?
    In an odd way, I was actually comforted by the post that suggested that Obama could be put to death for treason. For awhile they were arguing that if you somehow got a ‘usurper’ in the White House, your hands were tied because he didn’t have the authority to govern and no one who derived their authority from him had any authority to do anything about it. This was indeed disturbing.
    So despite the darkness of the image of death for treason, there is a sliver of remaining hope that America is not defenseless against a ‘usurper’ should one ever occupy the position of POTUS.
    Oh, and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

    1. Eddy,
      I’m sorry. I won’t help you find any articles about Obama legal fees on the Internet. I have tried to help you in the past, but your style seems to indicate you like to have other folks do the work, and then you chop up and criticize the information provided.
      The number $800 million in Obama legal fees has been raised several times recently. I have no idea how much Obama has actually spent on his legal fees, but I suspect it is a huge number when compared to what you and I would spend protecting our past from disclosure. Obama hides all of his information – you know that.
      I think the guy is a professional crook, legally trained, and a usurper to the White House. I hope he is caught, tried and punished for his crimes. The longer this takes to sort out, the more crimes he is liable for committing.
      This is my opinion only, and you are free to disagree with me any time you choose. Having said that, any time you can provide proof that Obama’s got clean hands regarding his past and his NBC status, please share the information with me and others. I would love to be proven wrong in my opinion that Obama is a usurper. It would make my day.

  1664. HighlanderJuan wrote:

    Obama’s Kenyan birth evidence to be revealed today, online
    By Arlen Williams

    UPDATE: Now they are saying it will be tomorrow sometime before they get the stuff to look at.
    Rich wrote:

    Crazy Greek,
    It should be noted that when he filed his lawsuit, Alan Keyes never claimed to have had such a conversation with Obama. If such a conversation had taken place, you would expect that Keyes would have raised it with the court in California, but he did not.

    Maybe Keyes is just a good poker player and is not willing to show all his cards at one time………..most do not, especially when it comes to lawsuits. 😉
    Rich also wrote:

    And the idea that Obama could “lay this issue to rest” by producing another copy of his birth certificate is ludicrous. The plaintiffs in the various actions, including Keyes, are claiming that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is ineligible because of allegations that he was a citizen of Kenya, or his mother renounced his U.S. citizenship while he was in Indonesia, etc., etc. If the so-called “vault copy” of his birth certificate were to appear today, none of these lawsuits would be dropped.

    Ludicrous? Really? I don’t think so. Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to have a problem with the Governor of Illinois having to lay his cards on the table, or HIM being taped and his conversations recorded. Is this just something Obama thinks himself too good to have to do?
    Why should ‘they’ drop their lawsuits? Unless, and until Obama produces undeniable evidence that he is a natural born citizen, these lawsuits SHOULD stay. It is Obama…and Obama ALONE…who has the power to make this all go away. Witness Berg’s statement…………………………………………
    “All Obama has to do is produce the vault copy of his birth certificate and have it verified that he is who he says he is and this all goes away…..”
    Simple really, yet Obama REFUSES to do so……….WHY?
    Come on Rich…I think you are smarter than that. If it were YOU, wouldn’t YOU produce UNDENIABLE PROOF that you were Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of POTUS?
    Sure you would……………..and so would ANY HONORABLE person….and you know it.
    However, this latest stuff coming out of this radio station here in Texas should prove to be interesting. Supposedly an investigator sent to Hawaii has taken a different route…….checking the divorce decree of Obama Sr. and Obama’s mother in which it supposedly states that Obama’s parents had a child born in KENYA. (To be honest here, I don’t see how there could have been a ‘divorce decree’……..I always thought that Obama’s parents had never married, with his Mother going to Kenya in search of his father only to find that Obama Sr. already had a couple of wives in Kenya, but what do I know?)
    Like I’ve said before, Obama’s very existence is nothing but smoke and mirrors, one coverup after another………….LAUGHABLE!

  1665. Crazy Greek,
    It should be noted that when he filed his lawsuit, Alan Keyes never claimed to have had such a conversation with Obama. If such a conversation had taken place, you would expect that Keyes would have raised it with the court in California, but he did not.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/8980887/Keyes-v-Bowen
    And the idea that Obama could “lay this issue to rest” by producing another copy of his birth certificate is ludicrous. The plaintiffs in the various actions, including Keyes, are claiming that even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he is ineligible because of allegations that he was a citizen of Kenya, or his mother renounced his U.S. citizenship while he was in Indonesia, etc., etc. If the so-called “vault copy” of his birth certificate were to appear today, none of these lawsuits would be dropped.

    1. I’m not certain the Petition for Writ of Mandate would be the proper place to include the off camera conversations between Keyes and Obama. If it’s off point to his arguments, he would leave the comments out of the document.

  1666. December 31, 2008
    Obama’s Kenyan birth evidence to be revealed today, online
    By Arlen Williams
    Permission to copy and post this article’s text is granted.
    A private investigator in Hawaii has uncovered the divorce decree for Barack Obama’s father and mother, which indicates they had “one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya.” That is the report of Ed Hale of PlainsRadio.com, an Internet radio site which has focused upon the natural born Citizen challenges to Obama’s presidential eligibility.
    http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/williams/081231
    Supposedly a PI investigator was sent to Hawaii where he has ‘supposedly’ found divorce papers for Obama’s parents which list a minor child ‘born in Kenya’. Have no idea how legitimate this is or if it will even go anywhere. The way this thing has gone — will probably mean nothing. No one will care, and the media will go after and destroy the P.I.

  1667. I think the chances are slim and none of anyone having a copy of that tape Juan. Even if it were to surface though, I seriously doubt that any one sitting judge in any court system we currently have would have the HUEVOS to do anything about it anyway……know what I mean? 😉 or maybe that should read 🙁
    Gene, I think you hit the nail on the head…..”slim” is exactly right! LOL
    However, here is a thought that just ran through my mind. Quite a few folks have been saying that IF Obama is later found (after being sworn into office) to NOT have ‘natural born citizen’ status, he will be impeached and removed and the nation will be in a Constitutional crisis. Obama himself had better take a good hard look at his legal ground on this for personal reasons, if for no other reason.
    Follow me on this for a minute here. Let’s say that, as Juan states above that a tape DOES exist, and is brought forth at a later date (sometime after Obama is in office as POTUS) showing that Obama CLEARLY knew of his NOT BEING a ‘natural born citizen’, as evidenced by his supposed remark to Keyes “What difference does it make, I’m not running for POTUS”, then given the fact that Obama assumed the office of President of the United States will full knowledge that he was ineligible to hold said office and given the FACT that the President of the United States is Commander In Chief of our armed forces and further given the FACT that our armed forces are currently at WAR, then Obama himself would be guilty of TREASON…….and a person found guilty of TREASON during WAR is facing the DEATH PENALTY!
    Yep……me thinks Obama had better start paying attention because this WILL come out, IF true………sooner or later….and there is NO statute of limitations on the charge of TREASON that I know of. Mr. Obama had better realize that, once again, he and ONLY he is the one with the power to lay this issue to rest IN HIS FAVOR by simply submitting a certified copy of his birth certificate for verification…………………but I seriously doubt the arrogant Obama will do so!

    1. Absolutely! I too believe that Osama is treading
      on very dangerous ground bordering on treason.
      As Osama’s hero, Communist womanizing plagiarist Martin
      Luther King, once said: “No lie can live forever”. Sooner
      or later, the truth about Barry Hussein Osama WILL come
      out. And unlike his Democrudic predecessor – IMPEACHED
      Bill Clinton, who like his vicious wife, has a masterful talent
      for lies, evasions, and obfuscation – Osama is sure to be
      nabbed. Osama is a rank amateur in that department compared
      with Slick Willie. No Teflon on this baby; no way. Indeed, I’m sure
      Hillary will be instrumental in making sure the dirt comes out at
      just the right time.

  1668. (Lafayette Hill, PA – 12/30/08 ) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States which is pending in the U.S. Supreme Court [Docket No. 08 – 570] with two [2] Conferences scheduled on January 9th and 16th 2009, filed suit against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Obama on behalf of a Retired Military Colonel.
    Berg today, with co-counsel Lawrence J. Joyce, Esquire, filed another lawsuit in Federal Court in the United States District for the District of Columbia on behalf of Retired Colonel Hollister against Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Hussein Obama demanding to know Obama’s real name and if he is constitutionally qualified to be President. Plaintiff, Gregory S. Hollister, is a resident of Colorado Springs, Colorado and Hollister has “standing” and needs a decision so he knows whether or not to follow any Order of Soetoro a/k/a Obama.
    More at: http://www.obamacrimes.com/

  1669. I recently noted at
    http://www.atfreeforum.com/matters/viewtopic.php?t=42&mforum=matters
    that there was an offstage ad hoc discussion in 2004 between Obama and Keyes in which Obama responded to the citizenship problem he (Obama) had, and that it didn’t matter, because he (Obama) wasn’t running for president. This is a little over four years ago Folks.
    The conversation was caught on video tape and was available on YouTube, but can’t be found at this time, so there is a call for anyone who can locate a copy of the tape. I’ve done a little research, but have found nothing so far.
    This video, if found, and if credible, would help substantiate the fact that Obama was very well aware of his personal constitutional issue with regard to citizenship, and that all of his actions during the last two years are, indeed, malicious in intent.
    I think, as a minimum, that Keyes can testify Obama said these things to him during their conversation (first hand knowledge), and that may be enough for legal purposes.
    But I am still very concerned that during the two year period the general public was not aware of the Obama citizenship problem, that Obama’s $xxx millions spent by his pre-emptive strike force team of lawyers have found and destroyed most of the incriminating evidence against Obama.
    This is the part of power and money I hate the most. It allows the powerful and the wealthy to manipulate the truth.

    1. Highland Juan,
      That posting actually says that there “allegedly” is a video of the supposed conversation. It sounds to me like this video is a figment of someone’s imagination, much like the alleged audio tape of Michelle Obama which was repeatedly hyped but never produced.
      Has it not occurred to you to wonder why, with there being so many highly qualified conservative Constitutional attorneys in the United States, the only attorneys who are willing to challenge Obama’s election are flakes like Philip Berg and Lawrence Joyce?
      The fact that Berg’s lawsuit is finally being conferenced by SCOTUS is of no significance. The Court routinely schedules conferences for cases filed by litigants who persist even after their requests for injunctions are denied. At the last conference, 73 petitions for certiorari were considered. The Court granted one and 72 were denied.
      The new lawsuit is a joke and will go no further than the others. I hope you people aren’t wasting your money by contributing to Berg.

      1. Rich,
        Have you never questioned why Obama has spent so many millions of dollars on legal fees when he has not been accused of a crime?
        Have you never questioned why so many Obama documents have disappeared from the Internet?
        Have you never questioned why Obama has sealed his past so securely?
        There are none so blind as those who will not see. Unless it’s those who will not look.

  1670. ROADMAP TO ADDRESS THE LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS:
    Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.
    Moreover, each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and/or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are “natural born citizens” under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants’ constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. The constitutionally tortious conduct is not subject to congressional immunity and would be the jettison of Article II of the Constitution by failure to stop and/or object to the counting of electoral votes for Barack H. Obama who has admitted that at the time of his birth his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a citizen of the United States of America.
    Finally, if 1/20/09 comes and goes with a usurper in the Whitehouse (that is, Obama is definitely NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” — dad Kenyan/British citizen at BHO’s birth — albeit he MAY be a 14th Amendment “citizen”) with usurper enablers in Congress and the Supreme Court … God help us because many of the people will — rightfully and under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence — endeavor through other means to take back the Government from what is nothing less than a non-constitutional coup d’etat. (SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.)

  1671. I found this site and thought it interesting……..sounds kinda familiar in a weird sorta way.
    Not saying that our election was “stolen” like that in the Ukraine, vote counting wise, but certainly seems to have been stolen when it comes to “HONESTY”!
    http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/orangerevolution/page1.html
    I also found this quote on the bottom of the first page interesting…………..

    ” The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
    Stalin

    Guess we are just joining the rest of the world……. not only does our Supreme Court want to do anything, neither does our Electoral College, it would seem….ho hum…..

  1672. HighlanderJuan…I think that Keyes, in this interview with ESSENCE, said it best…..

    ESSENCE.COM: For argument’s sake, let’s say Obama is only a naturalized citizen, and was raised by Americans and grew up in the United States. What difference does that make to you?
    KEYES: It makes a difference to the Constitution. The Constitution has to be obeyed. If we get into a position where it is somehow regarded as dispensable then this country will fall apart. Black people should be the first folks to remember that. Without adherence to the Constitution our battles would have never been won. I don’t want to live in a country where we are suddenly back in a world where the force of majority rules. I don’t think any of us do.

    Also, Keyes had THIS to say………

    The key thing about the presidency, in my opinion, is that the person above all takes responsibility for the common good of the country. Our public officials do not swear allegiance to a country; they swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That’s something to be taken very seriously. Those are the rules.

    Excellent article Juan! This, I believe, is the main thing that those who would label anyone questioning Obama’s ‘natural born citizen’ status as a “tin foil hat”, is missing.
    I would much rather be wearing that tin foil hat and asking the hard questions now than not doing so and wondering what steam roller just ran over me after it’s too late to do so!
    JMHO, of course. 😉

  1673. I think you are right Gene…for all the good it’s gonna do. We already have PROOF that our Supreme Court JESTERS aren’t about to do anything to upset this inauguration even if it does defy the Constitution…..that little piece of scrap paper they are sworn to uphold!
    Blagojevich is just Chicago politics as usual. Does it really surprise anyone that he is just as arrogant as Obama when it comes to disproving any allegations of his wrong doing? I loved the way the Obama team came out with their “internal investigation” that Emanuel had done nothing wrong and that Obama himself had NEVER had any direct conversation with Blagojevich regarding his Senate seat. Gonna be interesting to see just exactly WHAT was said and by WHOM on those FBI tapes IF this thing does go to trial, isn’t it? Guess that’s ONE THING we can be thankful to Blagojevich for….his arrogance may prove to be the ONLY truth that legally comes out regarding Obama and his antics politically.
    Gonna be interesting for sure.
    I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe he doesn’t know where he was born and is just going on what he has been told by his parents, grandparents, etc. (Even though OBAMA HIMSELF states in his book that he indeed did see a copy of his Hawaiian BIRTH CERTIFICATE when going through his Mother’s belongings along with an article about his Kenyan father)
    Given that, it would have just been prudent on his part to produce a certified copy of the birth certificate that Hawaii says it has in it’s possession (he’s been to Hawaii TWICE since all this controversary, and it would have been very easy for him to visit the records depository of said document and obtain a copy like millions of other American citizens do all the time)……but as yet, he has failed to do so, which action on Obama’s part just keeps this controversy going. I’ve said all along that it is Obama, and Obama ALONE, that can make this all go away………………Berg even said as much..”Produce the copy of his birth certificate and this all goes away”..but he has failed to do so.
    Not surprising.

  1674. Amazingly, this issue is still alive. I think it will
    remain so right up to the day of inauguration,
    if not later.
    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84609
    The other thing that will remain alive is the Blagojevich
    scandal. He has made it quite clear that he will not
    step down. Rather, he is going to fight this case
    to the bitter end. His lawyers have stated that they
    plan to supeona Osama. That ought to be interesting.

  1675. “Merry Christmas everyone”…….there, I said it……..oops, sorry…….that’s politically incorrect, isn’t it???? I should have said “Happy Holidays everyone”. No sir, not a chance….they will NEVER take the Christ out of my Christmas.
    Hey, did you know they are celebrating Christmas in Baghdad? Check it out.
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84486
    May God bless us all in 2009.

  1676. “Merry Christmas everyone”…….there I said it……..oops, sorry…….that’s politically incorrect, isn’t is???? I should have said “Happy Holidays everyone”. No sir, not a chance….they will NEVER take the Christ out of my Christmas.
    Hey, did you know they are celebrating Christmas in Baghdad? Check it out.
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84486
    May God bless us all in 2009.

  1677. Warren said

    He has a grandfather there. Also, if I had family in HI and had just won the presidency, I can’t think of a better place to relax before I confront huge crises.

    God help us.

  1678. Warren…….forgive me if this is the wrong area for this post.
    Folks,
    Now that Obama is going to become our 44th President, we are in BIG TROUBLE!
    Not only is this man refusing to ‘come clean’ regarding questions about his birth record and has proven to have questionable judgement in his choice of friends and associates, he is now in a position to appoint people to high profile positions where they will be given powers beyond our wildest dreams. These powers can be easily abused by anyone appointed by Obama.
    I bring this up in lieu of Obama’s most recent pending appointment……Hilda Solis to be Secretary of Labor.
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jEtOI8ay_-XoZrKX9qFZBXsDQb7wD95599O80
    This woman is CRAZY and is willing to destroy this country by making any illegal immigrant LEGAL!

    “We are all Americans, whether you are legalized or not.”

    — Hilda Solis
    Also, note this……. She was the sponsor of a California bill to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens!
    Folks……..this guy Obama is gettin plum scary…everyday it’s something new with this guy and NONE OF IT is good!
    Yep, like I said before……..CHANGE, it be COMIN!!

  1679. Warren wrote:

    He has a grandfather there.

    I find it ‘interesting’ that Obama being a regular visitor to either his Grandfather OR Grandmother being brought up in the press, do you? As a matter of fact, I think it was brought up that Obama really didn’t have much to do with either once he got into political office. Am I wrong on that? If so, please correct me here.

  1680. Gene wrote:

    especially when you consider that Emmanuel is involved

    Have you seen this?

    Senate-for-sale case threatens new chief of staff

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor_emanuel

    CHICAGO – Gov. Rod Blagojevich is legendary in Illinois political circles for not picking up the phone or returning calls, even from important figures like the state’s senior senator, Dick Durbin.
    But there was always one call Blagojevich regularly took, say his aides, and that was from Rahm Emanuel — his congressman, his one-time campaign adviser and, more recently — and troubling for Emanuel — one of his contacts with President-elect Barack Obama’s transition staff.

    Just a question here for anyone who would care to tackle it………Can anyone remember so much controversy concerning one individuals actions and associates (Clinton’s escapades not withstanding) who was running for ( and now elected to) the office of President of the United States?
    What a guy!!

  1681. @Gene: He has a grandfather there. Also, if I had family in HI and had just won the presidency, I can’t think of a better place to relax before I confront huge crises.

  1682. To Crazy Greek –
    Yes, it sure is mysterious the way he keeps making
    these Hawain trips. It’s so clear that he’s hiding
    something.
    Highlander Juan says above:

    I have heard from more than one source that there is something afoot, and that we may have an interesting year end.

    Things DO have the appearance that something is in the works.
    I think the Blagojevich case really could be explosive, especially when you
    consider that Emmanuel is involved, and that Jesse Jackson, Jr.
    (no friend of Osama’s) has been spilling his guts for years. Obviously,
    Osama had a strong interest in who occupied his seat – hell, he’s
    even interested in who occupies Shrillary’s seat! And of course,
    Osama’s feeble attempt to get Blagojevich impeached only adds to the speculation. I’m dying to know what’s on those tapes. Blagojevich
    wants to tell his side of the story, and I for one, want to hear it.

  1683. Weasler wrote:

    I don’t have much confidence that this will amount to
    anything, but the case is still not dead.
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83980

    Uh Oh….now you went and done it Weasler! There’s that ‘worldnetdaily’ link that some on here don’t like very much, so I’m sure you are gonna hear about it.
    ROFLMFAO
    Psssttt……Weasler….you don’t really expect our current crop of Supreme Court JESTERS to do anything about this one either…..do ya?
    Weasler wrote:

    BTW, I hear Osama is headed for Hawaii for the holidays. Does anyone
    know why?

    My guess would be so he can visit the grave of his ‘much beloved’ Grandmother…..you know, the Grandmother that was on her death bed when Obama visited in the middle of his campaign?
    Strange that………..here we have a ‘beloved Grandmother’ on her death bed and Obama feels the need to suddenly cut his campaign short in order to visit one last time……..but doesn’t bother to take either his children or his wife along for the trip! Any rational person would think that a person would want their children to be able to see their Grandmother while she was alive one last time…I would think.
    I would also be willing to submit that I think this trip is NOT a trip designed to go retrieve a copy of his birth certificate! 😉

    1. I don’t have much confidence that this will amount to
      anything, but the case is still not dead

      Interesting point of view, Weasler. What makes you think the case was ever “alive” to begin with?
      Things like this NEVER die in the Tin Foil Hat Brigade sandbox…

  1684. Dow down 232. More signs of the exciting economic reaction
    to the Barry Hussein Osama “presidency”.

  1685. The Berg case appears to have been distributed for conference on January 9th. The injunction has been denied a second time.
    No. 08-570
    Title:
    Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
    v.
    Barack Obama, et al.
    Docketed: October 31, 2008
    Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Case Nos.: (08-4340)
    Rule 11
    ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
    Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
    Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
    Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
    Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
    Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.
    Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
    Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
    Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
    Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.

  1686. This is the link to the information to file FEC Form 2….
    http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm2i.pdf
    As you will see, there is NOTHING ANYWHERE about Constitutional requirements to hold the Office of POTUS – this is BASS ACKWARDS!?!?!?!!? It is almost as if the “powers that be” said in some unstated policy, “Well, we’ll let anyone run and determine if they are actually ELIGIBLE to hold the office later….” What sense does that make?!?!?!
    THAT IS ASININE!!?!?!?!?!!

  1687. The SCOTUS needs to resolve this issue. Period. They need to make a clear statement about this – either he is a natural born U.S. citizen or he isnt. This must be cleared up and the only way to do it is for the SCOTUS to examine the facts of the case and make a judgement. HOPEFULLY (I say that b/c this kind of controversy is just what we need to take us from a recession into a friggin DEPRESSION…), he will be determined to be born in HI as HI says and this will be over and done with…
    Having said that, as I have said many times on this blog, this should not even be an issue. This citizenship issue MUST BE VETTED as soon as the potential candida files FEC Forms 1 & 2 – and those Forms MUST be revised to state that to run for POTUS, you must be a “natural born U.S. citizen” (as required by the Constitution) and it must specify EXACTLY what documentation is required to prove that. Currrently, NO SUCH proof is required in order to RUN for POTUS – FEC Forms 1 & 2 are ALL that are required to run for the most powerful office in the world and they dont even ask. If you dont have the required documentation, you aint runnin’ – end of story. But NOOOOOO, these bass ackwards bureaucrats in Washington have never seen fit to fix this rather GLARING loophole in the process EVEN THOUGH we have had people run for President who are not Constitutionally eligible to hold the office!! Which makes NO SENSE – if you are unable to HOLD the office (due to constitutional & legal requirements), you should not be allowed to even run, and THIS should be determined as SOON AS YOU FILE FEC FORMS 1 & 2…

  1688. Agreed. I have heard from more than one source that there is something afoot, and that we may have an interesting year end.
    I have no idea what this may mean, but the message I get is that we are not the only ones concerned about the future of America.
    I just hope that someone who can, really will do something to clear up these issues.
    That’s my ‘hope.’ I’m glad Obama has given me permission to ‘hope’ again.

    1. I hope to God you are right.
      If anything, I think Obama is going to get caught up
      in the Blagojevich case. Maybe he was caught on tape.
      Ouch!!!!

  1689. Juan –
    Duh… It is not JUST my telling you – I am simply making a statement based upon the actions of the SCOTUS….
    Like it or not, they are not going to do anything with this “natural born citizenship” issue…(shrug)
    My PERSONAL opinion is that they SHOULD intervene and resolve this issue and let the chips fall where they may. If he was born in HI, as he claims/beleives, then that should be determined. If he wasnt, that should also be determined – but they are not going to do it, Juan. Either he is a natural born U.S. citizen under the law or he isnt. Period. But, they are going to leave this alone at this point….(shrug)
    Just my opinion…

  1690. Chuck ~ Dec 16, 2008 at 5:55 pm
    150283
    Folks…
    …As I (and others…) said earlier (with admitted doubts along the way), this thing is done – the SCOTUS is not going to pursue this issue…
    Whether you like it or not, Obama is going to be the 44th POTUS….
    ======================
    Your telling us doesn’t make it so.

  1691. Folks…
    …As I (and others…) said earlier (with admitted doubts along the way), this thing is done – the SCOTUS is not going to pursue this issue…
    Whether you like it or not, Obama is going to be the 44th POTUS….

  1692. Denise Bolin
    Down on my knees??? Please, the United States of America is not a monarchy and we Americans are a free people who do not bow down to anyone!
    The financial crisis we are facing did not come about because of Bush over the past eight years. It started with President Jimmy Carter. He started the laws that required the banks to make risky loans in the name of extending the benefit of home ownership to a broader base. While a noble concept and well intentioned it was obviously disasterous. This policy of Carter was later expanded by President Bill Clinton and so the financial crisis rests on the liberals and not the conservatives.
    The Auto makers are in trouble, largly because of the unions who always support and are supported by Democrats, not Republicans. Time to grow up and smell the roses baby!

  1693. You naysayers ought to be down on your knees thanking God for someone of Barack Obama’s character and intelligence is elected to help dig out of the mess the last 8 years has left to the next administration.

    Denise Bolin,
    I don’t think I can be considered a naysayer because I questioned our president elect’s eligibility to hold the highest office in our country. His way of handling what is questioned of him is interesting to say the least. Dodgeball has taken on a whole new look with his answers. Having said that, he is someone that has yet to prove himself in any substantial way other than be a good husband and father, which is a very good place to start. I also do not agree with you about the current administration, however, I understand I am in the minority with that. To get down on my knees and be thankful for Barak Obama – I don’t think so.

  1694. Denise Bolin wrote:

    Don’t you see it’s time to put aside your hostilities and unite to help solve the enormous problems our new President is facing. I, for one, would not want ANY other person as my President, due to his brilliance and ability to inspire us to make the necessary changes.

    Ah Denise…I am sure you have been in exactly this same frame of mind for the last 8 years, right? ROFLMFAO
    Denise Bolin also wrote:

    You naysayers ought to be down on your knees thanking God for someone of Barack Obama’s character and intelligence is elected to help dig out of the mess the last 8 years has left to the next administration.

    The last few words in the above quote verify my suspicions regarding your behavior of the last 8 years alluded to in my above statement.
    In regards your first ‘insights about Obama’ in the last quote by you, excuse me while I go throw up!
    ROFLMFAO

  1695. Denise Bolin ~ Dec 16, 2008 at 3:00 pm
    You said:
    You naysayers ought to be down on your knees thanking God for someone of Barack Obama’s character and intelligence is elected to help dig out of the mess the last 8 years has left to the next administration. He could be making millions a year as a high priced lawyer, yet he chose public service. He should be honored instead of constant belittling.
    Who are you people to criticize everything from the President-Elect (before he’s even in office!) to the Supreme Court. Sounds like you should dedicate your lives to public service and run for office to correct some of the travesties.
    Either that or become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Those can, do. Those you can’t whine about it.
    =================
    Denise,
    Don’t blow a fuse. The issue is that the United States is a nation of laws. One or more of our laws list eligibility requirements for a person to be the President. Obama has not shown that he qualifies to everyone’s satisfaction. In fact, it’s even worse than that – he’s gone out of his way to hide personal information. And to complicate matters even more, he associates with known socialists and criminals. He’s not a criminal defense lawyer – he’s a constitutional lawyer, and he has no reason to deal with socialists and criminals.
    So, there is an increasingly large part of this country that is aware of these personal anomalies associated with our president-elect, and these people are asking for more information. What they get is being met with a stone wall of opposition and irrational behavior on part of Obama supporters.
    All of this pi$$es off these inquiring minds, and then THEY go into back-up mode, now demanding answers to what they perceive as legitimate questions about the new messiah of the left.
    All of this controversy could be dismissed and forgotten if, in fact, The One was as transparent as he advertises. But he’s not transparent, and many would argue that he’s not honest either, so these discussions will continue.
    I thank God some of us have an inquisitive mind, because there are a lot of us who just won’t look at what’s in front of their face.
    I would submit that the inquiring minds ARE part of the solution, and those who will not stay involved in the vetting process that was supposed to be completed a long time ago ARE part of the problem.
    Have a nice day.

  1696. You naysayers ought to be down on your knees thanking God for someone of Barack Obama’s character and intelligence is elected to help dig out of the mess the last 8 years has left to the next administration. He could be making millions a year as a high priced lawyer, yet he chose public service. He should be honored instead of constant belittling.
    Who are you people to criticize everything from the President-Elect (before he’s even in office!) to the Supreme Court. Sounds like you should dedicate your lives to public service and run for office to correct some of the travesties.
    Either that or become part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Those can, do. Those you can’t whine about it.

  1697. Does it occur to any of you that this is our President-Elect? When will you move on and let common sense prevail? 1. This is only one of many of Berg’s frivilous lawsuits 2. Obama is a legal citizen – how could he get a passport, driver’s license, etc.? Don’t you think those people are trained to detect authenticity? 3. If it wasn’t this, you sore losers would find some other way to disrespect our new President.
    Don’t you see it’s time to put aside your hostilities and unite to help solve the enormous problems our new President is facing. I, for one, would not want ANY other person as my President, due to his brilliance and ability to inspire us to make the necessary changes.
    Once again, hope is alot better than hate. Let’s all be colorblind and work together – I believe it’s the only way to solve these monumental tasks at hand.

  1698. Celestes:
    You ask us all to be patriotic and to support “our” new President but then you make comments like this: “Geez, we have a lying idiot and a thug in the whitehouse…”
    Seems to me that you are one of those who asks us to do as you say and not as you do.

  1699. As far as I can see this matter of where Obama was born in not at all settled. It is not settled that he is a natural born citizen or that he is not. I have alot of trouble understanding why some people in this forum get so out of sorts just because someone has a different point of view. The trick is to listen and not to just attack.
    If the courts do not settle this matter then, in my view, they have failed to discharge their duty. The American People deserve a definitive answer and not endless speculation. I pray to God that the Justices decide to do the right thing for the good of the country.

  1700. @Weasler: Weasler & celestes – Please tone it down. We get your points. You both think the other side is lousy, blah, blah blah.

  1701. No lie can live forever. We have an illegal
    president for now, but believe me, this charade
    will come crashing down in a very short period
    of time. It happened to Carter, it happened to
    IMPEACHED President Clinton, and it will happen
    to this guy as well. Eventually, a lot of the morons
    who voted for this ruse will catch onto exactly how
    much they’ve been duped, and when that happens,
    you will be WISHING “president” Obama had
    shown us his birth certificate.

  1702. clestes says the following:

    See, the sworn word of the HI Dept of Health, the sworn word of FactCheck, none of that matters to you.

    DUH!!!!!!!!!! You’re quite right! The “sworn” words of the Hawaii Dept. of
    Health, Factcheck.org, salon.com, and numerous other liberal
    organizations (BTW, I didn’t know they were put under oath) is
    NOT good enough for us! FINALLY, you GET IT!!!

    This story is ended.

    Not quite. There are still going to be legal actions right up
    until the moment this criminal takes the oath. And let’s hope
    the Illinois Governor tells us what he knows. Obama will
    look good in orange, don’t you think?

    Plenty of gullibles went along with that farce, just
    like you gullibles went along with Berg.

    YOU are the gullible one, believing that this guy is hiding
    nothing. Did you know that his own sister mentioned
    TWO hospitals as his place of birth?
    Eight years? There will be an election before that, as there
    will in 2010 for the Congress, which we are bound to win
    back after this illegal “president” screws things up after
    two years of total insanity. This guy will be worse than
    Carter and Slick WIllie combined. You’ll see.

    ‘…the whole WMD farce was proved to be a
    fabrication…’

    You mean the WMD that Clinton, Shrillary, Gore, Kerry,
    Levin, Pelosi, Biden, Driving Ace Ted, and your glorious
    UN all said existed? Those weapons?

    And for a final act, gets a effing SHOE thrown at him and cussed out. Of course he is too ignorant to realize the insult offered, but the rest of us aren’t.

    Sounds like you are glad someone did that. What hypocrisy!
    Suppose we hoped someone throws a shoe at Shoe-Shine
    Boy. What would you say then? Eff you, loser clestes.

  1703. Highlander Juan wrote:

    Presidential Electors Confirm Obama as Next President

    Ain’t it interesting…….we now have a Supreme Court that won’t do it’s job. We have an electoral college (ain’t that a joke of a name for what THEY do) that REFUSES to do the job they are supposedly supposed to do, which is to VERIFY that the person on the ballot is who they say they are according to the courts……….speaking of which, a Federal court system that weasels out of making rulings simply by saying that the American public has “NO STANDING” to question anyone’s eligibility when running for President of the United States!
    Get ready folks…..CHANGE, it be COMIN!!
    I hope you folks that voted for and support Obama as our 44th President are enjoying your “gloating time” right now, cause I got a feelin that you are gonna be cryin in your milk before too long when you realize just how the wool has been pulled over your eyes by this man Obama….and that YOU FELL FOR IT!
    Just remember, we that didn’t support this person DO NOT wanna hear any of your whinnin when your “world through rose colored glasses” takes on the brownish tint that is gonna be floating all over this nation.
    Have fun….enjoy the downfall of the Nation that was once touted to be (and WAS) THE greatest nation in the world!

  1704. See, the sworn word of the HI Dept of Health, the sworn word of FactCheck, none of that matters to you.
    It would not matter what Obama presented, you would still find something to complain about.
    This story is ended. It never was anything but a laughable, ridiculous attempt to discredit our new president and will be good for nothing but a laugh. forever. Just like the supposed Michelle tapes. What a joke.
    Plenty of gullibles went along with that farce, just like you gullibles went along with Berg. A little common sense should have told you that it was nothing but an attempt to get his name in the papers.
    If this is the best the naysayers can come up with, you are in for a long 8 years.
    Geez, we have a lying idiot and a thug in the whitehouse, both of whom should have been thrown out of office in 2004 when the whole WMD farce was proved to be a fabrication and instead we had another 4 years.
    Long enough for them to finish their job of destroying American’s place in the world, our economy, our military, the environment, long standing species protection laws, to name just a few of their accomplishments.
    And for a final act, gets a effing SHOE thrown at him and cussed out. Of course he is too ignorant to realize the insult offered, but the rest of us aren’t.
    35 days and counting before the worse administration in our history rides off into the sunset.
    No one even wants to hear anymore from them. No book deal for shrub! He can’t find a publisher. I’ll bet old man Bush is pretty mad. shrub has managed to make the anme Bush synonomous with failure, stupidity, incompetence, arrogance….

  1705. Presidential Electors Confirm Obama as Next President
    Presidential electors met in state capitals around the United States on Monday to confirm last month’s presidential election results that will make Barack Obama the 44th U.S. president on January 20.
    http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-12-15-voa47.cfm
    This story is not ended yet, as there will be additional congressional reviews and probably additional judicial reviews.

  1706. Another case was denied by SCOTUS
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83693
    It doesn’t look too good, folks. The SCOTUS seems hell bent
    on leading this country into perdition. One case – although not the
    only one – that seems to still be alive is the Alan Keyes case.
    Interesting how they still consider the black man’s challenge
    while discarding the others.
    It is also interesting how the tabloids are now picking up
    on this story, while the media continue to ignore it (for the
    most part). That was just like the Edwards affair situation.
    The tabloids latched onto it long before the media did.

  1707. clestes wrote:

    Watching the republicans themselves in complete disarray……..

    Republicans in disarray? I’ve got two words for ya….CHICAGO…..ILLINOIS.
    Not THAT’S what I call disarray………….and they ain’t Republicans!
    ROFLMFAO
    clestes wrote:

    ……dispite all evidence to the contrary.

    Which “all evidence to the contrary” are you referring to here? Could you please share that evidence with the rest of us?

  1708. clestes ~ Dec 15, 2008 at 12:43 pm
    149978
    Court tossed the latest b/c request, as they should have. Total waste of their time. They will deny Berg’s cert as well and then hopefully this silly issue will be over. I realize that there will always be a few that think Obama isn’t a natural born citizen, dispite all evidence to the contrary.
    =================
    Evidence? Evidence? I ain’t seen no stinking evidence. Evidence?
    Isn’t that what we are all looking for, and that which Obama is doing so well at hiding???
    And, yes, I am one of those who believe in the Constitution, recognize fraud when I see it, and want Obama’s evidence made available to the electors and SoS of every state. His sworn statement that he’s qualified won’t suffice.

  1709. Court tossed the latest b/c request, as they should have. Total waste of their time. They will deny Berg’s cert as well and then hopefully this silly issue will be over. I realize that there will always be a few that think Obama isn’t a natural born citizen, dispite all evidence to the contrary.
    I thought after the election was over that the first class political soap opera was over. How wrong I was!
    It has been more entertaining than ever!
    Watching the republicans themselves in complete disarray and watching the death of the republican party is hilarious. George Will is expcially fun! They are killing themselves and are acting beyond stupid! The different explanations for their losses, the refusal to face reality, the hopeless whitewashing of Iraq, the financial collapse and bailout on their watch, the deliberate efforts to screw the middle class.
    Karl Rove leading the charge on Eric Holder, is going to be espcially fun. I cannot imagine why any republican would let Rove even near them, but hey, don’t let his reputation for mistakes stop you! Follow his lead! After all, how much longer can he be wrong??
    He aint been right yet and probably never will be.
    He typifies the problem with the party. They care about power and nothing else. Certainly not middle class America. That is why they were booted from power and until they figure out how to reconnect to middle class American, they will stay out of power.
    The rich, the religious right and the over 65 are not ever going to be enough to regain the WH or Congress.

  1710. We are not likely to see a decision on Berg anytime soon. SCOTUS has twice rejected Berg’s requests for an injunction and now the application for cert will be considered when it works its way up the list, after all of the applications on other cases which were filed before it. Many of the cert cases which were announced today were filed last summer.
    Berg has not been distributed for a conference yet, and the next SCOTUS conference is not until January 9. Berg is not on the January 9 conference schedule.
    Face it, folks, Obama is going to be inaugurated on January 20th. SCOTUS is not going to intervene.

  1711. Rich wrote:

    Crazy Greek —
    Historically, SCOTUS has always denied the vast majority of petitions put before the Court. It could not function, otherwise. The sheer number of petitions which SCOTUS receives would overwhelm the Court if the justices accepted more of them.

    Yeah….I know Rich……you would think that out of almost 6 full pages (the link you provided) they would take one or two, just to make everyone think they at least are trying to earn the paycheck they are getting….wouldn’t ya?
    ROFLMFAO

  1712. Crazy Greek —
    Historically, SCOTUS has always denied the vast majority of petitions put before the Court. It could not function, otherwise. The sheer number of petitions which SCOTUS receives would overwhelm the Court if the justices accepted more of them.

  1713. Not surprising at all…..especially when viewing the link you provided. WOW!
    Kinda makes you wonder if our Supreme Court does anything, don’t it?
    All I can see is deny, deny, deny……..lots and lots and lots – o – times.
    Oh well…sure glad to know that my tax dollars will be supporting these Justices for the rest of their lives.
    ROFLMFAO
    Thanks for the heads up Rich!!!

  1714. Just thought I would throw these thoughts into the mix and see what kind of response is generated. I would especially like to hear from Mr. Obama’s supporters and get their take on these items I found.
    While this really has nothing to do in regards to Obama as far as his being able to procure a homestead in the Hawaiian homelands since neither parent is of Hawaiian ancestry, I did find some interesting statements in the document listed here….
    http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
    If you will notice, the last paragraph under Priamry Documents states the following……….

    If you are adopted, your biological birth record is probably sealed. In this instance, DHHL staff may be able to assist you in getting the ethnicity of your biological parents. Additionally, depending on your particular circumstance the Family Court may be able to help you get the information you need. If your adoption occurred in the State of Hawaii, you may be able to get a copy of your original birth certificate. Access to out of state adoption records, however, vary according to the respective jurisdiction.

    Now please follow me here for a minute. Barack Obama, whether born in Hawaii or in some other place was born of an unwed mother and father. We know this because Barack Obama Sr. had returned to Kenya to be with his (unknown to Obama, Jr.’s mother) other wives. When Obama’s mother went to Kenya she found a man that was not willing to give up his other wives for her and would not divorce and marry her.
    Therefore, Obama’s (according to the above referenced statement) birth record is probably sealed. But WAIT……….didn’t Hawaii say that ALL birth records are sealed? This statement specifically references an adopted person’s records being ‘sealed’. If I have my time line right, Obama did not attain “adoption status” until his mother married the Indonesian gentleman Soetoro.
    So……wouldn’t that make Obama’s birth record obtainable since Obama’s birth was registered in Hawaii at the time of his birth in a hospital there OR upon his mother’s return to Hawaii after Obama having been born in a hospital in Kenya AND he was not yet adopted by anyone?
    In the same referenced link, under Where To Get Your Documents, a little further down the page, you will notice this statement (last sentence, first paragraph)…………

    Certified copies of records can be obtained for a fee.

    This statement verifies that it is indeed possible for one to obtain certified copies of their birth certificate relatively easily be they sealed or unsealed.
    If you continue to the bottom of the page of the referenced link, you will find that this page would be a great source for someone wanting to do any research regarding Hawaii in any manner as there are quite a few addresses and phone numbers listed at the bottom.
    Any thoughts?

  1715. The person using Barry Truthgun has been placed on moderated status. The comment referenced above in 149872 has been deleted as a violation of the guidelines for comments.

  1716. Barry,
    You also need to take a course in reading comprehension at some point. If you will look again at what I wrote you will see (in bold even, that I stated that they will not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program.
    What part of that statement had a problem making it through the mush you call a brain?
    If your intelligence is indicative of the thinking of the administration that is getting ready to assume the reins of this country, we really ARE in trouble!

  1717. Barry Truthgun (now THAT’S a joke) wrote:

    Author: Barry Truthgun
    Comment:
    Oh Crazy Geek is a liar. Check out his action on the World Net Daily / AP switch. Totally dishonest way to try and add credibility to the Gov. Lingle lie.
    He continues to spread false info too. HRS §338-17.8 was written in 1982.
    :”the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a
    certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its
    homestead program”
    Yes it does. I asked them. Debra Kikuta told me a couple weeks ago, and will tell anyone who wants to see Crazy Geek is lying about this also,
    “Although original birth certificates are preferred, our understanding is that presently, the Department of Health fills certificate requests with computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth.”
    I can rip his lies apart all day but I ripped him personally instead of each individual lie so reasonable people can see he is just a lie pasting machine.

    Well Barry……why don’t you check your FACTS before opening your mouth and showing everyone just how totally misinformed you truly are!
    Read on you troll……………………………………………..
    http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl
    In case you are too ignorant to figure this out, the above link IS from the Hawaiian government regarding applicants with the Department of Home Lands…..in it…….under Primary Documents, you will find the following……..

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

    Looks to me like you need to get yourself another source before you go calling anyone a LIAR……..something I am sure you wouldn’t be man enough to do face to face!

  1718. Here are some of the points which reflect why, in my opinion, questions keep arising regarding Mr. Obama’s ‘natural born citizen’ status with regard to his “birth certificate”. I know it doesn’t mean much to an Obama supporter and that most supporters of Obama would say that ‘because Obama’s mother was an American citizen then he, by default, is also an American citizen’.
    The laws are so convoluted in this area and therefore it is felt by some that this issue should be addressed legally, by our judicial system in order that our Constitution remain the true law of the land rather than just another piece of paper.
    Please read on………………………………………………………….
    1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.
    A. From Hawaii’s official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2)a person born in a foreign country“ (applies to adopted children).
    B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.
    HRS 338-5 reads as follows:
    §338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.
    The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]
    Case Notes
    Compulsory reporting not objectionable. 466 F. Supp. 714.
    C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.
    HRS 338-17.8 reads as follows:
    [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
    (b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
    (c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
    E. Hawaiian law expressly provides for verification in lieu of certified copy of a birth certificate under HRS 338-14.3.
    HRS 338-14.3 reads as follows:
    [§338-14.3] Verification in lieu of a certified copy. (a) Subject to the requirements of section 338-18, the department of health, upon request, shall furnish to any applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a verification of the existence of a certificate and any other information that the applicant provides to be verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the certificate.
    (b) A verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant.
    (c) Verification may be made in written, electronic, or other form approved by the director of health.
    (d) The fee for a verification in lieu of a certified copy shall be one half of the fee established in section 338-14.5 for the first certified copy of a certificate issued.
    (e) Fees received for verifications in lieu of certified copies shall be remitted, and one half of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the vital statistics improvement special fund in section 338-14.6 and the remainder of the fee shall be deposited to the credit of the state general fund. [L 2001, c 246, §1]
    F. Even the Hawaii Department of Home Lands does not accept a certified copy of a birth certificate as conclusive evidence for its homestead program. From its web site: “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.”
    Add to the above information these facts…………………………..
    From a 2004 Department of Justice news release about multiple New Jersey vital statistics employees engaged in schemes to issue birth certificates to foreign-born individuals: “An individual who paid Anderson and her co-conspirators for the service of creating the false birth records could then go to Office of Vital Statistics to receive a birth certificate . . . As part of the investigation, federal agents executed a search warrant of the HCOVS on Feb. 18, 2004, which resulted in the seizure of hundreds of suspect Certificates of Live Birth which falsely indicated that the named individuals were born in Jersey City, when in fact, they were born outside the United States and were in the United States illegally . . . Bhutta purchased from Goswamy false birth certificates for himself and his three foreign-born children.”
    You can find that news release here……………………………………………
    http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/files/ande1028_r.htm
    Add to the above this bit of information and I think you can readily see why it is of such vital interest that a person desiring to hold the office of President of the United States be able to, beyond a preponderance of doubt, be able to prove Constitutional eligibility………………..
    Even before 9/11, government officials acknowledged the “ease” of obtaining birth certificates fraudulently. From 1999 testimony by one Social Security Administration official: “Furthermore, the identity data contained in Social Security records are only as reliable as the evidence on which the data are based. The documents that a card applicant must present to establish age, identity, and citizenship, usually a birth certificate and immigration documents-are relatively easy to alter, counterfeit, or obtain fraudulently.”
    You can find the testimony of the Social Security Administration official here…..
    http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_072299.html
    In said testimony you will see this statement, if you are interested enough to read it………………………………………

    Prior to November 1971, all SSNs were assigned and cards issued based solely on information alleged by an individual. Because of the expanding use of the card for other purposes, there was concern about its integrity. Beginning November 1971, persons aged 55 and over applying for an SSN for the first time were required to submit evidence of identity.

  1719. To All,
    Have any reporters asked Obama where he was born? If so, when? What is the name of the reporter? What did Obama say? Did he confirm his birth being in the US or did he mention the COLB on his website or did he not answer the question? If not, why not? And if no one asked him in a press conference, why not? If you have an answer can you provide proof?

  1720. Crazy Greek,
    You are a warrior foe sure. Keep up the with the good logical points you are making.
    I keep hearing and reading the argument that Obama has nothing to prove and that Obama has already proven his citizeship. I keep hearing and reading that the state of Hawaii (Fukino) has proven that Obama is a natural born citizen. I keep hearing and reading about factcheck.org verifying the document as if they are qualified to verify citizenship without forensic/professional help. They touched it, they seen it, they read it. Wow, must be authentic…….
    I keep hearing that obama posted his CertifiCATION of Live Birth on the internet. Why was the document# blackened out? Why does it state that he is African American when they used the term “Negro” during that time? ( ihaven’t researched that issue so if someone can prove me wrong about that then please do so) Why is it that a professional has laid out the fraudulent signatures of the digital image and no other professional has put their name on the line to rebuke the accusations of the fraudulent digital image? Why does obama post a document that does not state the name of the hospital he was born in nor the doctor whom delivered him?
    I keep banging my head against the wall trying to figure out why I am hearing and reading such arguments in defense of Obamas qualifications to be POTUS as being proven. I am banging my head against the wall because these arguments in defense of obama are based on assumptions and or just blind faith. I am banging my head against the wall because people argue that 53+million people voted for him and he won the election. If the man does not meet all three SIMPLE qualifications, the votes were casted in vein.
    People keep arguing in obamas defens w/o checking/researching for the facts.
    Fukino stated that she had seen the COLB and that it is in order with state law.
    This statement does not prove that he was actually born in Hawaii.
    I do believe that their is standing to hear this case.
    I do believe that Obama has left the entire world to ponder the issue of his eligibility by posting his supposed COLB on the internet for all the world to see. The digital image proves nothing more than a certification of birth at best. It does not prove where he was born.Obama has created mischief with the posting and therefore the burden of proof is on Obama to prove he is eligible(which should be the case regardless) and not on the people to prove that he is not eligible to be POTUS. Why is Obama hiding his long form COLB and educational records behind lawyers?
    Obama is the best man at deception that I have ever laid my eyes upon.
    If the man is eligible to be POTUS, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Then again, every time I turn around, he has more dirt blowing his way. Not for one second will I believe that obama did not send emmanuel on a deal making mission. Blagojavich + Obama = 2 just like 1 + 1 =2 . They are both of equal political status which is the politics of deception.

  1721. Denise Bolin wrote:

    I don’t understand 2 things: When this lawsuit is proven to be false and is rejected by the supreme court, why isn’t that enough for you doubters?

    First of all Denise, only one of these you have listed has happened…..rejection by the Supreme Court. Nothing has been ‘proven’ as you seem to think. That’s the reason why the question keeps being brought up.
    What has been proven is that Obama seems to like to hang around with known former terrorist (William Ayers), known currently convicted felons (Tony Rezko), has been linked to ACORN, a group known to produce voters who don’t exist (just to put it mildly) and a whole host of other undesirables.
    Unlike you, I don’t understand just one thing…….how can anyone even think of supporting such a person to be the leader of our country.
    Given the above FACTS, if Obama were to apply for employment with the FBI, CIA or Homeland Security and were to list these individuals he is known to have associated with in the past, he would not be deemed worthy of employment by any of the agencies I have just listed.
    Yet, for some unknown reason, there are people in this country who would want just such a man to be our President!
    That’s the one thing I don’t understand.
    Unbelievable.

  1722. No “apologies” needed or sought Warren, just thought it should be brought to your attention as moderator.
    This is a wonderful forum, way too good for it to fall victim because of someone’s thoughtless behavior.
    I would suggest, rather than someone calling another names, if in disagreement (of which subjects like this are bound to be) to simply state your opinion that you are in disagreement and move on.
    In our world of ‘copy and paste’ there is really no way of proving either side of an argument, so why resort to name calling. It’s childish as best.
    Thanks for your response Warren.

  1723. I have been giving and grading finals and papers all day and then a little Christmas shopping so I have missed the fireworks.
    This thread has gotten circular with little benefit that I can see. If discussion does not return to something substantial with civility I will close it off.
    Lying is a serious accusation and one that is out of line in a discussion like this. Anymore of that will result in inability to comment here.
    The point of the forum is civil discussion about controversial matters. I probably have let this get far away from that. Several new readers have come on board in the past few weeks and I want them to feel welcome to comment within the guidelines.
    I call on Barry to apologize and anyone else who has been involved in namecalling should do so as well.

  1724. Warren–
    What do you do as moderator when one blogger has accused another of lying? I am also uncomfortable with where this discussion has come to. Can you step in?

  1725. Barry Truthgun wrote:

    Liars hate being confronted. They only have more (and sometimes contradictory) lies to fall back on as Crazy Geek did. It’s important in intellectually honest discussions for lies to be called such and liars not be allowed to get away with it. Especially when dealing with conspiracy people.
    Now the truth came out the Gov. Lingle did not seal anything and the AP never claimed she did. The AP actually said she took no action and kook site WND said she sealed it. By being direct and strong with Crazy Geek I believe helped force him to expose his own lie. Now he has no credibility and can be dismissed by all.

    Warren…you are the moderator here……how long are you going to allow this kind of stuff to continue on your forum? The only thing either of these two has accomplished is to ensure that nothing they have to post will be given much credence..at least by me.
    This is YOUR forum…………..I personally refuse to lower myself to these people’s standards…such as they are.
    Crazy Greek

  1726. Liars hate being confronted. They only have more (and sometimes contradictory) lies to fall back on as Crazy Geek did. It’s important in intellectually honest discussions for lies to be called such and liars not be allowed to get away with it. Especially when dealing with conspiracy people.
    Now the truth came out the Gov. Lingle did not seal anything and the AP never claimed she did. The AP actually said she took no action and kook site WND said she sealed it. By being direct and strong with Crazy Geek I believe helped force him to expose his own lie. Now he has no credibility and can be dismissed by all.

  1727. Eddy wrote:

    Can we lighten up on the ‘playground talk’? All the personal digs aren’t buried in thoughtful comments anymore and don’t lead to productive or thoughtful discussion. If we’ve reached the point where we’re no longer actually discussing but only delivering ‘tit for tat’ jibes, maybe it’s time for Warren to shut this one down.

    I agree Eddy. It really gets boring talking with children that probably wouldn’t have the nerve to say it face to face.
    It WAS a good thread until all the “you lied” stuff started.
    Later

  1728. I don’t understand 2 things: When this lawsuit is proven to be false and is rejected by the supreme court, why isn’t that enough for you doubters? If they would have upheld the false allegations you would have jumped all over it, but when they don’t you still don’t accept it. If you are that paranoid about your government, perhaps you should go to some other country where it’s more just.
    Also, why can’t you be patriotic and support your president, who was fairly elected by the majority of Americans. That is our system, so instead of being hateful and skeptical why not be part of the solution? Where is the “country first” attitude we heard so much about in the election? Only if you get your way? That’s not how it works! Keep praying for Palin – I’ll keep praying she stays in Alaska because her main focus was to incite the kind of hate and divisiveness I’ve seen here.

  1729. Weasler the problem with that video is that CITY, TOWN OR LOCATION OF BIRTH, ISLAND OF BIRTH AND COUNTY OF BIRTH are all very clear on the COLB. To say no PLACE in that video is a lie.

  1730. Crazy Geek you lied. Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle sealed it story is from WND. You tried to add AP to it for credibility because you know WND is kook lies. Posting a different story from AP doesn’t change that.
    Google what you quoted. Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle has placed the birth certificate of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama under seal and has reportedly told the Hawaii Department of Health
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
    I proved you lied. Then you lie again with the different AP story to try and hide it. This whole conspiracy exists due to dishonest people like you trying to fool people with garbage like that.

  1731. Related to the above-cited youtube.com video, here
    is a link to the sponsors:
    http://www.democratic-disaster.com/
    But also please look at the video, as it spells out very
    clearly what Obama is trying to do, and why his
    COLB (whether or not it is real) is irrelevant
    to this issue.

  1732. Can we lighten up on the ‘playground talk’? All the personal digs aren’t buried in thoughtful comments anymore and don’t lead to productive or thoughtful discussion. If we’ve reached the point where we’re no longer actually discussing but only delivering ‘tit for tat’ jibes, maybe it’s time for Warren to shut this one down.

  1733. Please notice the date Robert.

    I don’t care how often you go back and forth. You said what you said.
    But- NO ONE CARES what the Tin Foil Hat Brigade thinks. Will it be easier if I sum it up in a single sentence?
    The state of Hawaii says that Barack Obama was born there, ergo he is a US citizen.
    All the rest is Occam’s Razor time… just so much noise.
    As far as you “earning” any rights, tell someone who cares. AFTER you stop your crying.

  1734. Barry Truthgun wrote:

    Crazy Greek please don’t quote World Net Daily to me and call it the AP. It is bogus and kook central. You know this so you lie and say AP.
    Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle did nothing. The law was there before she was elected. Read the whole article and it acknowledges the law it’s false headline ignores. Without lies and disinformation you have nothing.

    Barrry..you really should learn to READ instead of just go on the obvious blind faith you have in your guy Obama, especially if you are going to come on here and call someone a liar (me, for instance).

    By Associated Press
    HONOLULU (AP) _ Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday she and the
    registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified
    that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.

    Now…….who’s the “liar”……….BARRY!

  1735. Crazy Greek please don’t quote World Net Daily to me and call it the AP. It is bogus and kook central. You know this so you lie and say AP.
    Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle did nothing. The law was there before she was elected. Read the whole article and it acknowledges the law it’s false headline ignores. Without lies and disinformation you have nothing.

  1736. Eddy wrote:

    But seriously, as long as she isn’t restricting the rights of an authorized government agency to see it, I’m in agreement.

    Eddy…I think that is all that anyone is asking here…at least I know that would satisify me. I don’t trust ANY internet generated agenda…left OR right wing…and never have.
    I wouldn’t say ALL OF THE PRESS is in on, as you term it, the “coverup”…but it has been established over and over that a MAJORITY of the press have certainly been giving Obama the “soft touch” routine that hasn’t been seen out of the American press in years, for anyone.
    Government agency…now that’s the way to go on this thing. I agree with ya..that’s just about (at this stage of this crap) the only verification that is gonna satisfy ANYONE.

  1737. Wow–
    And as we’ve learned here, ALL of the press is in on the big cover-up. So, I’m sure she was protecting you guys. Surely they’d take it and destroy it or something.
    But seriously, as long as she isn’t restricting the rights of an authorized government agency to see it, I’m in agreement.

  1738. Barry Truthgun wrote:

    How do you know it didn’t already happen? Do you recall any public FBI report validating Cheney gaining WY residence in 2000 when people noticed Cheney’s TX residence nullified TX Electoral College votes for Texan Bush?

    No Barry, I don’t. I also don’t recall any “public FBI report” (as you put it) “validating” Hillary when she “moved” to New York State either.
    So, what’ s your point?
    Barry Truthgun wrote:

    That’s why it’s a myth when kooks call it “sealed” by Obama or anyone.

    Barry…..this is the report that came out of Hawaii…………………

    Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle has placed the birth certificate of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama under seal and has reportedly told the Hawaii Department of Health “…to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances.”

    I think that was reported over the AP wire….certainly NOT by the “kooks” you seems to fear running around all over the place.

  1739. Weasler —
    The Wrotnowski lawsuit is even weaker than the Donofrio case, and will be rejected by SCOTUS.
    Wrotnowski claims that Connecticut’s Secretary of State failed to investigate Obama’s qualifications, but the Connecticut court found that state law is clear that the Secretary of State has no such duty. Furthermore, the Connecticut court found that the state statutes under which Wrotnowski is relying are not the property statutes under which to raise Constitutional issues.
    Here is a tip for you — if SCOTUS believes that an application has merit, they always ask the opposing party to file a response. SCOTUS has not asked the State of Connecticut to respond either to Wrotnowski’s application or his supplemental brief. That is a strong indicator that Wrotnowski’s application will be rejected.
    Also, everyone here needs to realize that SCOTUS is not a fact-finding court. SCOTUS rules on the law only.

  1740. Crazy Geek
    “we ALL know THAT ain’t about to happen…not without a WARRANT, that is!”
    How do you know it didn’t already happen? Do you recall any public FBI report validating Cheney gaining WY residence in 2000 when people noticed Cheney’s TX residence nullified TX Electoral College votes for Texan Bush?
    HRS 0338-0018 allows a wide range of government, and other groups with direct and tangible interest, verification without warrants or Obama’s permission. That’s why it’s a myth when kooks call it “sealed” by Obama or anyone.

  1741. Also…Robert……you wrote:

    Well, it didn’t take you long to change your tune, did it? No longer is it merely a “qualified government agency.” Faced with the indisuptable fact that the state government of HI “verified” Obama’s birth, you now retreat to some nebulous “present it to the Courts” for a department “of their choosing?”

    Now, IF you would care to READ what people write on this forum, you might be interested in finding that I made that exact statement some time before…I have “now retreated” in ANY MANNER…..to wit :

    Crazy Greek ~ Nov 30, 2008 at 5:33 pm
    146081
    Who would be “playing into a game” here? All that is being asked is that Obama produce a viable copy, to be certified by any ‘professional’ the courts deem.
    No one is asking that Obama submit to any ‘internet group’ for certification here.

    Please notice the date Robert.
    You know, at one time someone stated (I think it was Confucius) “it is better to keep mouth shut and have everyone THINK YOU A FOOL than to open mouth and REMOVE ALL DOUBT”!

  1742. Barry Truthgun wrote:

    …..and what the FBI has every right to confirm NOW

    Hey now…..there’s a novel idea!
    Seriously, I would be more than happy if that were to happen..that’s all I, and most of us here, have been saying.
    Oh shucks…..it was a nice feeling for awhile, but we ALL know THAT ain’t about to happen…not without a WARRANT, that is!

  1743. Larry you are simple and I told you why. You stated “It is beyond my comprehension that Obama does not either go himself to Hawaii or have someone go for him, obtain a CERTIFIED copy of his birth certificate and put this matter to bed. The fact that he has not done that really makes me question his citizenship.”
    Obama did exactly that, then scanned it and put it on various sites. Now did he let Berg and Donofrio inspect it in person? No. That wasn’t what I addressed nor what you said. You are simple and dishonest to change arguments to “same as seeing a certified copy in person during a litigation” after I slapped that one down.
    There is no way Obama can ever put it to bed for certain people. If you don’t accept what he has shown and Hawaii says exists and what the FBI has every right to confirm NOW then why is it different for a dumbass like Berg to see it in person? He has no legal right to and hasn’t asked in a very nice manner. Win your case on the merits then, kooks!

  1744. Robert wrote:

    Stop your whining, and in January I want you to start referring to BHO as “Mr. President!”

    My, my…such ARROGANCE Robert!
    Tell ya what……….you go ahead and “WANT” in one hand and CRAP in the other…..see which one fills up the fastest…OK?
    I have every RIGHT to “whine” Robert……I am a taxpaying, voting AMERICAN CITIZEN, who sees (as I see things, which is STILL MY RIGHT under our present Constitution) disaster looming on the horizon for MY country! I am also a VETERAN of our armed forces….yes, I have the right……I will even go so far as to say I have EARNED the right, to “whine”.
    It’s easy to sit here in cyber space and talk the way you do. If you feel so strongly about “wanting someone to act in a certain fashion”, might I suggest a nice little Caribbean island for you…..Cuba as an example? Haiti maybe? Perhaps you would feel more comfortable in a “different” climate..say Siberia? Either of these would probably be more than willing to take you and listen to your arrogance…for awhile.

  1745. why didn’t he (since Hawaii had stated that they would release a copy ONLY to Obama, and he was there on the island) go get a copy and bring it back to CONUS with him and present it to the courts so that they (the COURTS) could in turn submit it to a department of their choosing for verification?

    Well, it didn’t take you long to change your tune, did it? No longer is it merely a “qualified government agency.” Faced with the indisuptable fact that the state government of HI “verified” Obama’s birth, you now retreat to some nebulous “present it to the Courts” for a department “of their choosing?”
    What ARE you babbling about??? As should be patently obvious by now, the State of HI IS a qualified government, and the Courts recognize it as such…
    Stop your whining, and in January I want you to start referring to BHO as “Mr. President!”

  1746. Robert…..you obviously haven’t been following anything that I’ve said while wondering around in your blind loyalty to Obama. I don’t think that ANYONE posting on here has once asked that Obama’s birth certificate be submitted to some “blogger” or “you tube ‘expert'”….well, except for YOU!
    What we have submitted is that it would be nice if Obama would submit his birth certificate (the one in question in Hawaii) to a qualified department of the government for verification!
    Robert wrote:

    therefore stay out of the way while we work ourselves out of this mess.

    Yeah riiight! Like the Dems are working themselves right outta a mess right now? More like diggin their hole deeper! How laughable!
    So…again….IF there is NO problem with the birth certificate, since Obama did indeed know that it was becoming an issue when he flew back to Hawaii, why didn’t he (since Hawaii had stated that they would release a copy ONLY to Obama, and he was there on the island) go get a copy and bring it back to CONUS with him and present it to the courts so that they (the COURTS) could in turn submit it to a department of their choosing for verification?
    I say that answer is simple………………there is somthing on that birth certificate that Obama doesn’t want anyone to see! There could be no other reasonable explanation for his stalling in this manner since his status as a ‘natural born citizen’ is in question and that status is

    required

    of a person wanting to be President.
    You can try and make excuses for your guy Obama all you want…doesn’t change the FACT that Obama is stalling and trying to dance around the issue when, if he truly wanted to “bring the country together”, he would have come forward, not to a ‘blogger” or Internet Website (which, by the way is EXACTLY what YOUR guy Obama DID DO……that which you are so quick to try and accuse anyone who would question Obama of doing) but rather to a recognized government agency!
    Make all the excuses you want Robert..that dog ain’t gonna hunt!

  1747. Now, can you please point out to us where, anywhere in this statement, it says that the birth certificate they have on file says that Obama was born in Hawaii?

    Ah, yes. No doubt the spokesperson for the state health department who clarified that the doctor DID mean Obama was born in HI is part of the conspiracy , right??
    http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html
    Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
    “Yes,” said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. “That’s what Dr. Fukino is saying.”

  1748. By the way..YOU still haven’t answered the question “Give me ONE GOOD REASON for Obama to refuse to show his birth certificate”…….

    OF COURSE there is!!! The Wingnut faction will only proceed to scamper to “bloggers” and youtube “experts” who will pronounce the entire document a forgery, and speculate that Obama’s grandmother wasn’t really sick (and no doubt isn’t really dead), and he went to HI to arrange for the criminal act.
    And people who are easily led will believe it. Don’t try to deny it. You will lap it up like yesterday’s soup.
    Ergo, it is best to ignore the entire non issue and let these people play in their sandbox for the coming years- and therefore stay out of the way while we work ourselves out of this mess.
    Perhaps that is part of the reasoning the Court used…

  1749. Warren wrote:

    UPDATE – Justice Souter denied Berg’s request to stop the Electoral College from voting for Obama.

    Looking more and more like we don’t have a bunch of Supreme Court Justices but rather a bunch of Supreme Court JESTERS!

    According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
    “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

    Makes one wonder if ANY of our current crop of Jester’s (Oh, I’m sorry……Justices) ever really took the time to actually READ the oath they took, doesn’t it?
    Gonna be an interesting few years, looks like.

  1750. Barry Truthgun, I am not so simple minded as to miss the fact that seeing a photo of a document is not the same as seeing a certified copy in person during a litigation. Apparently, you are that simple minded.
    If the certificate question as you contend is decided then what is everyone talking about here. Obviously, it is not settled. Comprendo?
    I must add that being insulting will rarely, if ever, win a debate.

  1751. Gene
    “Let’s put it this way, Barry.
    I have just as much right to see that birth certificate as does the
    St. Petersburg Times, and IMHO, MORE right than the unAmerican
    DailyKos. And no, we DO need 100 “kooks” to file suits, until we
    finally see the big mystery. BTW, I thought YOU PEOPLE abhored
    name-calling because (sniff!) words hurt! (boo-hoo!). Incredible
    hypocrisy.”
    KOS, the Times and Factcheck have it for YOU to see. You and kooks like you call it a photoshop or a scam. Go ahead but it was offered to you. Don’t cry you didn’t get to see it.

  1752. Jayhuck wrote: Glad you like that sort of company Greek – you’re most likely going to get alot more of it – LOL 🙂
    I’ll take it Jayhuck. I would much rather be around folks like that than lyin freaks like Obama………..I’ll take em ANY DAY my friend.

  1753. Glad you like that sort of company Greek – you’re most likely going to get alot more of it – LOL 🙂

  1754. Robert wrote:

    So the state of HI is not a “qualifed government agency?”

    I never said that. What I DID say is that you are blindly following along and taking anything the Obama camp is dishing out without so much as a passing thought.
    For your information Robert, the person with Hawaii vital records stated the following…..

    “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record,” DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said.
    Fukino said she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.
    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said.

    Now, can you please point out to us where, anywhere in this statement, it says that the birth certificate they have on file says that Obama was born in Hawaii?
    ANYWHERE? Nowhere that I can see, or anyone else can see. This is the reason that people keep asking the question, and will continue to do so, until Obama sees fit to come forth and produce a copy of this birth certificate that is said to be on file in Hawaii.
    Also, you will remember that between Obama and his sister, TWO DIFFERENT hospitals in Hawaii have been listed as his place of birth, yet NEITHER HOSPITAL has come forward saying that they have any record of Obama’s mothers ever having given birth in either hospital.
    I’ve been trying to keep this as civil as possible, but with your accusation……….

    (Come on- stop kidding us. You really haven’t ever read the Constitution, have you?)

    it looks like that is next to impossible with you. What do you mean by that? What has my reading of the Constitution of the United States have to do with Obama producing his birth certificate? Are you now saying that one of the requirements listed in the Constitution is NOT that a person seeking the office of POTUS be a ‘natural born citizen’?
    Believe me, I’ve read the Constitution Robert and I know EXACTLY what the REQUIREMENTS are for someone to be President of the Untied States. Sounds like you however, need to do a little more research!
    By the way..YOU still haven’t answered the question “Give me ONE GOOD REASON for Obama to refuse to show his birth certificate”…….
    You can’t give me ANY reason, can you? Why? Because THERE IS NOT ONE!
    Have a nice day.
    ROFLMFAO

  1755. Slander Robert? Not hardly! This is really very simple…something either Obama and his supporters haven’t figured out yet. Simply get a copy of the birth certificate in question (don’t give me this crap that Hawaii has it and Obama can’t get it either…the dog ain’t gonna hunt!) and present it to a qualified government agency for verification.

    So the state of HI is not a “qualifed government agency?”
    Fascinating!
    (Come on- stop kidding us. You really haven’t ever read the Constitution, have you?)

  1756. Eddy,
    So sue me! Maybe that’s one way we’ll be able to get this into court and find out the TRUTH!
    I seriously doubt THAT will ever happen!
    Your blind devotion to Obama is remarkable…….you should really try going the free thinker route once in awhile. You might find it enlightening.
    G’nite

  1757. Crazy Greek–
    Nice rant but it sidesteps the issue that when you claim a person has done something illegal (like make sure no one will ever see his birth certificate) without any proof of the same…it is slander. This steps around the issue of why he won’t produce it (that was speculation about motive…I found it tiresome but could accept it) and makes an accusation that the man has taken an action that it is illegal (that’s the move into slander…claiming that he did something unlawful without any proof of the same).
    That’s all I have to say. Your team will rally behind you but anyone bright enough to consult a dictionary will recognize slander for what it is.
    I’m checking out early tonight. Continue to incite your homies.

  1758. Jayhuck wrote:

    you are in good company here

    Thanks…I prefer that kind of company (the kind that still has the ability and wherewithal to question) rather than being a blind sheep that would elect someone for the highest office based on …..what? Experience? No…..I would say RACE was the main issue that got this man elected…that and blind allegiance.
    Yeah..I kinda like the other kind of company…THANKS for pointing that out. 😉

  1759. Crazy Greek –
    Of course Obama is a liar – to you anyway. You obviously haven’t liked him since day one, and nothing anyone says or does is going to change the bad perception you have of him – that all seems pretty clear 🙂 – you are in good company here

  1760. Eddy…Robert,
    Wanna prove me wrong? Get on your knees to your guy Obama and plead with him to come forth with the FACTS!
    Ah…never mind.,….that ain’t about to happen….and YOU know it!
    Slander Robert? Not hardly! This is really very simple…something either Obama and his supporters haven’t figured out yet. Simply get a copy of the birth certificate in question (don’t give me this crap that Hawaii has it and Obama can’t get it either…the dog ain’t gonna hunt!) and present it to a qualified government agency for verification. Simple!
    I’ll say this once again folks………..if you blindly follow someone don’t be surprise when you fall off the cliff chasing them. Come on people, I KNOW you are smarter than this! Name me ONE instance where this many questions have evolved around the background of ANY candidate for the office of President?
    I would think that, being Obama supporters, you would want your guy taking office with NO questions regarding his background left unanswered. Are you so anxious to have this man elected that you are willing to throw away the very fabric of our nation..the Constitution? Why?
    For the life of me, I simply cannot understand anyone who would question my motives in asking for Obama to do one simple thing, something required by our Constitution and then have the nerve to suggest that because I do so I am somehow being slanderous.
    Obama has LIED at every turn in this election…it’s been proven over and over. Now, being the President elect, he is even LYING to the very people that got him elected….YOU……there are those in the Democratic Party that are highly displeased with Obama and the direction he is taking them right now….and YOU blindly want to follow this man? Again…………..WHY?
    It’s simple……..anyone that wants the questioning to end needs to get with Obama and somehow convince him (although I don’t see how you could get through his arrogance) to simply come clean.
    Example for ya: Obama’s own family (both in the United States and Kenya) made statements (not verbatim here) to the effect that they couldn’t say anything before the election but they would be able to talk to anyone after November 4.
    Has ANYONE heard ANYTHING from any of these relatives since the election? NO!
    Has ANYONE interviewed ANY of these relatives that were so anxious to talk “after the elections” regarding Obama’s birth records? NO!
    WHY?
    Red Flags are all over this guy that you want to defend to the death. I have to seriously question ANYONE’S blind loyalty in the face of so much controversy where this one individual is involved…especially when we are talking about the future leader of our country!
    Just give me ONE GOOD REASON why Obama shouldn’t have to answer the same question that millions of Americans have to answer daily should they want a passport or to even play Little League Baseball?
    I’ll answer this for ya…there really is no GOOD REASON not to do so on Obama’s part…unless of course, there is something he doesn’t want coming out that submitting his birth certificate would unearth!
    Nope, think I’ll stand by my assertions….Obama is a LIAR…and I STILL believe that his trip to Hawaii in the middle of his campaign was for reasons other than just visiting a critically ill Grandmother.
    I do believe that I STILL have that right under our current form of government……at least until January 20, 2009!

  1761. Bad enough that we are about to swear in a Kenyan-born
    Acorn-elected Muslim socialist with terrorist links as POTUS…,

    Glad to see the true patriots are here today.
    I have to laugh at the “Acorn elected” part especially. With the “over by 9:00 pm” whipping Obama/ Biden dealt to McCain/ Palin, there must be an awful lot of Acorn members floating around!
    LOL

  1762. Eddy………you need to get a handle……what I said wasn’t serious “allegations” as you contend. They were EXACTLY what I believe to be the truth! I do believe that falls under MY first amendment rights, something liberals have a hard time understanding it would seem.

    Slander is a First Amendment right?? Who knew??

  1763. Crazy Greek–
    Let’s see now. First you all say how important this whole issue is…that it threatens our very Constitution. Then you say:

    Only is(sic) wasn’t to obtain a copy of said birth certificate but rather to ensure that NO ONE would EVER be able to see it………….remember?

    And then you say that that wasn’t a serious allegation. You say that he went to Hawaii with the purpose of ensuring ‘that NO ONE would EVER be able to see it’. On top of all the other serious questions, you allege that he went to bribe, forge or destroy evidence. Yeah, that’s not serious at all.
    I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.

  1764. Eddy wrote:

    Crazy Greek–
    You have just made a serious allegation about our President-elect…that he went to Hawaii to purposely commit fraud. He said he went because his grandmother was gravely ill. The fact that she was gravely ill is supported by the fact that she died a few weeks later. Please support the statement that you presented as a fact with a link or try to phrase such statements as ‘possibilities’ or ‘your opinions’. This particular blogsite has a 1000 post history of being able to back up statements that we state as if they are facts.

    Eddy………you need to get a handle……what I said wasn’t serious “allegations” as you contend. They were EXACTLY what I believe to be the truth! I do believe that falls under MY first amendment rights, something liberals have a hard time understanding it would seem.
    Additionally, the very minute your Obama starts stating ANYTHING FACTUAL I change my tune about him……..until then I consider the man a LIAR…and THAT’S a FACT!!!!!
    You want your guy to get creditility and believability, get on your knees to him (something I think he expects from his faithful) and plead with him to step forth with FACTS…then maybe we’ll get somewhere.
    Tell you what, I’ll even make it easy for ya……………just name me ONE thing Obama has said in his campaign that he hasn’t already gone back on. Just one would be fine. Problem is, he’s already crawfishin on dang near every “promise” he’s made to date. Reason? Cause he will say or do ANYTHING to get what HE wants……………….and THAT’S a FACT!!!!!

  1765. Crazy Greek–
    You have just made a serious allegation about our President-elect…that he went to Hawaii to purposely commit fraud. He said he went because his grandmother was gravely ill. The fact that she was gravely ill is supported by the fact that she died a few weeks later. Please support the statement that you presented as a fact with a link or try to phrase such statements as ‘possibilities’ or ‘your opinions’. This particular blogsite has a 1000 post history of being able to back up statements that we state as if they are facts.

  1766. Larry and Gene you refusing to face reality is not Obama’s fault. His COLB is a certified copy as legally valid as any. Denying it is why you are kooks. His COLB is currently all the Hawaiian Health Dept. sends upon request. Ask them.
    Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout
    Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original
    Prima facie
    I see you are not very intelligent but the info is there for even simple people.

  1767. Oops..sorry Warren……..I’ve been out of it for the weekend and didn’t realize that you had started a new topic area. Please move my post over to the new area if you like.
    Thanks for the heads up!

  1768. Larry wrote:

    It is beyond my comprehension that Obama does not either go himself to Hawaii or have someone go for him, obtain a CERTIFIED copy of his birth certificate and put this matter to bed. The fact that he has not done that really makes me question his citizenship.

    Larry, Obama DID go to Hawaii already…don’t you remember? Only is wasn’t to obtain a copy of said birth certificate but rather to ensure that NO ONE would EVER be able to see it………….remember?
    ROFLMFAO

  1769. From the link provided by Gene, isn’t this just a good example of classic Illinos politics…………..actually, it’s Obama 101.the EXACT same thing Obama did when he took office as a Senator in Illinois…………………need I point out the following?
    Michelle Obama is “appointed to the board of directors” to both Tree House Foods and The University of Chicago Medical Center shortly after her husband is elected Senator in Illinois, and guaranteed one beautiful salary from each to boot!
    Sound familiar?
    Obama reacted to the news at a press conference on Tuesday.
    “Obviously, like the rest of the people of Illinois, I am saddened and sobered by the news that came out of the U.S. attorney’s office today,” he said. “But as this is an ongoing investigation involving the governor, I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the issue at this time.”
    Oh yeah…..I’ll just bet Obama is “saddened”…..looks like the Governor got caught doing EXACTLY what Obama himself has done since getting involved in politics in Illinois!
    “I was not aware of what was happening,” he added.
    Oh yeah…RIGHT! This is classic Obama 101 and follows EXACTLY what Obama did while in office in Illinois TO THE LETTER!
    This little tidbit at the bottom of the article linked………
    “The state’s last governor, George Ryan, was convicted in April 2006 on racketeering and fraud charges”
    This should tell anyone with half a brain what to expect when electing ANYONE from the Illinois political machine to any office just what to expect!
    Anyone remember????????????????????
    Dan Rostenkowski ?
    Yep…looks like the Illinois Democratic political machine is already gettin ready to go to work………….THIS time on grand PRESIDENTIAL level!
    ROFLMFAO

  1770. Warren –
    When you say profanity, I’m assuming you mean my use
    of the word ‘bastard’. That word is not profane in itself
    (consider the term for a female dog), but the context
    is what makes it profane. My use of it can be taken
    more than one way, as Obama probably WAS born out
    of wedlock. But OK, I won’t use it any more.
    But after 8 eight years of hearing President George W. Bush
    vilified in practically every way imaginable, your complaint
    that I display ‘disrespect of the Presidency’ is the most
    laughable thing I’ve ever heard. And you are quite INCORRECT,
    for I have GREAT respect for the Office of the Presidency. That
    is precisely why I am so revolted by idea of this Obama
    occupying it. Rather than criticize me for that, you should
    be commending me. But apparently, you are incapable of
    seeing it that way.
    Well, I won’t disturb your little world with that uncomfortable
    little thing called the truth any more. Please place your head right
    back in the sand, and I’ll leave you be to swallow all the lies you can.
    Enjoy yourself.

  1771. @Gene: You use of profanity violates the Guideline for Commenting. Also, whatever you think of President-elect Obama, I am getting weary, as are others, of your continued disrespect of the Presidency. That is not a patriotic or conservative value. You vinegar will win you no flies. Please read the GFC.

  1772. A full hearing of the facts with a final adjudication based on the facts presented by both sides is the only way to resolve this matter. The fact that the election has been allowed to take place without that happening is unforgiveable. The people of the United States are owed a higher standard from our Federal Courts and they have totally dropped the ball.
    It is beyond my comprehension that Obama does not either go himself to Hawaii or have someone go for him, obtain a CERTIFIED copy of his birth certificate and put this matter to bed. The fact that he has not done that really makes me question his citizenship.

  1773. MadeInUSA,
    Just responded prior to this post but I don’t think it went through so I will try again.
    Thank you for the clarification – that is what I thought you meant, just wanted to make sure though 🙂
    It is very disheartening to read and see the obvious and long held bias with the media – it is even more disheartening to see how effective it is on those who blindly believe it without factoring in any critical thought as to it’s validity.

  1774. Yes, Ann, that is what I meant. I should have been more specific. I’ve been on the sidelines reading these posts, but I felt compelled to comment on what appears to be obvious bias on the part of the media.

  1775. Berg today filed an application for a stay of the Electoral College vote.
    A quick check of the docket shows it reflects this filing.

  1776. I wonder if this is why the SCOTUS seems to be dragging
    its feet on the Berg case. Is it possible they got wind that
    this indictment was coming?
    Where, BTW, is Osama today? And what became of his daily
    ‘Office of the President-Elect’ press conferences?

  1777. Hopefully, this Blagojevich will make a deal with the
    prosecutors and testify against the Osama ‘he never
    knew’, and we can take care of this bastard without
    spending the $10 fee to get the birth certificate.

  1778. Oh, wonderful! Now isn’t THIS terrific!
    Bad enough that we are about to swear in a Kenyan-born
    Acorn-elected Muslim socialist with terrorist links as POTUS, but now
    his Chicago thug pal and Democrudic Governor has just
    been arrested for selling Osama’s Senate seat, and
    dealings Osama pal and felon Tony Rezko. I’m SURE
    Osama knows nothing about these schemes.
    The Clinton News Network reports this story below:
    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/09/illinois.governor/index.html
    Change you will never believe.

  1779. To MadeInUSA –
    Yes, isn’t it? The bias is the ‘old’ media is so palpable
    these days, it is not even really appropriate to call it
    ‘journalism’. As has been said, journalism in the USA
    is now – for all intents and purposes – dead. And it is by
    no means coincidental that the NY Times is now
    at junk bond status, or that the LA Times, NBC,
    and many other liberals outlets are losing readers, viewers,
    and money very fast.

  1780. It’s interesting how the MSM, for the most part, has ignored this story until now. Now that the Supreme Court has decided not to hear this case, the MSM is reporting it enthusiastically.

  1781. Rich says the following:

    Obama does not have possession of the “vault copy” of his birth certificate, so he couldn’t produce it even if he wanted to. You cannot produce that which is not yours. Obama doesn’t own the “vault copy,” the State of Hawaii owns it. Try going to the city or town where you were born and demand that they give you the “vault copy” of your birth certificate. They won’t give it to you, because you don’t own it.

    Check out this site, Rich:
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/howto/w2w/hawaii.htm
    Should we all pitch in for the $10 fee?
    Case closed. Oh, and be sure to send that link to Barry HUSSEIN Osama
    so he can finally clear all this up.

  1782. @Dr Collens: I posted this yesterday. Some who frequent this thread may want to read the rest of the blog since I have updates on most these stories/issues. in fact, I would appreciate discussion on Donofrio to be held on one of the Donofrio threads. Thanks.

  1783. Robert –
    Juan has an excellent point. These failed public school
    educated inner city kids who know more about plagiarist
    communist womanizer Martin Luther King than they do
    about Martin Luther, and are more versed in ‘ multiculturalism
    and diversity’ than in ‘multiplication and division’ are
    the Obamanites of today, and will lead to this society’s
    downfall. What a tragedy.

  1784. To Barry Truthgun ~
    Barry asks me if I am an official body. Let’s put it this way, Barry.
    I have just as much right to see that birth certificate as does the
    St. Petersburg Times, and IMHO, MORE right than the unAmerican
    DailyKos. And no, we DO need 100 “kooks” to file suits, until we
    finally see the big mystery. BTW, I thought YOU PEOPLE abhored
    name-calling because (sniff!) words hurt! (boo-hoo!). Incredible
    hypocrisy.
    To Rich –
    The last I checked, HUSSEIN is his middle name. Why did we always
    hear Richard MILHOUSE Nixon, but never Barry’s middle name? And
    why do you condemn ME for calling him Osama, but not Senator
    Sobrietyr? As for that serial number, I’d like to see where you got it. And
    you still have not explained why it was blackened out.
    I really am tired of your childish put-downs. I DO understand the law,
    friend, as do the numerous lawyers filing these lawsuits. I also
    understand something more – human nature, something loser
    liberals “the likes of you” rarely understand. And what I see in that
    respect is an enormous attempt by Osama and his ilk to hide
    something. And like I said earlier, let’s see what SCOTUS decides.
    It is not yet “over”, as some of you are praying.
    Robert keeps calling this “fun”. I guess he also finds it fun
    to defecate in his pants, as I’m sure that’s what he’s doing,
    when considering his preoccupation with this site.
    Your actions speak louder than your words, Robert.

  1785. Robert ~ Dec 9, 2008 at 7:20 am
    I think you’re another one who just doesn’t get it.

  1786. We are now at a time where there is a huge cultural divide between the strong and conservative adults and the dependent and not-so-strong young people and minorities who have been bred by the government schools and social programs to be demanding twits whenever a question of need comes up in a conversation.

    Wow, Juan. Kind of shows just where you stand, doesn’t it?
    Those lousy “minorites!”

  1787. I said:
    “What’s missing here is that no-one is taking care of the country except for the socialists, and all they do is plunder and pillage. They never give back because it is always about them.”
    Apologies to our armed forces by not considering them in my comments. I believe our military is the best we have ever had, the best military in the world, and our military DOES take care of our country. I am sometimes in awe as to how good our military has become. They may be our last best hope for our survival.
    I am, however, really concerned about the other parts of the Executive Branch and about the Legislative Branch. If they go sideways (as they often do), even the military gets compromised in its efforts to keep the country safe.
    I guess I am very concerned about an arrogant, smart a$$ lawyer President thinking he knows it all, and who screws up so badly he causes irretrievable harm to our country. Obama, will be. after all, Commander in Chief. What a potential catastrophe.

  1788. Well gang here it is fresh off the press,
    WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth. The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election.
    http://www.yahoo.com
    Just waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court follow suit with the Berg Case and totally surrender the Constitution as nothing more than an old crusty paper with little meaning in todays world!

  1789. Eddy ~ Dec 8, 2008 at 11:04 pm,
    I wasn’t directing my comments to you specifically. I travel across several forums and blogs, and the same themes often rise. It was late, and I felt compelled to answer a few non-specific questions by telling a story.
    I thought you were older, but AARP starts sending out their missives when they think you have passed 50, and ‘senior’ just means money to AARP. I will never join AARP because I think it does not offer any valuable services to seniors, and I believe it is merely a business like other businesses, only it takes its money from our seniors – bad thing to do.
    So, regarding my story, I expect that you could legitimately say to me that I was preaching to the choir on my post last night. I knew I would be preaching to some bloggers, but sometimes when one presents an idea in a different format learning increases. I really do want our country to continue to thrive and prosper, but I am very concerned about the dark forces attacking our way of life during this period. If our young people don’t snap out of this euphoria they are enjoying right now, their children will be paupers and we will have lost our great country.
    McCain had it right in one respect – Country First. An old German saying: if you take care of your business, your business will take care of you. I would adapt that saying to: if you take care of your country, your country will take care of you.
    What’s missing here is that no-one is taking care of the country except for the socialists, and all they do is plunder and pillage. They never give back because it is always about them.
    Our children have much to learn. I just hope they are really (as I secretly believe) better than us, and become good guardians of our freedoms and of our nation’s future.
    Have a great day.

  1790. That said, however, the result will be that SCOTUS will never agree that another nation’s conferring citizenship status on an American should trump US law. We don’t want other nations to dictate who may or may not be POTUS.
    I just don’t see any way that SCOTUS will accept cert in connection with a presumptive POTUS born on US soil.

  1791. Remember, Donofrio v. Wells is appeal of a state court’s decision. The way New Jersey courts interpret New Jersey law stands. In this case, Leo Donofrio was arguing that (1) a New Jersey statute should be read as requiring the SOS to undertake an investigation, and (2) the “natural born” provision in Art. I prohibits dual citizenship. The Supreme Court could have denied review on either or both issues. If you will refer back to one of my earlier posts, I explained that SCOTUS will not review a case if the decision can be upheld on separate state law grounds. Wrotnowski suffers from the same defect — Connecticut law imposes no duty on the SOS.
    Another case from another state may very well present the issue better. For instance, Texas or California law may impose an affirmative duty on the SOS to certify the qualifications of a national candidate. The failure of the SOS to do so would violate state law. An SOS could defend that he/she did investigate and concluded that a birth on US soil to an American citizen is sufficient to satisfy the “natural born” requirement. Thus, state law was adhered to. The question on appeal would be whether the SOS correctly concluded that the candidate was “natural born” within the meaning of Art. I. That would set up a federal constitutional issue.
    The Keyes case might have been postured in this manner, because there is apparently some California precedent for the SOS to certify the POTUS candidates’ qualification (satisfies the state law question). But then Keyes veers off into the dopey Kenyan birth/Indonesian adoption factual conjecture that Keyes would have to prove, and that is the sort of factual dispute the Court will refuse to hear.

  1792. FredVN ~ Dec 8, 2008 at 9:21 pm
    148140
    Thank you GeorgetownJD. This is basically what I expected you to say. I also read somewhere that the more cases that are denied by SCOTUS the more watered down are the cases that follow. All following petitions are weakened. Would you agree?

    I hate to equivocate, but the answer is “yes” and “no.” Law books and professors will tell you that “cert. denied” has no precedential value. It means simply that SCOTUS exercised its discretion not to hear the case. For a single case, it may simply be that the issue wasn’t presented properly, or the facts were bad and SCOTUS wanted to wait until a cleaner set of facts comes along, or the wrong appellant was petitioning — Berg’s case would be such an example, and maybe an elector’s or competing candidate’s appeal would be more favorably entertained. Thus, all that should be taken away is that the lower court’s decision stands, and nothing should be read into SCOTUS’s denial of review.
    Practically speaking, however, if a string of cases presenting the same issue are denied, this is an indication that SCOTUS has no interest in the issue.

  1793. Highlander–
    I’ve been getting AARP mailings for more than 5 years now and qualify for the senior discount in a number of restaurants. Thanks, though, for assuming I’m a young’un.
    Now you know why I check out faithfully right around 10 PM my time.
    Good night!

  1794. Eddy,
    This is how I see the subjects you are talking about in simple terms.
    1. This is a nation based on Judeo/Christian principals, so most Americans believe these general Judeo/Christian philosophies.
    2. Conservatives are people who conserve. This is a characteristic generally found in older, more mature people.
    3. Socialism has been likened to nanny governments which believe that the government (as parents to all of the weak children) controls everything and does not allow the citizens (children of the state) to control their own destinies.
    4. In addition to Judeo/Christian philosophies, Americans, unlike Europeans, grew up as a nation by moving westward where there were no cities or support structures, and this led them to be fiercely independent and strong. This helped America win wars that it fought. This was good.
    5. We are now at a time where there is a huge cultural divide between the strong and conservative adults and the dependent and not-so-strong young people and minorities who have been bred by the government schools and social programs to be demanding twits whenever a question of need comes up in a conversation.
    6. Now it has become a numbers game, and it seems the younger and more infantile people of the American culture outnumber the older, more conservative and largely independent people of America. Our recent election showed that the larger quantity of the uneducated younger people who didn’t want to stand on their feet as directed by the older people, got their way, and we will now have a socialist president. Good for them.
    7. The whole situation will come full circle soon. The older, more conservative people will retire or die off, or maybe move themselves and their money to distant lands BECAUSE THEY CONSERVE MONEY. The youngsters will continue to play at life with their new best friend Obama, and then one day the party will end. It will be over. Somebody will have to clean up the mess from the party, but mom & dad aren’t there any more, so the kids will have to do the job all by themselves. If it gets done.
    8. Meanwhile, the Chinese and the Russians and the Indians, who have been watching this drama will laugh themselves silly and enjoy the rewards of taking over the job of cleaning up after the sloppy Americans have failed. Ha Ha they will say. We’ll own you! And they will. Stupid Americans.
    So, my thoughts to any believer in Obama, ‘The One,’ and in socialism, is that you should lose your thin skin, and start to learn how to act like a grown-up, and take control back from the fools on Capital Hill who will continue to plunder the great wealth of this country until it is all gone.
    Go study free market economics. Study American history and government. Study the Constitution. Learn about accounting and finance. Become educated. Grow up!
    I can say all of these things because I don’t care. I’m in my sixties, and I’ve helped carry this country for many years, but my job is nearly done. So, all of the financial benefits I can get from my new friends in the socialist government are very welcome to me, and you know what – I won’t have to pay the tab anymore. You will. Now I can laugh Ha Ha.
    Have a nice evening.

  1795. Stop your gloating or find another thread! Not all the people here are Right Wingers, please stop, you just come off as immature!

    Ya know. In a way I agree, and my post added nothing to the discussion. I should not have posted what I did.
    That said, I find it particularly amusing that in a forum filled with “Osama” (or, as Fred spells it “Osamma”) and “Hussein,” etc., you simper about me.
    Any way- as I say in substance I agree with you, and wont post again along those lines.

  1796. Fred –
    I’m not sure what more you would have BHO do? He has done everything asked him by the law and by the courts. We HAVE closure. The SCOTUS has given us this by reviewing the information and allowing the lower court’s ruling to stand.

  1797. Would Jesus be a Conservative Republican? Is that what I’m hearing? The same Jesus who fed the multitudes with loaves and fishes (without charge)? The same Jesus who taught that we are our brother’s keeper? The same Jesus who instructed his disciples to forsake all and follow him?
    I am offended by the underlying tone that suggests that Conservatism, as we know it today, is the Christian choice. And it’s opposite, branded by this blog as Socialism, is somehow un-Christian.
    I am further offended by the notion that those who hold to these views brand ed as Socialism are looking for freebies, to be on the receiving end. It offends those of us who see that we have been blessed and, even if we may not have much by comparison to some of our neighbors, we have so much more than many others.
    If Conservatism equals Christian, please review the posts under this topic. See how many times Conservatism was anything but a demonstration of the fruit of the Spirit. Where were the examples of goodness, meekness, temperance, faith, lovingkindness….
    It’s okay to be Conservative; it’s okay to be Republican but please do not insult the many sincere Christians who choose or chose to vote Democratic by implying that this modern brand of Conservatism is Christian to the core.

  1798. Jayhuck,
    What I wanted was for BHO to prove that he is w/o question qualified to be POTUS so we could all get comfortably and confidently behind him. Now it appears that is not going to happen. This isn’t a Left-Right or Conservative-Liberal issue. It is a Constitutional issue for which all Americans should want closure. I would have wanted the same if it were John McCain’s B/C being questioned. if he were the POTUS-Elect.

  1799. FredVN,
    It has been my observation with regard to any court, that if you don’t ask the right question, or if you don’t ask the question properly, the court will not decide in your favor.
    One could look at all of these SCOTUS cases as us-all learning what doesn’t work. This knowledge could be just the right knowledge needed for a successful future case. Especially if there are any opinions or comments passed along by SCOTUS (probably not very likely).
    I learned a long time ago when I was acting as pro per in state and federal courts, that if you don’t get what you want, just keep at it. Eventually you will learn the right answer for winning your case. Never give up. Never back down.
    Right, GeorgetownJD?

  1800. Thank you GeorgetownJD. This is basically what I expected you to say. I also read somewhere that the more cases that are denied by SCOTUS the more watered down are the cases that follow. All following petitions are weakened. Would you agree?

  1801. FredVN & Dr, Collens,
    If SCOTUS doesn’t agree to hear any of the other cases before it, then the only backup actions are congressional review and impeachment, neither of which are as desirable as having the courts prevent the damage Congress and an impeachment would cause.
    Remember that conservatism comes with age and wisdom. I haven’t seen any existing conservatives become socialists just because Obama won the election. So, the good guys are still the good guys.
    I have seen a whole nation of young and immature folks jump on Obama’s socialism because it is so much like living at home (someone else pays the bills). The tragic part of the story for these folks is that one day they will have to grow up, and then the bill they have to pay for the socialist party they have enjoyed through the years will be huge. Atlas will shrug.
    I think, with hindsight, we have fed our children fish for a day, and not taught them to fish for themselves. This is where we adults have failed. We have been too kind and too Christian and too forgiving.
    Having said all of this, it is interesting to note that Amsterdam is now reversing its sex & drugs partying habits, so it seems societies can change back to the good old ways after all. That’s the good news. And that means there is hope for America.
    Juan

  1802. When I read the news about SCOTUS this AM my heart sank because it is clear we are fighting a losing battle. The corruption runs deeper than I thought.

    I’m just curious, is there corruption involved because things aren’t going the way YOU want them to?

  1803. FredVN ~ Dec 8, 2008 at 12:51 pm
    148028
    That’s right, SCOTUS has denied the Donofrio case. Here is another update:
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83041
    GeorgetownJD: What happens now?

    FredVN: Nothing happens. It’s over. As the SCOTUS’s own publication explains, “Once the full Court has acted on an application, there is no further opportunity to request relief from this Court unless there are subsequent petitions based on different issues working their way through the judicial system.” (See the Supreme Court’s publication, A Reporter’s Guide to Applications (follow the menu labeled “Public Information” to find this on SCOTUS’s website)
    Clearly, the Supreme Court does not buy Donofrio’s “dual citizen is not a natural born citizen” argument, nor that a state official has some inherent duty to verify birth status when NJ law does not require.
    Wrotnowski’s suit is basically a copycat, in that he asked for a mandamus to compel the SOS of Connecticut to do something not required by any Connecticut statute. That Justice Scalia referred it to the full Court for conference does not imply that Wrotnsowski’s case has merit or is “stronger” than Donofrio’s. Justice Scalia is merely following protocol. Again, as explained in the Reporter’s Guide:
    “If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may reapply to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until
    a majority of the Court has denied the application. In practice, applications usually are referred to the full Court by the second Justice to avoid such a prolonged procedure.”
    Dr. Orly Whatever-her-name-is apparently plans to file a petition or application to SCOTUS. Hers is an elector’s challenge. I predict that it, too, will be denied, on the ground that this presents a political question. In other words, if an elector or Senator or Congressional Representative harbors doubt about the apparent Pres-elect, then that should be addressed within the context of the Electoral College (by not voting for Obama) or Congress (on January 6, per United States Code, objection may be raised, and the two houses must adjourn to separately debate the validity of the EC’s vote, then reconvene.)

  1804. Ann, I like Rick Santotum a lot. Not too sure about Romney though. I’ll split the difference with you:
    Palin-Santorum 2012
    or
    Santorum-Palin 2012

  1805. Palin-Huckabee 2012
    FredVN,
    I like this a lot but here is one I like even better – Romney/Santorum 2012

  1806. Dr Collens
    I’ve suggested in other forums that we just change the party names to Conservative Party and Socialist Party. Removes all questions about your political philosophy.
    Maturity is when you call things by their right names.
    Time we grew up as a culture.

  1807. Juan and Dr. Collens,
    I understand the points both of you made. Beleive me when I say, ‘I am a conservative”. This should be quite clear from my previous posts. However, it is becoming increasingly obvious that “we can’t fight City Hall”. The SCOTUS has let us all down in a big way because they could have brought closure to this issue. Instead they have left many extremely important questions unanswered. So, what do we do? What choices do we have? When I read the news about SCOTUS this AM my heart sank because it is clear we are fighting a losing battle. The corruption runs deeper than I thought. So we either move on or grow even more bitter that our goverment has been hijacked and our leaders have let us down. That is why I asked GeorgetownJD; where do we go from here? I think our options are limited. As I stated before, I am an American first and a Conservative 2nd. So, I am resigned to the fact that it is time to line up, be good soldiers and move on or move out. I will continue to place my faith in God and trust that He has everything under His control, including the POTUS.
    Palin-Huckabee 2012

  1808. This has been FUN!!
    Let the Black Helicopter sightings continue and keep the far right busy in their sandbox while Obama takes the reins of government!
    Stop your gloating or find another thread! Not all the people here are Right Wingers, please stop, you just come off as immature!

  1809. FredVN ~ Dec 8, 2008 at 5:45 pm
    148087
    As a conseravtive, I think it is time to move on. I can not imagine the SCOTUS entertaining the other lawsuits. I expect those petitions will also be denied. If the SCOTUS creates a firewall that would prevent a Constitutional crisis after BHO takes office, then let’s get behind the man and move on.
    A true Conservative does not cross the isle to the Liberal side! What you are saying is that you are a moderate who hops the bandwagon and surrenders instead of fighting Obama on upholding the rules of becoming a President and the Constitution. Obama is the first person to run for President and deny the Free People of the USA their right to know his true background! We The People Of The United States have the Right to demand this from him, for it is our right under the rule of law (Constitution)!
    One of the largest problems with the GOP is that for the last twenty years the party has been more and more diluted with these so called moderates. I like to call them the “Bi-politicals” of Washington, they swing both ways! Theses moderates have torched the GOP’s ultra-conservative ways, what the Left calls the Raganists. In reality we know that true conservatism has been part of the government since before the founding of this great nation. True Conservatism is not dead, in exile, or in hiding, it is very much alive throughout the USA and has just been overshadowed by a most one sided election geared towards generating votes from people who’s ignorance lead them to believe in a false idol. Democrats are already angry with Obama for not following through with most of his promises and some on the Left in Congress are saying he is nothing more than the last President and has no “Change!”

  1810. This has been FUN!!
    Let the Black Helicopter sightings continue and keep the far right busy in their sandbox while Obama takes the reins of government!

  1811. FredVN,
    I don’t know. I still don’t like the idea of being behind a usurper. At all. I spend so much of my life trying to respect and obey the law that I get angry when I see some arrogant SOB elitist snub his nose at me and my country.
    As I suggested when I entered this blog, a reasonable man would already find Obama guilty of fraud, if for no other reason than his untrustworthy verbiage, associates, and actions.
    Juan

  1812. As a conseravtive, I think it is time to move on. I can not imagine the SCOTUS entertaining the other lawsuits. I expect those petitions will also be denied. If the SCOTUS creates a firewall that would prevent a Constitutional crisis after BHO takes office, then let’s get behind the man and move on.

  1813. Gene —
    The fact that you lamely try to insult Obama by calling him “Osama” or “Barry HUSSEIN Obama” makes it clear that you have no interest in discussing this rationally, but I will try.
    The certificate number for Obama’s COLB is 151-1961-010641. It was photographed by factcheck.org when they examined the document. The COLB also states clearly that Obama was born in Honolulu. You can see it for yourself on the factcheck.org website.
    You obviously do not understand the law. If Obama were to respond to any of these lawsuits by producing any documents of any kind,, it could be construed as an acknowledgment by him that the lawsuits have validity — in essence, it could be ruled a waiver of his legal defenses. One of the first steps in any lawsuit is to establish if the plaintiff has stated “a claim upon which relief can be granted.” So far, the courts in all of these cases have ruled that the plaintiffs have no standing. Unless that issue is ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, there is nothing for the defendants to do.
    The first thing that any competent defense lawyer tries to do in any lawsuit is to get the case dismissed on procedural grounds — whether that be lack of jurisdiction, statute of limitations, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, etc. That is not foot-dragging. It is what any ethical lawyer is required to do for his or her client.
    The truth of the matter is that there is no amount of evidence which Obama can produce which will satisfy the likes of you.
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/12/05/birth_certificate/

  1814. Are you an official body? You say WE. You, Berg, Donofrio were shown a valid birth certificate from Obama though he legally didn’t have to show you. The FEC, FBI etc. don’t need 100 kooks to sue because they already have access to every cert in all 50 states.

  1815. To BarryTruth Gun –
    So who or what is the Saint Petersburg Times? Are THEY
    an official body? It’s all part of the same obfuscation.
    For the 1503rd time, Barry, WHY CAN’T WE JUST SEE
    THE VALID BIRTH CERTIFICATE, LIKE THE SUIT DEMANDS?
    To Jessica –
    How does my calling him ‘Osama’ like Ted Kennedy
    (probably when drunk) once did, in any way insult YOU?
    Lighten up, please!

  1816. c.j.
    BTW Daily KOS is another of the kook theories. Obama released it to the St. Peterburg times on the same day it is just that KOS is a nice strawman.

  1817. Gene here are some birth certificate facts for you.
    The COLB is all Hawaii issues to requests right now.
    The COLB is legal as the original for court as HRS says and it states prima facie on it.
    The COLB clearly states where he was born, Honolulu.
    You may not like these facts and have photoshop conspiracies but they burden is on you in court to prove it is fake because for legal purposes it is as legit as the one original on file that Hawaii keeps sealed for every citizen.

  1818. Gene ~
    His name is Obama not Osama and as he the President-Elect, when speaking with me, I expect that you treat the title (if not the person) with respect.

  1819. I’m not sure how I insulted you Jessica, outside
    of incorrectly assuming that you were an
    Obama supporter. For that, I DEEPLY apologize,
    as that was one of the worst things I could have
    done.

  1820. Gene ~
    First, I clearly stated that I am not a supporter.
    Secondly, insults do not make your case, they just make you irrelevant, therefore, I am done with this attempt at a conversation with you.

  1821. To Rich and Jessica,
    Yes, isn’t that just grand? Our new president of “change” will not clear
    up this very troubling question by simply producing a valid birth
    certificate. Instead, his lawyers and supporters like yourselves will fight
    the matter to the death, argue that there is no difference between
    a COLB and a birth certificate; bring up irrelevancies like saying that a
    “Birth Certificate” is now called a “Certificate of Birth Registration” and that
    he doesn’t have the name of the attending physician, or hospital; and that
    the obvious garbage posted by DailyKos (who in the world made THEM
    an official body?) is ‘real’ (BTW: Why did they remove the serial number?
    To protect his identity? It doesn’t make any sense! ).
    What is ‘in his mind’ is irrelevant. The SCOTUS opinion
    on the matter is what ultimately counts. Yes, the Donofrio case is dead,
    but that case ‘acknowledged’ that Osama was born in Hawaii. It was
    faulty case to begin with. You HOPE the Berg, Keyes, and
    numerous other cases demanding a valid birth certificate will follow.
    Let’s wait and see, shall we?

  1822. Gene ~
    It appears that as what you see as “hiding the truth”, I see as following the letter of the law especially as he has shown a b/c (we cannot judge it’s authenticity as we have not seen it in person).
    Maybe, what he offered as a b/c and HI saying that he was born there, in his mind, is proving it and putting it to rest. While I understand that many people (that have never seen it in person) do not believe it to be authentic, their opinion on the b/c is worthless.

  1823. Gene —
    Obama isn’t going to be producing his COLB in the Donofrio case because, as FredVN has pointed out, SCOTUS has refused to hear the Donofrio case.
    As Jessica has pointed out, neither SCOTUS nor any other court has asked or ordered Obama to produce his COLB. If that were to happen, Obama would simply produce the same certified copy of the document which previously was examined by reporters from factcheck.org and World Net Daily.
    You see, there is no difference between a COLB and a birth certificate. Different states have different names for what is essentially the same document. I was born in New York in 1948, and I have two copies of my birth certificate. The older copy was issued seven days after I was born. The newer copy is one that I ordered in 1988, after I had misplaced (but later found) the older copy. And guess what? It’s not called a “Birth Certificate.” It’s called a “Certificate of Birth Registration.” And guess what else? It doesn’t have the name of the attending physician, and it doesn’t have the name of the hospital where I was born. It has my name, the date of my birth, the city and state where I was born, and the names of my parents — basically the same type of information which Obama’s COLB contains.
    The bottom of the document states THIS CERTIFICATE IF EVIDENCE OF AGE, PARENTAGE AND PLACE OF BIRTH.
    This is the document which I produced when I enlisted in the U.S. Navy. This is the document which I produced when I first registered to vote. This is the document which I produced when I applied for a passport. This is the only document which the United States requires to establish where I was born.
    Obama has already provided the only proof which is required to establish that he was born in Hawaii. You and other Obama-haters want to believe that his document is a forgery, but no competent expert supports that view and the State of Hawaii has confirmed that it is genuine.
    The Donofrio case is dead, and the Berg case is certain to follow. The Electoral College will elect Obama a week from today, and he will be inaugurated on January 20. That you can bank on.

  1824. OK, the SCOTUS has not asked for this documentation…YET. I agree
    with you.
    However, as a matter of ethics, and for the sake of putting
    this issue to rest once and for all, wouldn’t be nice if the man
    who’s been pounding on the word “change” all year had acted differently
    from the usual behavior of a guilty individual trying to hide something,
    and instead was forthright about this whole matter? At this moment,
    I see no ‘change’ at all from the elusive Bill ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton days.

  1825. Gene ~
    Very simply…the court has not yet asked for this documentation as they are following procedure and first comes standing.
    I am not saying that I am a supporter or that I know the truth of the matter. I am saying that if it is demanded that he follow the letter of the law, then that is what we must ask, we cannot pick and choose which rules we ask him to abide by.

  1826. Dear Jessica –
    WOW! You sure are over MY head with your double-speak!
    You’re so DEEP!
    Uh, please explain to me, without links to marginally-relevant
    sites, and without quotes that make even less sense, precisely
    why we and the SCOTUS should not be allowed to receive
    absolute verification, through a simple valid birth certificate that
    every one of us has, that the man about to take the oath as
    POTUS is indeed qualified to do so.

  1827. Gene ~
    I am confused by your constant demands that the Constitution be upheld and in the same post you demand that Obama show his COLB to the courts to put this issue to rest which would, in it’s mere action, go against due process. Which is it: do you want the laws to be upheld or not?
    http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/12/obama-birth-certificate-who-determines-presidential-constitutional-eligibility
    http://www.whatsyourevidence.com/
    “Moreover, because a standing argument is – by law, required to be raised as the first responsive pleading to a case, in order to preserve the defense, an attorney who failed to do that would be, essentially, committing malpractice. (Of course, if for some reason, the plaintiff wanted to be sued, that’d be another story – but that’s .. uhm .. highly unusual. Here, had Obama ignored the standing issue in order to produce the certificate, he would have had to then respond to every other of Berg’s multifarious allegations. (To reiterate – he could not “ignore” standing as to COLB, but assert it as to other claims – either standing exists – or it doesn’t.)”

  1828. To Ann – I find it extremely hard to believe than an Ivy League-educated
    47-year old U.S. Senator did not even know where he was born.
    And if he truly didn’t, I certainly don’t think that person is qualified
    to be the POTUS.

    Gene,
    Believe me, I am not a Barak Obama supporter – at the same time, I also know many adult men and women find out family “secrets” about their earlier life much later – it is not uncommon for things to be hidden until they are uncovered or disclosed – and it can happen to anyone.

  1829. To Ann – I find it extremely hard to believe than an Ivy League-educated
    47-year old U.S. Senator did not even know where he was born.
    And if he truly didn’t, I certainly don’t think that person is qualified
    to be the POTUS.
    To Robert – Please, Robert. I’m sure you’ve concluded that I’m not very bright,
    but I’m not a TOTAL imbecile, either. There have been numerous times in my
    life when I’ve had to produce a valid birth certificate. What makes Osama exempt
    from such a requirement? It is a simple matter of him contacting the
    county records office for the area in which he was born to get a
    certified copy. Your continual obfuscation of this question with arguments
    like that just confirms for us all that Barry Hussein Osama is clearly
    hiding something. But I’m glad you are at least honest enough to acknowledge
    that Osama has not as yet produced a valid birth certificate, and that the one
    posted by DailyKos and defended by snopes.com, factcheck.org,
    and Salon was an obvious fake. Thanks, Robert.

  1830. Robert wrote:

    Obama does not have the certificate to produce. The state of HI does. And they say it shows he was born in HI.
    I know, I know- the HI state officials are in on the conspiracy?

    Robert……I assume that you are aware just how easy it is for anyone to get a certified copy of their birth certificate…you know, the one that has the attending physicians name, along with the names of any witnesses to the birth, etc……right?
    I also assume that you must be aware that Obama cut short his campaign and flew to Hawaii after Berg had filed his suit, giving him plenty of time to go to the records office and obtain a copy….right? I mean, he KNEW that this was in question and he WAS in Hawaii, right?
    This crap of “he doesn’t have his birth certificate, Hawaii does” is just that….crap!
    Also crap…..”it shows he was born in Hawaii”! Really? You mean that you have personally seen this and can swear to it? I doubt it, since NO ONE is willing to produce the thing for everyone to see.
    As to officials being in on a “conspiracy”, I very much doubt that……but then again, one never knows what motivates a person.
    The easiest and simplest way to resolve this issue if for Obama himself to produce said copy for verification…something he has as yet REFUSED to do.
    Again, I ask the question….WHY? What is he afraid of anyone seeing on his birth certificate?
    Ya know, it’s not like anyone is asking for information like his bank account, savings account..etc. etc. This is NOT information that would be considered a national security issue.
    Anyone with any common sense knows just how easy it is to have this information available. So again, WHAT’S OBAMA’S PROBLEM?
    For those who feel they have to defend Obama or make excuses for his refusal to come forth with this information, I have to ask “Why would you feel this way?” No one is asking anything other than that which is REQUIRED by the U. S. Constitution for someone to hold the office of President. Wouldn’t any rational person want to know that their candidate for President was “clean” and Constitutionally eligible to hold the office they seek?
    If not, I would have a few more questions for them, but the rules of this forum don’t allow for that kind of language.

  1831. Another update. Monday (today, 12/8/08) will be interesting at SCOTUS.
    1. Another Barack Obama Birth Certificate Case Heads To U.S. Supreme Court. On December 2nd a Petition for an extraordinary Writ of Mandamus was filed in the Supreme Court of California. This petition states that Mr. Obama has not proven his “natural born citizen” status and cannot be sworn as a president of the United States and the commander in Chief. There are 7 plaintiffs in this case and they include Vice Presidential candidate for Ron Paul, on the ballot in CA, Ms. Gail Lightfoot, 4 electors and two registered voters.
    The previous rulings have been challenged for the lack of standing, however Electors do have standing as they are required to cast their votes to a qualified candidate.
    http://drorly.blogspot.com/
    2. Slightly flawed article on the subject by the Washington Times:
    http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/06/obama-challenge-awaits-a-decision/
    3. This is a list of all 2008 U.S. presidential electors, by state (so you can contact yours):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_electors,_2008
    4. The electoral college consists of electors from each state. Some states allow electors to vote for whoever they want, while other states levy penalties against electors who vote differently than the public (called “faithless electors”). This is the list of 2008 elector state regulations regarding voting style:
    http://saveourrights.wikia.com/wiki/Electoral_College
    Rather than going away, this potential usurper situation seems to be heating up.

  1832. WeThePeopleFoundation.org is a fraud.
    If you visit their home page, you will see an enlarged section from a 1963 Hawaiian birth certificate box 7c with the caption “Foreign Country” which they claim proves that Hawaii allowed foreign-born persons to register on the Live Birth form. The fraud is that blocks 7a-7g are the MOTHER’S RESIDENCE, not the place of birth, which is in block 6a and has nothing about “Foreign Country”. It’s a total sham which they hope nobody will notice since the full certificate showing the context is too blurry to read.
    Actually, Hawaii started allowing residents to register their foreign-born children in 1982, 21 years after Obama’s birth was registered. They also allow registration of foreign-born adoptions and by law must state the foreign country on the certificate.
    These Obama Citizenship Denial (OCD) folks will say anything.

  1833. When you recently, how recently? Over the past few days?
    Weeks? Months? Year?

    Gene,
    I am not sure but I do not believe that he intentionally start his campaign knowing he was ineligible. If his ineligibility is true, I believe it was uncovered in the past several months. Yes, I agree with you that it should have been known, however, as I have stated earlier, he came from a non-traditional family and certain information could have been withheld or hidden from him until it was uncovered by opponents willing and motivated to expose it. This is not an uncommon story.

  1834. For the 1500th time, IF HE HAS NOTHING TO
    HIDE. WHY DOESN’T HE JUST PRODUCE THE
    DAMNED BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND END ALL THIS
    NONSENSE?

    RIF
    Obama does not have the certificate to produce. The state of HI does. And they say it shows he was born in HI.
    I know, I know- the HI state officials are in on the conspiracy?

  1835. When you recently, how recently? Over the past few days?
    Weeks? Months? Year?
    And WHO did not know – Obama himself? I doubt that
    very much. The guys is 47 years old! Come on, he HAD
    to know it.
    But all of this discussion is irrelevant, anyway, as ignorance
    of the law is certainly know excuse.

  1836. one has to wonder
    why Barry Hussein Osama continued with his campaign all
    the while knowing he could not – because of his Kenyan birth –
    legally serve as president

    Gene,
    If it is true that he was not born in the U.S., I believe it is something that has been uncovered recently and they really don’t know what to do about it now. Barak Obama was not raised in what is considered a traditional family and when that happens, usually a lot can get lost or hidden in the shuffle and various transitions.

  1837. In thinking this mess through further, one has to wonder
    why Barry Hussein Osama continued with his campaign all
    the while knowing he could not – because of his Kenyan birth –
    legally serve as president. Someone in the Democrudic party was
    obviously encouraging him, telling him that the issue would never
    come to a head. Poor, naive Osama obviously swallowed that lie.
    And now he’s going to suffer for it big time. I do feel sorry for him.

  1838. I agree, Chuck. My guess is the FEC didn’t
    do so simply because they never planned for
    such circumstances. Government efficiency
    in action.
    And this is what Barry HUSSEIN Osama wants
    to do with our health care system. Let’s hope
    the SCOTUS does the right thing, and never gives
    him the chance.

  1839. Clestes,
    You have the right under the letter of law to believe or not believe in anything you want. Let us not forget that the law guaranties us certain inalienable rights like the Freedom of Religion. Let us also remember that we are not to force upon another our beliefs or religions, in doing so we avoid dictatorships and civil unrest, keeping us free to worship as we see fit! Also that means we shall not press or impose our political beliefs on others as well. Be very cautious how you word what you say, everyone will interpret what up write differently and your message might send the wrong signals. We are here to discuss Obama’s legitimacy to be President of the USA not to discuss your religious convictions! Get back on track or find a different tread.

  1840. clestes,
    I love the visions of the Dems like you. You are just vomiting the same trash the Leaders of the Left are spitting in the faces of the people. I guess you have a good crystal ball which gives you the best view of our future. You and your buddies on the left just keep up your B.S. propaganda and when you guys don’t keep to the lies of Obama then it will be you on the outside looking in.

  1841. A series of prediction.
    The Supreme court will deny the writ tomorrow or next Monday, if they didn’t get around to discussing it last Friday,
    Obama will be chosen on Dec 15 and sworn in on Jan 20. 2009.
    He will ask congress to pass a huge public works bill for repairing existing infrastracture and building new and congress wll do so.
    He will ask congress to pass a government backed healthcare system. They will do so.
    He will overhaul our current broken education system.
    He will be re-elected in 2012 based on the success of his first term programs.
    He will appoint 2 to 4 Supreme court judges and fill the lower court vacancies.
    The only thing I am not sure about is whether the republicans are going to wake up and realize that they are in the politial wilderness because they lost touch with mainstream American and actually do something about revaming their message.
    Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal are not the answer.

  1842. Gene–
    Things aren’t always quite as they seem. Since your first use of ‘Democruds’, I haven’t followed any links you’ve provided and haven’t mulled over whether your comments have any substance. Since your use of ‘Democruds’ that I last responded to, I’ve skipped over comments by you entirely except the two that were addressed to me. And, in the latest one, I read the first sentence only.

  1843. …Or, as has been put forth as an issue, why the HECK would someone possibly born in KENYA, be allowed to run for President without first having the issue of natural born U.S. citizenship INEXPLICABLY proven to be a non-issue (i.e. he was BORN in HI, as he claims)!?!?!?
    This is MADNESS…

  1844. Gene –
    A technicality, I am sure, but a technicality none the less that would have required SCOTUS interpretation HAD Goldwater won (assuming the GOP or someone would have challenged the issue)…
    The POINT is that NO candidate for President should have this as an issue… Why the heck would someone BORN in Mexico be ALLOWED to run for President; why would someone BORN in Panama (otuside of U.S. territory) be ALLOWED to run for President? This should not be happening – this thing with Obama is asinine that we are even debating this… It should have been either PROVEN or DISPROVEN before he could have become a candidate for POTUS (McCain, too…). This is just SOOO FRIGGIN FRUSTRATING….

  1845. Lynn David says

    Except that momma has seen the “A’s” on the Report Card (Certification of Live Birth) and it’s the evil step-father in a hood who is demanding that the kid had the wherewithall to have forged all such Report Cards.

    Nice try, Lynn, except that, for the 1501st time, we have not seen
    Barry HUSSEIN Osama’s birth certificate, and neither has
    Justice Souter or the Supreme Court, and once Barry HUSSEIN
    Osama produces that document, this controversy will end. But
    of course, he won’t DO that!
    As for your comment about ‘wearing a hood’, that just shows
    your mentality to be no better than Osama’s.

  1846. To Eddy ~ YOU sure seem to be paying attention to my comments!
    To Chuck- Romney was born in Mexico, yes. But Goldwater was
    born in Phoenix when it was still a territory. Did that make him
    ineligible?
    If it really DOES come to a crisis where he can’t take the oath
    – and if SCOTUS does take the case, it almost certainly will, as
    Obama clearly is hiding something – I think Biden, who I’m guessing
    will be president, will select Powell as his Veep, in order
    to ‘mollify’ the blacks, as well as all the liberals that voted for
    a black man to be president because they think it is wrong
    to consider race when choosing someone to do a job (yeah,
    go figure).

  1847. Well…
    This thing is certainly getting interesting…
    Lets see what happens with this – interesting indeed…
    My earlier prediction was that when all was said and done, whether we like it or not, Pres. Elect Obama was going to be the 44th POTUS. My feeling was that one way or the other, this was going to happen. I admitted that I could have been wrong but I thought the chances of my being wrong were unlikely due to the situation with the economy, backroom deals, problem with both parties candidates, etc. and the reluctance of “the powers that be” to further drive a stake into the heart of America…
    But, as these questions persist and continue to go unanswered, it is becoming more and more difficult to see how the court can ignore this thing. One way or the other, the SCOTUS is going to HAVE to get involved and LORD WILLING, they will discover the TRUTH – WHATEVER that turns out to be….
    And…if it turns out the facts indicate that Obama was NOT a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. as has been put forth, this country is in for a rift of the likes we have not seen since the Civil Rights era. Good or bad, right or wrong, that is going to be a PAINFUL scenario for this country to play out. And we think the “bailout” of the financial institutions and the “Big 3” is controversial, just wait until this thing blows up….
    If it turns out the examination of the facts indicates otherwise (i.e. that Obama is a “natural born citizen” of the U.S.), then this thing is over and done with. I HOPE this is the case – but as folks have said many times in this forum, Obama could have ended this a LONG time ago…(shrug)
    But as I have also said, this thing should not be this difficult. These things should be VETTED on the FRONT end while these candidates are friggin’ filing their FEC Forms 1 & 2. If there were questions about citizenship, Obama, McCain, etc. should NOT even be allowed to become candidates. Period. No proof of natural born citizneship (of the U.S., obviously), you cant run. End of story. Finit. Bye-bye. See ya. Dont let the door hit ya as your POTUS candidacy is DEAD before it even begins – and rightfully so if you are not a natural born U.S. citizen. This isnt that hard to figure out and prevent from happening….
    Nuggets of Interest: For you old timers, the same thing happened with Goldwater – although he did not win, he was not a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. either. Romney’s Dad, George Romney, ran for President in 1968 as a Republican and was defeated by Nixon – guess where he was born?!?!!? Folks may not know that HE was born in FRIGGIN’ MEXICO!!!!?!?!?! HOW IN THE HECK COULD HE RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE U.S. AND BE BORN IN MEXICO!?!?!?! And although these instances were decades ago, the bureacrats in Washington STILL have not seen fit to fix this little procedural problem with the highest office in the land. It is frankly, mind boggling that something like this can even happen today….(shrug)

  1848. “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.”
    –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781

  1849. Clestes wrote:

    And no I don’t believe in a God and neither did Thomas Jefferson.

    I think you better study your history Clestes.
    Just a few tid bits:

    In the thick of party conflict in 1800, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a private letter, “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

    and

    As the “silent member” of the Congress, Jefferson, at 33, drafted the Declaration of Independence. In years following he labored to make its words a reality in Virginia. Most notably, he wrote a bill establishing religious freedom, enacted in 1786.

    You can read it yourself:
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tj3.html
    Still not convinced? Here’s more:

    Jefferson was raised in the Church of England at a time when it was the established church in Virginia and the only denomination funded by Virginia tax money. Theologian Avery Dulles reports, “In his college years at William and Mary [Jefferson] came to admire Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Locke as three great paragons of wisdom. Under the influence of several professors he converted to the deist philosophy.”[51] Dulles concludes:
    “ In summary, then, Jefferson was a deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines that Jesus was the promised Messiah and the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson’s religion is fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day. ”

    Perhaps Clestes you thought Jefferson did not beleive in God because of what he wrote in his letter regarding the “seperation of church and state” which has been perverted into meaning something Jefferson never intended. He was trying to protect the church from the government. Now it has been twisted into meaning that the government has to be protected from the church.
    The record is clear Clestes. Although Jefferson was a Christian Diest, he was certainly a man who beleived in the Almighty.
    Let me put out a challenge to you Clestes; say this simple prayer: “God, if you are real, then show yourself to me in a tangible way” …..then watch what happens. This challenge goes for all the other doubters out there. Always remember, God is only a prayer away.
    Warren: I know I have strayed from the topic, however, I beleive it is relevant. BHO professes to be a Christain. I hope he is seeking God’s will for our nation, especially in the midst of this B/C crisis. May God’s will be done.

  1850. No problem, Gene. Just trying to point out that it comes across as childish and that any links you provide are probably only followed by those who already agree with you. People you continue to denigrate with terms like ‘Democruds’ aren’t likely to do you the courtesy of following your links or paying much attention to your comments.

  1851. Except that momma has seen the “A’s” on the Report Card (Certification of Live Birth) and it’s the evil step-father in a hood who is demanding that the kid had the wherewithall to have forged all such Report Cards.

  1852. What amazes me about this whole thing is the childishness,
    yes, childishness of the Obamanites’ thinking. Did they
    actually think they were going to get away with this? Or
    that no one would ‘notice’? I feel like we dealing with a 10-year
    old kid in the following scenario:
    Mother: “You got your report card yesterday son, didn’t you?”
    Child: “Yes, Mommy.”
    Mother: “How did you do?”
    Child: “I got all A’s.”
    Mother: “Really? I didn’t expect that! Let me see it!”
    Child: “Don’t you believe I got all A’s?”
    Mother: “I’d like to see it.”
    Child: “Ask Jimmy! He saw it! He’ll tell you! I got all A’s!”
    Mother: “Why can’t you just show it to me?”
    Child: “I GOT ALL A’s! I GOT ALL A’s! And you can’t make me show you!!”
    Please tell me, ‘open-minded’ liberal friends, exactly what conclusions
    YOU would draw if you were the parent in such a situation.
    Obama’s continual defiance on this matter speaks volumes
    as to why he should never be president. He’s not mature enough.

  1853. Gee, Eddy. You really break my heart.
    LOL! You actually think I care what your
    opinion is of the Republican Party?

  1854. @Robert
    I am glad that the left wing Salon.com is weighing in, even if it is a conspiracy theory article. The more the merrier. I read about a dozen of the comments that were posted following the article and there are a few open minded lefties who now seem to have questions about BHO. The more press this gets the better. I beleive it was Donald Trump who once said “bad publicity is better than no publicity”.

  1855. Gene–
    You win: from now on it’s Rebuttlickin’s (for the party) or Rebuttlickers (for its members) when I refer to your party and its people.

  1856. Robert –
    I just love the way YOU PEOPLE dance around this
    question. For the 1500th time, IF HE HAS NOTHING TO
    HIDE. WHY DOESN’T HE JUST PRODUCE THE
    DAMNED BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND END ALL THIS
    NONSENSE? And I don’t mean throough DailyKos,
    snopes.com, factcheck.org, or any other liberal
    outlet. I mean to the Court, like he should have last week?
    Why the cat-and-mouse game? He’s even managed to
    get Souter suspicious of him. Well, now it’s too late,
    and the explosion is going to come soon.
    Like I said, you people asked for all this.

  1857. I see your point on the Clinton agenda, Warren- but that also stands for Gene’s original point. If you want to say that “Clinton brought us Bush” and then say that the 1994 election was a refutation of Clinton’s policies, you can say the same thing about the 2004 election and what it meant for Bush…

  1858. Here’s another story, folks:
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/04/supreme-court-hear-obama-citizenship-suit/
    There’s also an AP video on this story. We are supposed to
    get an answer on Monday on whether or not the SCOTUS
    will take up the matter. But how could they not?
    The sh*t is definitely starting to hit the fan. Thank God.
    Now the truth will finally come out, and my God, what
    an explosion this will create!
    All I’ve got to say, Democruds, is that you asked for it.

  1859. More related articles:
    http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Mr-Obamas-Eligibility-Aired-Monday/story.aspx?guid=%7B35E191D7-D7BD-4722-BAF1-E6C0CBC18EA3%7D
    http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/1308626,CST-NWS-mitch02.article?plckCurrentPage=1&sid=sitelife.suntimes.com
    If you read the comments posted on the links I have been providing you will find many other links to related sources of information posted by the commenters. There is a lot of new and old information out there. It appears from the majority of the comments that the “winds of fire have been fanned” and that many more citizens within the grass roots of America are finally taking notice of this issue. Of course this will not be decided in the court of public opinion. However, maybe with enough public outcry BHO WILL be forced to do something to dispell the rumors even if the SCOTUS does not. Time will tell.

  1860. @GeorgetownJD: Your thought about confirmation bias is funny and a good idea altogether. I think I might really do a general post on the topic and see where that takes us. We have been seeing it here and I see it all the time in psychological theorizing.

  1861. @Eddy
    Yes, it appears that the Chicago Tribune ran the ads. The Drudge Report also posted a story on Thursday. Both links are below:
    http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/
    scroll down about halfway and there are several related stories.
    The story that was posted on Drudge can be found here:
    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6145787.html
    The story is gaining momentum. However, Sean Hannity commented on the issue during his radio show this week. He said he is being inundated with emails asking why he is not making a big deal about the BHO B/C issue. He gave his honest opinion that he felt the story is not credible and does not have legs (my words not his), but this is the essence of what he said.
    …………………………………………………..
    GeorgetownJD: if the SCOTUS dismisses w/o comment, where does that leave us?

  1862. After Monday, whatever are we going to blog about? SCOTUS will have spoken by not entertaining these suits, so all we will have left to debate are the unproven allegations. How about a discussion of confirmation bias?

  1863. Gene,
    I said nothing about McCain’s defeat equalling the end of conservativism. I think ou are right about the old fossil. Conservative he ain’t.
    I am thinking more about the election of congress and governors. It is there that I see the end of conservativism.
    This election was not just for a president. It was for a whole different governing philosophy. Just look at what has happened. In traditionally “conservative” areas of the country, conservatives have been turned out of office, or held on by the narrowest of margins. This is not a fluke. It is a systematic rejection of the conservatism philosophy of governing.
    And conservatives can’t grasp that. Rather than realize that their ideas need to be updated to suit the ideas of the people, they are saying “we must go back to our principals”
    Huh? It is the principals that are the problem. The conservative philosophy of governing was tried and it didn’t work. Just look around. We have crumbling roads, a school system that is leaving our kids behind, a healthcare system that leaves 50 million uninsured, a banking system in collapse.
    The American people WANT government is step in and get involved in maintaining our infrastructure, provide healthcare for everyone, back the banks, upgrade our schools. Of course that means a larger role for government, increased taxes. But that trade off is perfectly acceptable to mainstream America.
    Reagan’s time is over. Even in his time conservatism did not work. The deficit ballooned to unheard of heights under his administration.
    Americans want a government that provides a safe environment for raising a family and stays out of our private business like sleeping partners.
    Conservatism is dying. There will still be a few around, but not enough to win big elections.
    The Obama programs of public works, healthcare reform, education reform will finish it off. Once those programs are in place, with millions of people working in them, and healthcare available to all who need it, there will be no going back.

  1864. FredVN–
    At least I think it was you. Did those open letters ever appear in the Chicago Tribune on Dec. 1 and Dec. 5? If so, can you link us? If not, do you have any background on what happened? LOL. I hope I have the dates right. We’re somewhere close to 500 comments on this post and I couldn’t locate the original comment re the open letter(s).

  1865. All–
    Don’t worry. I do NOT want to add to the heat on this blog by cheap and immature name-calling. My reference to ‘Rebuttlickin’ was only to demonstrate to Gene how easy it would be for all of us to play that game–and it simply does not contribute to productive conversation. Other blogsites might specialize in ‘flame wars’ but this one has a thousand post history of lively (and sometimes heated) debate that tries to stay above name-calling and generalizations.
    LOL. I’d like to say that we also try to stick to the topic but, historically, that has been a major source of weakness.
    Drumsalot–
    It took quite a bit of reserve on my part not to engage in ‘trash talk’ towards you last evening. When I exited the conversation at approx. 9PM (my time) on Thursday, you made some absurd reference to the fact that Robert and I ‘tucked tale (sic) and ran like a dog’. Quite amusing. I have a detail-oriented day job (quality assurance and proof-reading…hmmm…perhaps that explains my spelling obsession). Anyway, as much as I’d like to, I can’t stay up late to play blog games without compromising the quality of my work the next day.
    But I did promise to try to come back after work on Friday and you didn’t show! Hah! Too scared to show up for the rumble, eh? (Again, I don’t mean that seriously, it’s ‘trash talk’, it’s off the topic and it’s only purpose is to ‘get someone’s goat’. It’s another behavior that may be common on other blogsites but that we try to refrain from here.)
    I was puzzled though that you seemed to think I was avoiding a question of yours. What I remembered was that I had asked you two days in a row to back up your ‘fact’ that “millions” shared your concerns re this ‘natural born citizen’ issue. Your intro paragraph called it a ‘fact’ and your wrap up was a challenging ‘so what do you say to these facts‘. My response is that the ‘millions’ is not a fact and I’m asking you, for the third time, to back up your ‘facts’ or to admit that it was an overstatement.
    Back to ALL–
    The matter of the legitimacy of our President elect is a serious one and there are a number of confusing issues but we do not advance the dicussion by generalizations (all Democrats do thus and such, all Republicans are…). It doesn’t advance the discussion to presume the motives (of the President elect, of the media, of the current administration, of a particular party, or a commenter) unless we can bring hard evidence that supports that presumed motive. We’ve got enough to wade through with the actual facts that exist: when we move into ‘presumed motives’ it can only lead to more presumptions on both sides. The courts, God bless them, will not rule based on presumptions but will endeavor to rule based on facts.
    So far, the only argument I see that carries any weight is whether the British citizenship conferred on Obama by the fact of his father’s Kenyan citizenship is sufficient cause to disqualify him. I do find it strange that a father who abandoned his mother and never had anything to do with him could encumber him with such a ‘gift’. It is also my understanding that the US does not recognize ‘dual citizenship’. The only citizenship the US recognized throughout his life was the citizenship conferred on him by his Kansas born mother, by virtue of the fact that she was born here, that she returned here after her time away, and that she never renounced her US citizenship or sought citizenship status in another country. But, I concede that the courts might view that differently. I pray that the courts and the Electoral College will wade through that muck and reach a decision that is lawful and respectful of both the Constitution and these United States.

  1866. When does it stop being about you getting exactly the kind of healthcare you want, and about all children in this country getting adequate healthcare???

    Huh?

  1867. As to your second point, he should examine the first term of Clinton. Clinton was dogged by Whitewater, and half a dozen other accusations. Some of them had no truth at all to them and yet the Clinton’s closed style helped fuel the narratives. The conspiracy theorist, Hillary Clinton, did very little to dispell any of the furor by ignoring it.

    True enough Warren- and Bill Clinton cruised to a second term.

  1868. Robert,
    “LOL just think of the quality doctors you would attract if you knocked their salary in half!”
    When does it stop being about you getting exactly the kind of healthcare you want, and about all children in this country getting adequate healthcare???

  1869. Eddy,
    For all our differences – Rebuttlikians – LOL!!!!!! I guess if they can be grade-school we can too 🙂

  1870. Nationalized healthcare is coming. I bet it will happen his first term.

    I guess it depends on what you mean by “nationalized.” But if you think you are going to completely cut out the insurance, drug, and health care companies and make medicine non-profit, you are insane.
    LOL just think of the quality doctors you would attract if you knocked their salary in half!

  1871. Gene–
    Your emphasis on the Hussein is pointless and dull. Nobody likes to hear a joke a thousand times. This one is so old that even Obama himself used it and his use only reminds me how much more clever he is than you.
    He made a good point however…if his parents ever dreamed he’d have a chance to be President, they wouldn’t have given him the middle name ‘Hussein’.
    Oh, and there you are with Democruds again. Is that the best you Rebuttlickens can come up with? (Yes, I grew up on playgrounds too.)

  1872. Gene:

    If conservatism is ‘dead’ like you say, why in
    the world did conservative Saxby Chambliss,
    back by Sarah Palin, beat the crap out of his
    Democratic opponent, for whom Obama
    aired radio commercials? LOL!!!

    Yeah, Gene. Congratulations. A conservative incumbent won the state of Georgia in a run off election.
    Based on that fact, things are looking just roses for the GOP!! If that is the marker, the next GOP candidate won’t break 100 Electoral Votes!!

  1873. To clestes –
    Conservatism is dying? I doubt it very much.
    You think that because McCain lost (by only a
    few percentage points, BTW), conservatism
    lost. McCAIN IS NO CONSERVATIVE!!! Many
    of us conservatives in the GOP (i.e., REAL
    Americans) can’t stand him, and have never trusted
    him. He’s the media’s favorite Republican, which
    means he’s bad. But the choice between him and
    Hussein Osama was like choosing between a
    nasty cold and lung cancer.
    Chambliss’ win proves that Osamma has no coat tails
    whatsoever, while supposedly ‘dumb’ Palin drew huge
    crowds down there. And as I said, other Democruds (i.e., Barney
    Frank) are already turning on him. BTW, Berg is a Democrat
    himself.
    Trust me – you will see where this “change” you are all
    talking about will lead. Carter gave us Reagan. Clinton
    gave us the ’94 Congress. Barry HUSSEIN Osamma will
    give us both, and then some.

  1874. Warren–
    I am aware of your guidelines re civility, spelling and job info and was aware of them when I made my comments. My reasons are that c.j. entered this discussion with an “I ought to know, I work for the justice department” attitude. He/she was, in my opinion, trying to add weight to his/her argument by the job reference. c.j. went on to reveal that our current president had commissioned our Ambassador to Kenya to go there and search out the truth of Obama’s birth origins. This was in rebuttal to our argument that our current POTUS didn’t seem to be concerned about this serious threat to our Constitution. In effect, c,j. was using the fact that we can’t ask or dig about their job or their name to verify their argument. So I respected that.
    But I found it rather strange that, on the one hand, c.j. has been harping on the ‘liberal controlled media’–obviously the conservatives don’t have any on their team–and the squelching of this issue at all levels BUT THEN can toss out in a blog comment something as important as that the President has commissioned an Ambassador to check this out. I even expressed concerns for his/her job if he/she were discovered to be a whistle-blower.
    Stick with me here: So, we can’t question c.j.’s job level to verify this leak. But, such information would be at a higher level, don’t you agree? But c.j.’s general tone sounded ‘quite young and experienced’ to me and the spelling errors (I believe 6 in one post, 8 in another) were enough to convince me that if he/she really did work at the department of justice, it certainly could not be at a high level. So, based on the amount of errors, the ‘immature’ tone of the posts, coupled with the claim ‘I ought to know, I work for the justice department’, I felt (and still feel) it was fair game.
    All that said, it is your blog. I think you know me well enough by now to know that I do respect you and your blog guidelines. I apologize for playing around on the edges as I did but please believe that I did not do so out of disrespect for your code of conduct.
    c.j.–
    just to clarify. The misspelling you spotted in my post was the word ‘ignorant’ spelled with an ‘ent’ ending…I was quoting you when you were calling others ‘ignorent and brainless’. I ldidn’t correct the ‘e’ because I was quoting, it served my point and I already demonstrated in the previous paragraph that I knew how to spell it. Grammatically, though, I should have used (sic) behind it to emphasize that it was not my misspelling.

  1875. As for Mr. Obama’s cabinet picks, I think they are practical, realists and experienced.
    He is a smart, confident guy.
    So far I haven’t seen anything that leads me to think he can’t handle the job.

  1876. Well don’t worry about me.
    I am pretty comfortable with my beliefs and don’t really need any prayers.

  1877. I will pray for you Clestes. May God have mercy on you. I have to leave to spend time with my daugthers but will check in again when I have time.
    Have a nice evening.

  1878. FredVN,
    Nationalized healthcare is coming. I bet it will happen his first term. I guess you don’t realize it, but the majority of Americans think national healthcare is a good idea.
    See, you are out of touch. What the majority American people want, we get. That is why President elect Obama was elected. He said all along he was going to nationalize healthcare and people voted FOR him.

  1879. FredVN
    get a grip. This nation WAS NOT founded on a non-existent God. The people who have been close to destroying our country are folks like yourself that seem to forget that religion has NO PLACE in politics.
    Under shrub (bush jr) there were more assaults on the Bill of Rights and our civil liberties than under any other president. He disreguarded the Constitution, calling it “just a f*** piece of paper” you know.
    We dodged a bullet, a big one, when we elected president elect Obama. He will work to restore all the rights taken from us and work to ensure it does not happen again.
    If fossil John and his Constitutionally ignorant sidekick had been elected, our country would have been finished. They would have ensured that the job shrub started on shredding our individual rights would be finished.
    And no I don’t believe in a God and neither did Thomas Jefferson.

  1880. Clestes,
    Last year we had some visitors in our church from Canada who told me they have to come to the USA to get the proper medical attention they need. They said the nationalized health care system in Canada was awful. If they needed any major procedure they would have to get on a waiting list. Forget transplants, you would die waiting. Maybe our Canadian friends on this blog (if any) could weigh in about their experiences. Perhaps things have improved, but I doubt it. And with the economy in melt down as it is, I doubt Obama will be able to fund such a program. I am somewhat pleased that Obama has moved to the right on many of his cabinet appointments but I am not happy with his choice of Tom Dashle (not sure about spelling?)

  1881. Juan,
    I thought I was pretty clear. You commented that there must be some merit to the question of Mr. Obama’s b/c. I pointed out how foolish that assumption is.
    It is only a disgruntled losers who are trying to find some way to illegitimize the win.
    Since the election wasn’t close, this is the best they have.
    All these suits don’t mean a thing. That is why they have been tossed out of court. Once the Suptreme denies the writ, which they will, it is over.
    The judges will start fining people for wasting their time if they keep it up.
    Pretty funny.

  1882. Well gang…it’s off to work I go for the next feww nights. You folks have fun and I’ll try and catch up when I can.
    G’Night

  1883. Clestes,
    With all due respect, it is this sort of left wing narrow minded thinking that you appear to have bought into “hook line and sinker”. It is this type of thinking that is gradually destroying our great nation. The moral decay is sickening. If Conservatism is dead or dying as you suggest, then what’s next for the future of the USA, the equivilent of Sodom and Gomorrah???? Is that what you want, a nation totally devoid of God, a nation that may have to endure the wrath of God because it has totally lost it’s moral compass? The changes I have seen in my lifetime are disgusting to say the least. In my opinion (am I allowed to have an opinion Clestes) it is the result of all the Koolaid drinkers who want to remove Christianity from our society such as what this Governor in Washington State is doing by allowing atheists to openly attack a nativity scene. Then their spokesperson has an open forum to make disparaging remarks about Jesus. Obama says he is a Christian and that he has accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. I hope that’s true. But actions speak much louder than words. I don’t know any true Christians who openly support the killing of innocent unborn children. Obama’s record is very clear on this issue. If the Catholics had voted at the same %’s as the Evangelical’s in the Presidential election, we would all be debating whether John McCain is a legal citizen and quailified to be POTUS, not Obama. If Obama survives all of these legal challenges, he will be my President and I will pray for him and his family often. I already have. Do you know why; because I am an American first, and I want my President to be successful because I want my country to be sucessful. It is shameful how the left and the MSM has maliciously attacked George W, Bush. He has kept us safe for 7 years and I thank God for George W. Bush. The man said he reads his Bible every day as do I. Do you remember Clestes, the members of Congress singing “God Bless America” on the steps of the Capital a day or so after 9-11? Do you recall W’s 90% approval rating right after 9-11? America came together as never before. Churches were packed and over flowing. Conservatism was displayed in all it’s glory. No Clestes, Conservatism is not dead. It’s voice is just being drowned out by a few who shout as loud as then can until they get their way, like a bunch of spoiled teenagers. Do you go to church Clestes, do you read your Bible? Do you celebrate the true meaning of Christmas? Have you research how our founding Fathers were men of faith who looked to the Almighty for their wisdom and guidance? If that is what you want to destroy with the left wing agenda then God help us all because He will not remain silent forever. He has been gracious and merciful to our country but if we continue to turn away from Him, there will be hell pay, mark my word.
    I suspect this post will draw a lot of criticism, but that’s ok, bring it on!!

  1884. clestes,
    I was reading with great interest (although at times with a “OMG….is this what the libs really think like mindset) what you have written and was actually beginning to think maybe you had something on the ball as far as understanding of the situation goes…..then, you (as liberals typically do) blew yourself out of the water with this statement…………………………………

    When Obama and the democratic congress passes a univeral healthplan, which they will, it will be the final nail in the repulbican conservative coffin. Spouting about small government and private healthcare to a people who will be enjoying nationalized healthcare will make them seem more out of touch than ever.

    The bold entered herein for emphasis, told me all I needed to know about your thought process. THANK YOU for clearing that up for us so eloquently.
    My advise to you is to get out in the world more often. Ask a few who have suffered under a nationalized healthcare system and I think you will find their answers to the all glowing wonders of said system to be exactly 180 degrees different from your “enjoying” remarks!
    Again…thanks for clearing up your thought process for the rest of us. Given enough time, a liberal will always shoot themselves in the foot and reveal the real audacity of their mental process.
    ROFLMFAO

  1885. Interesting.
    I thought jurisdiction was the first test. If the court decides it has jurisdiction, it will then hear the case presented to it. The first rule of defense is to challenge the jurisdiction of the court. Obama has never challenged the jurisdiction of the court, and the courts have never indicated they do not have jurisdiction.
    If we listen to Jefferson:
    “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.’ …”
    —Thomas Jefferson (Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, 15 February 1791)
    and read the Constitution itself, why would Berg, as a member of the people, NOT have standing to pursue constitutional issues?
    There seems to be a disconnect here I must not understand.

  1886. HighlanderJuan !
    I meant to show less of what I did in my first post, my intent was to show what part I found most relevant as to why he does not just show the documentation and call it done:
    “Moreover, because a standing argument is – by law, required to be raised as the first responsive pleading to a case, in order to preserve the defense, an attorney who failed to do that would be, essentially, committing malpractice. (Of course, if for some reason, the plaintiff wanted to be sued, that’d be another story – but that’s .. uhm .. highly unusual. Here, had Obama ignored the standing issue in order to produce the certificate, he would have had to then respond to every other of Berg’s multifarious allegations. (To reiterate – he could not “ignore” standing as to COLB, but assert it as to other claims – either standing exists – or it doesn’t.)”

  1887. HighlanderJuan ~
    I am by no means a legal expert but my understanding is that any one of the electors would have legal standing as they are the ones that “truly” vote for him.

  1888. clestes ~ Dec 5, 2008 at 2:06 pm
    I have no idea what you are talking about, nor do I have any idea where you got your thought process.
    Have a nice day.

  1889. Jessica ~ Dec 5, 2008 at 1:59 pm
    Perhaps you can tell me who would have standing in a matter like this?

  1890. Don’t rip on c.j. for his spelling. I destroyed his credibility in one swoop and he can’t even muster a poorly spelled defense.
    Warren:
    “Some conspiracy minded people might keep the non-citizen narrative going if he allowed his original birth certificate to be examined by lawyers but most people who are now questioning would let it go. So I really don’t get the point of non-disclosure. It seems a win-win for Obama to disclose everything.”
    Relevant government agencies have every right by HRS 338-18 to verify it with HI. That’s why they are kooks to think Obama phonied up one. IF a kook lawsuit got to briefing then that’s all a judge would do and game over.

  1891. Gene,
    Ah, remember that this state, Georgia, was so close that it had to have a run off.
    I repeat, Georgia had to have a run off. That bigiot Chamberliss should have won the state outright and he didn’t. The fact that he had to win it in a run off is the biggest proof there is of how near death conservativism is!
    As I said, conservatism is dying. It will hang around for a while longer, rallying its smaller and smaller fans who will repeat the same old mantra of “small govn, low taxes, strong defense” which has been a total lie from the beginning. shout out the “remember the Gipper” phrase, which will only confuse the young voters as they have no idea who Gipper is referring to.
    When they find out, they will wonder what the hell that has to do with them and then vote democratic.
    When Obama and the democratic congress passes a univeral healthplan, which they will, it will be the final nail in the repulbican conservative coffin. Spouting about small government and private healthcare to a people who will be enjoying nationalized healthcare will make them seem more out of touch than ever.
    The repupblican party is going to have to do some fundamental changing to relate to the America of today and I don’t think they can do it. They are too stuck in the Reagan rut and are decades behind the times.

  1892. Oh come on Juan,
    Just because a bunch of loser have filed suits DOES NOT mean there is a thing to them. It only means this election was so lopsided that this is the only thing they can think of to bring some sense of illegitimacy to Obama huge win. After all, they can’t claim it was so close that a recount was needed. It’s like the internet add that says “Did Obama steal this election?”.
    When you read on, it complains about the amount of money he raised and then spent to win. I mean, what the f***?? He raised the money from millions and millions of doners, and don’t bother with the claim he took money from unsubstantiated doners please. Just how much money was that again?? All his records are public information and it is pretty obvious that most of his money came from common folk like me who donated $50.
    This whole Obama b/c is a bunch of nonsense and Berg knows it (he is only after getting his name in the history books, but will more likely end up in a Trival Pursuit game). As for the claim that he must have some legit reason, because he is spending money, he is now asking for money. He knows perfectly well that this is a lost fight.
    This is a typical ploy of the republican strategy, only it is not working this time. They make an unsubstantialed claim, then repeat it over and over. That sucks in a few lost souls who are looking for any excuse to try and derail their loss. All evidence is ignored, all laws are mis-interperated and the whole she-bang is given the look and feel of being more than the hoax it is.
    But hoax it is. And the Supreme Court will deny the writ. They will also deny all other claims as well. These suits have no merit. That is why they have been tossed out of lower courts.
    However, it is providing me with a lot of amusement!

  1893. http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/12/obama-birth-certificate-who-determines-presidential-constitutional-eligibility
    http://www.whatsyourevidence.com/
    This is why Obama does not “just show” what you are asking for:
    To reiterate – McCain was sued at least twice earlier this year on eligibility grounds. (Hollander and Robinson) In both cases, his first responsive pleading was to allege lack of standing.
    Was McCain hiding something? Was he hiding something in the case in which he did not produce his birth certificate? No.
    He (or his lawyer) was following the most basic of legal procedures – based on the fundamental Constitutional principle that a person must have standing to sue on a Constitutional issue.
    Second, the Berg Case (upon which most other cases are based to at least some extent) – did not involve a “simple and inexpensive request.” Indeed, Berg made crystal clear in multiple radio interviews that even if Obama produced the original birth certificate in court, with affidavit, he would not drop the case because there were so many other issues to be resolved (Indonesia, etc.).
    (Now – I’ve heard, from multiple people who have bought into this rumor – that “well, might not resolve it for Berg, but would resolve it for me,” … who then go on to raise multiple additional questions showing that .. it would resolve, at most, say # 49 on their 50-item lists of questions. It is disingenuous at best.
    Moreover, again, producing it in one case (with the required affidavit authenticating it) may well be relatively inexpensive, although not the $10 people generally mention. There is a cost to getting the affidavits – in drafting them (attorney time); in getting Hawaii official to sign (admin costs to be paid to state), etc.)
    Third, to say that filing a standard 12(b)(6) motion re: standing takes “great effort,” is to misunderstand some basic legal procedures. Most firms have standard templates for this, and the motion is very simple (and inexpensive) to draft.
    Moreover, because a standing argument is – by law, required to be raised as the first responsive pleading to a case, in order to preserve the defense, an attorney who failed to do that would be, essentially, committing malpractice. (Of course, if for some reason, the plaintiff wanted to be sued, that’d be another story – but that’s .. uhm .. highly unusual. Here, had Obama ignored the standing issue in order to produce the certificate, he would have had to then respond to every other of Berg’s multifarious allegations. (To reiterate – he could not “ignore” standing as to COLB, but assert it as to other claims – either standing exists – or it doesn’t.)

  1894. The Media are making a fuss because a Florida Republican
    Congresswoman hung on Barack HUSSEIN Osama, as
    she thought it was a crank call.
    Hell, I would hang up on the piece of garbage if I DID think
    it was him. I don’t recognize ‘presidents’ who are not eligible
    to serve under the Constitution.

  1895. Hey clestes –
    If conservatism is ‘dead’ like you say, why in
    the world did conservative Saxby Chambliss,
    back by Sarah Palin, beat the crap out of his
    Democratic opponent, for whom Obama
    aired radio commercials? LOL!!!

  1896. We can all go toe to toe, eyeball to eyeball, chest to chest, huffing and puffing, ranting and raving, stating our points and counterpoints, continuing this debate into infinity or until one of us will finally convinces all the others to see this issue the way that person sees it and is the only person left standing. It may be fun but it is really meaningless. Bottom line: what we all say to each other does not mean diddly squat. The only thing that really matters is what the SCOTUS or lower Courts finally decide. For the sake of our nation, I hope and pray that the courts decision is clear, concise and definitive so that we can put this matter to rest once and for all. Then we can all move on………………… to the next debate.
    May God bless America!!!

  1897. Dow down 159 points again. Can’t you just see how
    EXCITED the markets are about the upcoming
    Obama administration? We sure as hell can all do
    without this ‘prosperity’.
    Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton rolled into one.
    God, are we in for bad times.
    But I see that Barney Frank is already turning on
    Obama. Believe me, this is only the beginning.

  1898. Mary ~ Dec 5, 2008 at 11:36 am
    In the case of doctors, it is always wise to get a second opinion. But getting second opinions are optional.
    In Berg’s case, he has the Supreme Court that will offer the second opinion. It’s second opinion is mandatory. Aside from God, there is no court of appeal.
    We’re all human, and we all make mistakes. That doesn’t mean we should give up trying to do things the right way, it just suggests that we have a wonderful opportunity to learn from our mistakes.
    That’s what makes sages. Lots of mistakes, well learned from by the sage.

  1899. Just a thought ….
    That experience and that license says he is far more accomplished in these matters than either you or me, neither of which can practice before the Supreme Court.
    I may not be able to practice medicine either … but that does not mean I cannot question, doubt, or disagree with a medical doctor. Nor does it mean that said doctor is without error in all things medical.

  1900. So I really don’t get the point of non-disclosure. It seems a win-win for Obama to disclose everything.

    Herein lies the dilemma – if his eligibility is being questioned, just clear it up and put an end to any doubt. After all, his integrity and honesty are at stake and to have either doubted seems like it would be unacceptable to a man and a campaign that ran on the premise of “yes we can”.

  1901. clestes ~ Dec 5, 2008 at 10:35 am
    Sometimes it is uncomfortable for me to read your comments because you just don’t seem to be able to accommodate and deal what is being told to you.
    For example, you accuse Crazy Greek of ignoring the evidence, when you, yourself are doing the same thing.
    This whole Obama citizenship matter, and the 27 (or more) law suits around the country, would not be before the various courts if there was no substance to the claims. When lawyers file frivolous lawsuits they risk being sanctioned by the courts. That’s not fun for lawyers, so they try to be appropriate in their filings.
    In the specific case of Philip Berg, you may accuse Berg of being in Hillary’s camp politically, and you may think his case is frivolous, but he is an experienced attorney, licensed to practice before the Supreme Court. That experience and that license says he is far more accomplished in these matters than either you or me, neither of which can practice before the Supreme Court. It would seem reasonable for granting Berg as having a legal position that may prove to be valid.
    If Berg’s case, or any of the other tens of cases, are shown to be valid, and are not all dismissed through judicial misconduct, then you will have to acknowledge the court decisions. Like the rest of us, you may not like or agree with the results, but you will have to acknowledge them.
    For you and I, because we are not directly involved in these legal proceedings, we can discuss what we know, and learn from others, but have to settle for that until the courts make their respective rulings.
    Have a nice day.

  1902. Ahhhhh Warren,
    We must have been on the same wave length while posting there ole buddy.
    I guess it’s true what they say…..Great minds DO INDEED think alike!
    ROFLMFAO
    Sorry…couldn’t resist ;-)~~

  1903. clestes,
    Typical liberal answer? Like walking in lockstep now that your party has finally won something?
    You are entitled to you view and opinion, just as I am. Please don’t mistake your victory for conservative weakness. That is one sure fired way to ensure that your liberal agenda will not stand.
    This nation has been at odds (liberals and conservatives alike) for as long as it has been in existence. Do you really think that just because the liberals have finally elected a black man as President that something has really changed in this political dance?
    You seem to be missing the main issue here while you are having so much fun gloating over your recent victory. The issue that most of us are discussing here is the legitimacy of your candidate. The fact that you chose to blindly follow a man who no one (not even your own party) can properly vet is simply amazing.
    One thing, and one thing alone, stands out more than anything that has happened in this election or anything that has been said in this, or any other forum.
    Barack Obama’s silence speaks volumes!
    The fact that you choose to be one of the majority (this time around) that is perfectly happy and giddy while electing a person to run this country without caring enough to check him out also speaks volumes.
    Have a nice day in your giddydom. Either way, in a few days, or in 4 years, the entire world is going to find out just how good, or bad, Obama is as a leader.
    Again I’ll ask the question……should Obama fail in either of these time zones I just listed, are you going to be American enough (that’s someone who puts country ahead of anything else, in case you didn’t know) to come forward and say “we failed when we elected a person based solely on the color of his skin”……or are you going to be one of the blind liberal masses that will continue to gloat over the fact that you were able to shread a country apart simply to advance your liberal agenda?
    I strongly suspect that the later will be what is forthcoming.

  1904. @clestes: Gloating is unbecoming.
    While you assert conservatives have no grasp of reality, I propose you lack a good grasp of history. Conservative and liberal ideologies have waxed and waned throughout history. In this present moment, liberalism took the day. In time, the trend will likely move back the other way. Even Obama has already moved toward the center. But beyond him, his performance will be important to how quickly the shift takes place. In a way, this is a pointless position you defend. History does not support it and we can only speculate about the near future.

  1905. Crazy Greek
    As I said, you ignore all evidence that does not suit your rose colored view. The black vote was only a single part of the mosaic of people who voted for Obama. You are missing the white, hispanic, asian voters who along with the black populations chose our next president.
    What fun it is to watch you make complete fools of yourselves in your resounding rejection!
    Even with the crippled economy, this Christmas season is great!
    This whole b/c nonsense, the republican party meltdown, the fantastic conspiracy theories floated have all combined to make this the most entertaining election I have ever watch and I go back to Nixon!
    I thought the fun was over after Nov 4, but you republicans have managed to continue the political soap opera and will provide even more fodder for amusement in the coming year.
    I look forward to 2012 when you will lose even more seats because you still don’t have the slightest grasp of reality.

  1906. Robert,
    The Culture War ain’t over just yet, and the Libs ain’t won just yet either.
    “You’re never beaten until you admit it.”
    – General George S. Patton, Jr
    This Conservative will never admit defeat! So you’ll always have at least one opponent.

  1907. Eddy said,
    If millions were part of your cause, the media COULDN’T ignore them. I’m guessing you’ve got Thousands not Millions
    You seem not to know the vast power of our nation’s very liberal left leaning media! Oh, yes they can and are ignoring millions of American voices in order the sweep this mess under the carpet. People are not talking about it because the news has made no issue at all about it. So, if it is not on the TV, radio, and papers then most people have no mind to be concerned about it! All you hear, see, and read is about Obama’s good points not his faults and his next pick for a cabinet possession. The news outlets are using positive propaganda in favor of Obama!

  1908. @c.j. & Eddy:
    Eddy – If spelling bothers you, please find some other way to express it. I don’t know how old cj is but for younger people abbreviating words in texting and IMs and the like is standard internet practice. Making critical comments about work and jobs, etc is contrary to the posting guidelines.
    Let’s stay on track please.

  1909. Robert ~said,
    The culture war ended years ago, and liberals won.
    Not true at all Bob! If the culture war is over then why are the Liberal Gays protesting in the streets? Why, because the religious right won a great victory and the liberal Democrats can’t take the heat! The Republican Party lost the most one side presidential run ever but conservatism won a big victory. Remember you don’t have to be a Republican to be conservative! I know many people here in D.C. that are Democrats and are conservatives Where do you think the word “Moderate” comes from?
    Let us get back on track hear and start talking about Obama.

  1910. Eddy said,
    1. c.j.–
    Please, please, please…learn to spell or use spell check. I have a hard time taking you seriously when you talk like you’re educated but can’t even spell simple words. Yet that didn’t even stop you from trying to use big ones.
    It’s ‘disintegrating’ not ‘disinigrating’; it would be ‘here’ not ‘hear’; ‘faulty’ not ‘fualty’; ‘evidence’ not ‘evidance’; ‘Pseudo (meaning false) Science’ not ‘Suto Science’; ‘ignorant’ not ‘ignorent’; ‘impact’ not ‘inpact’ and ‘plight’ not ‘plite’. I see you abbreviate ‘intelligence’ to ‘intel’…at least you seem to realize that that word is a challenge.
    It was especially counter-productive when you accused people of ‘ignorent and brainless thinking’. I hope to God that you made up the part about working in the justice department. If your job involves a desk and a computer in any way, God help us all.
    Ok buddy, first of all I don’t have time to fart around cutting and pasting from MS Word to this thread! But if you find it so distracting I will do my best to not look so ignorant (a word you misspelled above) and uneducated before you. As far as my job with the Justice Dept. yes I do have a desk I tend to be at during certain parts of the day. Although, unlike this site I have Spell Check on my word doc. So, yes God has saved us all and a fact is that most of our leaders in the Capital don’t even write their own speeches, did you know that bud?

  1911. Robert said:

    The response of the Obama camp is exactly correct on this point: release nothing further. One- if they do, it will merely be called a fraud by “bloggers,” and Two- the ONLY people who care about this are the far right tin foil hatters. And why should he care what they think?

    Robert et al – Let’s keep the discussion civil. I am not picking out Robert on this point, just making a general statement.
    Now to Robert’s points. Some conspiracy minded people might keep the non-citizen narrative going if he allowed his original birth certificate to be examined by lawyers but most people who are now questioning would let it go. So I really don’t get the point of non-disclosure. It seems a win-win for Obama to disclose everything.
    As to your second point, he should examine the first term of Clinton. Clinton was dogged by Whitewater, and half a dozen other accusations. Some of them had no truth at all to them and yet the Clinton’s closed style helped fuel the narratives. The conspiracy theorist, Hillary Clinton, did very little to dispell any of the furor by ignoring it.

  1912. Drumsalot, drumsalot. You certainly are beginning to foam at the mouth a bit, aren’t you?

    Robert answer these questions you Non-Patriot:

    Drums- I needn’t answer question one from you. I have already provided you with the information you requested regarding your blathering “NOT ONE” expert fantasy.
    I needn’t spend time talking you down from your wild conspiracy theories that the state of HI is in on some grand plot to put a non natural born US citizen in office. That at the time the next POTUS was born, his parents had the foresight to place a birth announcement ad in case he ever ran for high office. That the Certificate of Live Birth is a clever forgery, so says a blogger.
    Tin Foil Hat stuff, Drums.
    The response of the Obama camp is exactly correct on this point: release nothing further. One- if they do, it will merely be called a fraud by “bloggers,” and Two- the ONLY people who care about this are the far right tin foil hatters. And why should he care what they think?

  1913. I think they both did the same earlier Chris.
    Unfortunately, I will probably be up until the wee hours of the morning.
    Have a good night folks!!

  1914. So, beings how eddy and robert cannot answer or argue my previous questions(they tucked tale and ran like my dog when it pees on my carpet) I will retire for the night..
    See you all tomorrow.
    Chris

  1915. Ok…maybe it’s MY turn to get “moderated” but I just gotta say this……….and right from the start, let me be very clear here……NOTHING I am about to say can be considered RACIAL by any stretch of ANYONE’s imagination….it’s simply FACT, bore out by the voter turnout of 2008.
    clestes wrote……and I have never read so much jibberish in my entire life…….

    Just because a few of you are still left does not change the fact that conservatism is dying. It was rejected by the American people in 2006 and even more so in 2008.

    I hate to be the one to inform you clestes, but the ONLY reason Obama won ANYTHING was simply because he is black and the black community turned out in droves to elect one of their own as President……….mostly for all the wrong reasons when you listen to the interviews with the Obama supporters (hell, half or them couldn’t even tell you who Obama’s running mate was)…the ONLY thing that interested them was the fact that he was black.
    Like I said…this is NOT a racist statement…it is simply FACT!!!!!
    I’ll tell you something else too………….had the Republicans run a different candidate (and I know of just the one I would have chosen to run), Obama would have been nothing but a “who the hell was that guy?” thought in ANYONE’s mind. Got any idea of the Republican candidate I am speaking of?
    Try this on for size…………………………………………………………
    J. C. WATTS – a BLACK man and former Republican Congressman from Oklahoma!
    That man has more integrity in his little toe than Obama can even begin to contemplate!
    Plain and simple…………………….the Republicans LOST simply because this election was a RACE issue……….PERIOD!
    Now, if sworn in, it’s up to Obama to “put up or shut up”…….personally, I don’t think he has the huevos for the job…but that’s just me.
    Here’s a nice little western parable for ya that I think fits this situation to a TEE!
    Cowboy is riding in the high country, just above the snow line when he encounters a rattlesnake. Drawing his pistol, he prepares to shoot this rattlesnake.
    The rattlesnake is near frozen to death, but has just enough energy to emplore the cowboy “Oh please Mr. Cowboy…don’t shoot me. I’m actually a charm snake and if you will just pick me up and take me below the snow line where it is warm, I’ll grant you any wish you want.”
    Cowboy figures, what the hell…nothing to loose here…so he picks up the rattlesnake, puts him in his saddlebags where it is nice and warm, and proceeds down the mountain out of the snow.
    Cowboy reaches the warmer areas of the mountain and reaches into the saddlebags to get the rattlesnake….which promptly BITES the cowboy on the hand and slithers to the ground.
    Cowboy says “What the hell…………..you BIT ME!!”
    Rattlesnake looks at the cowboy and says…….”Why are you so surprised? You know what I was when you picked me up!
    Therein lies your lesson for the night boys and girls!! 😉
    No need to thank me……….just get your check books ready!

  1916. Crazy Greek,
    I always apologize when I feel that i have been wrong or over reacted. I believe that is the American way.
    Warren responded to me and said that it was not personal or biased, that it was what i took as a program glitch. So i have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was telling me the truth.
    I will not apologize for any comment I have made before my questioning of why my comment was under moderation or for that very comment that I was defending 😉

  1917. Hey Drumsalot,
    One more thing………………………
    “NEVER APOLOGIZE…IT’S A SIGN OF WEAKNESS”
    Spoken by a TRUE AMERICAN……….John Wayne
    😉

  1918. Hey Drumsalot,
    Anytime I’m being considered for ‘moderation’, I just look at it as….Hummmm, I must be gettin someone’s attention!
    ROFLMFAO

  1919. To Warren ,Greek and others,
    I apologize for my blathering rampage.
    I just felt like I was being singled out by moderation.
    I understand now.
    Your Fellow American,
    Chris K

  1920. @Drumsalot: Ok, no problem – back on track. Ask Lynn David, sometimes the spam filter and mod filter just take a liking to someone in a funny sort of way.

  1921. @Drumsalot: You’re jumping to conclusions. There was no effort to halt your comments. For some reason the moderation filter didn’t let it through.

  1922. Drumsalot wrote:

    Post my comment if you are a Patriot of the constitution. I have not violated any rules more so than any post that you have allowed.

    Hey Dude…….chill a bit there will ya?
    This is something Warren does every so often it seems and I would venture to guess that it has probably happened to each of us at one time or other…I know it has to me.
    “Awaiting moderation” is something any good moderator would do from time to time just to keep HIS blog on the right track.
    I don’t think it’s any big deal…really. 😉

  1923. I’ll try it differently.
    Robert answer these questions:
    The constitution requires that the anyone that wants to become POTUS meets those three qualifications. That is FacT. You will argue this fact?
    The governmant is of the people for the people. This gives me the right to know without a doubt a candidate is eligible. You will argue this fact?
    obamas citizenship is in question and it is by the millions for which I have no need to prove. If one single man or woman wants proof, that is enough because the question is upheld by the qualifications set by the constitution. You will argue this fact?
    The Current POTUS is a citizen and if he wasn’t , there would have been the same uproar as we have now? Has anyone legally challenged the citizenship of Bush via the court system?
    Obama has not demonstrated to me that he is capable of the job for POTUS and is already letting down the Americans that voted for him and the Americans who did not vote for him by not putting this issue to rest.
    His campaign was based on rhetoric and rhetoric alone. He is already failing the american public for the change and hope he campaigned for. You will argue this? Where is the change ? where is the hope?
    What will he change?
    Will he change the “No Child Left Behind Act”? I hope not
    Will He change the Laws so that we can drill oil? I hope so but in his campaign he said he would “consider it”. Bush and mcCain were blatantly for oil drilling.
    Will he change homeland security? We haven’t been attacked on our soil for seven years. I hope he builds on the policy.
    Will he change infrastructure policies? If so, how will he change them?
    Will he pull the troops out of Iraq right away? LOL NO! He will NOT
    Will he change enforcement of the illegal alien problem that we have that is taking jobs from americans that WILL DO THE JOB? I hope he he takes a hard line…of course i doubt he will just like Bush didn’t.
    Will he change the policy to build a wall to protect our border with Mexico? If he does then he will either close down the effort to build the wall and allow illegal aliens by the millions to cross opur borders illegally or he will build it faster. He never said what he would do.
    Is he gonna raise taxes on the rich like he said he would do? LOL maybe 10 years from now.
    What do any of us have to hope for?
    This man is the best fake I have ever seen. He reminds me of the devil himself.
    Louis farakhan(not sure how to spell his name nor do i care) named him as the “Messiah”. Louis claimjed that the young will listen and that they are his tools. wow, scary for sure. The young may be smart but they are not wise.
    Deception is the mother of all evils.

  1924. Post my comment if you are a Patriot of the constitution. I have not violated any rules more so than any post that you have allowed.

  1925. Robert answer these questions you Non-Patriot:
    The constitution requires that the anyone that wants to become POTUS meets those three qualifications. That is FacT. You will argue this fact?
    The governmant is of the people for the people. This gives me the right to know without a doubt a candidate is eligible. You will argue this fact?
    obamas citizenship is in question and it is by the millions for which I have no need to prove. If one single man or woman wants proof, that is enough because the question is upheld by the qualifications set by the constitution. You will argue this fact?
    The Current POTUS is a citizen and if he wasn’t , there would have been the same uproar as we have now? Has anyone legally challenged the citizenship of Bush via the court system?
    Obama has not demonstrated to me that he is capable of the job for POTUS and is already letting down the Americans that voted for him and the Americans who did not vote for him by not putting this issue to rest.
    His campaign was based on rhetoric and rhetoric alone. He is already failing the american public for the change and hope he campaigned for. You will argue this? Where is the change ? where is the hope?
    What will he change?
    Will he change the “No Child Left Behind Act”? I hope not
    Will He change the Laws so that we can drill oil? I hope so but in his campaign he said he would “consider it”. Bush and mcCain were blatantly for oil drilling.
    Will he change homeland security? We haven’t been attacked on our soil for seven years. I hope he builds on the policy.
    Will he change infrastructure policies? If so, how will he change them?
    Will he pull the troops out of Iraq right away? LOL NO! He will NOT
    Will he change enforcement of the illegal alien problem that we have that is taking jobs from americans that WILL DO THE JOB? I hope he he takes a hard line…of course i doubt he will just like Bush didn’t.
    Will he change the policy to build a wall to protect our border with Mexico? If he does then he will either close down the effort to build the wall and allow illegal aliens by the millions to cross opur borders illegally or he will build it faster. He never said what he would do.
    Is he gonna raise taxes on the rich like he said he would do? LOL maybe 10 years from now.
    What do any of us have to hope for?
    This man is the best fake I have ever seen. He reminds me of the devil himself.
    Louis farakhan(not sure how to spell his name nor do i care) named him as the “Messiah”. Louis claimjed that the young will listen and that they are his tools. wow, scary for sure. The young may be smart but they are not wise.
    Deception is the mother of all evils.

  1926. I didn’t threaten civial war . I simply predicted it and claimed that i would support it in the event our unofficial Pres-elect becomes POTUUS w/o proprerly being vetted.
    Anyway, take your cause up with the courts and have me convicted of treason if you can!
    And yes, i will stand on the side that protects the constitution!
    iI will not recognize Obama as POTUS so long as he does not prove he meets all three requirements to be POTUS.
    Until then, he is nothing other than a Usurper to me.

  1927. Drumsalot! CONGRATULATIONS on giving up your argument that we couldn’t find experts to support our side! Remember that howler from you??? “NOT ONE!!!”
    So your little game is asked and answered.

    Robert accused me of treason when he himself is showing support for an unofficial pres-Elect who has not been peoperly vetted.

    Nope again. When you threatened civil war, I pointed out that that would be treason.
    Do you dispute me, or is this another point you will quietly watch fade away?

  1928. Clitus,
    Hogwash. You have no argument whatsoever.
    Eddy,
    You have done a good job at answering my previous questions. Hide yourself just like Obama is trying to do.

  1929. Just because a few of you are still left does not change the fact that conservatism is dying. It was rejected by the American people in 2006 and even more so in 2008. I listened to the conservative pundits afer the 2006 losses try to pass off the loss as a fluke, not to be repeated. I could not believe how out of touch the republicans were.
    Only the MN governor seemed to understand that the American people had rejected his party. He warned of furher losses and tried to get the republican leaders to see how far out of touch they had become.
    Now after the 2008 drubbing, conservatives are even more out of touch. One would think after 2 election cycle of losses they would try and look at their problems objectively, but not these elephants. Rejection only makes them cling to their ideals even harder.
    But that’s OK. Keep clinging to those ideals and stay out of power.
    What few of you are left will become less and less every passing election cycle. Republicans have lost the youth vote, the hispanic vote, the black vote, urban vote. In fact, they have only the southern white vote, a few western states (and less of those every cycle) and the over 65 (less of those every year too).
    Conservative power has peaked. There will always be a few of you around, but not enough to make a difference. America is moving forward while you all stay in the 1980’s.
    You still don’t understand the simple fact that Obama is a natural born citizen no matter what his dad was. His mother gave him that status upon his birth because she was one. It does not matter how long she lived here before giving birth. The fact that she was born here made her a US citizen. She could have been born here, stayed for 1 day and then been taken abroad and never returned. She would STILL be a US natural born citizen. That makes Obama one too.
    In your efforts to try to make the truth into what you want, instead of what it is, you ignore fact, ignore US law, ignore all evidence that does not fit your rose colored world.
    I will say one thing though. Listening to conservatives twist themselves into knots to try and explain their losses has been great fun!
    Keep it up folks!

  1930. Crazy Greek,
    one does not have to be a rocket scientist to conclude that there are many red flags disputing Obamas qualifictions to be POTUS. Only those who have voted on party and or race alone are those with their head in the sand.
    Robert accused me of treason when he himself is showing support for an unofficial pres-Elect who has not been peoperly vetted.
    The only treasonous acts are those who voted for a candidate that has not proven his qualifications.
    I say that you are “The Man” because you are the definition of a Patriot and are about the constitution and not about party or race. I could care less about party so long as they uphold the constitution. I always favor the republican Ideaology. However, I am always for the most qualified candidate in which this case is not Obama.

  1931. Drumsalot wrote:

    Crazy Greek,
    You are the man!

    Thanks a LOT…….I think!!
    ROFLMFAO
    Actually, truth be known, I am just a man who would like to see something truthful come out of Obama’s mouth…just ONCE!
    ONCE is all I’m asking….and I don’t think that’s too much to ask of one who seeks to be my country’s President.

  1932. Eddy wrote:

    Does this mean you’re willing to concede that he was born in Honolulu and we can stop this birth certificate madness? Or are you holding onto ‘reserve arguments’ just in case the first one doesn’t fly?

    Ahhhhh…nice try kemosabe, but NO CIGAR!
    I would think that my post would have shown beyond ANY doubt that I am not willing to “concede” ANYTHING………especially when it comes to a man that will change his stance on anything, in front of anyone, at a moments notice! I believe I stated quite strongly that I am not about to stand idly by and just take what Obama dishes out like so much salad as some of the people are. You want me to believe you, stop with the bullshit and get pointedly direct. SHOW me your “facts” and you would be amazed at just how fast you might win a convert. SHOW me you are full of BULLSHIT and that ain’t about to happen!
    Eddy wrote:

    I personally have trouble with the validity of this type of dual citizenship…simply conferred by virtue of his father’s nationality. Did Kenya view the infant Obama as a citizen? Did he experience any of the rights that go along with citizenship?

    Again Eddy…..this is the ENTIRE problem here….NO ONE KNOWS! Why don’t we know? Because Obama WILL NOT come forth and set the records straight! It’s really that simple.
    What could be easier. Obama goes national and says “Look folks, I know there have been a lot of questions regarding my past life, so here are the facts. Here is a document stating that I was born in ______________, signed by the delivering physician and witnesses to the birth. Here is a document stating that because my Mother was American, I am therefore considered an American citizen. (This, by the way, would be a document that Obama should have in his possession since it is the responsibility of the parents to register the newborn child, if born on other than United States soil, within a specified number of days.)
    Now we come to the “Obama’s father was Kenyan therefore he inherits his father’s ancestry” argument that you allude to. This little piece might just interest you…………………………………………………..
    “Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” This national law does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who do not owe allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.”
    Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
    So you see, this is not as “cut and dried” as a lot of folks (yourself included) would seem to want it to be. Herein lies the problem when dealing with the law and also the solution in so many cases when the judges make their rulings. Lawyers from both sides will site case law after case law to support their own sides views. It’s up to the judges to render their decisions after careful review of all things presented as to which is more relevant to the case before them.
    However, IF irrefutable evidence were to be presented by the party in question, it would make things so much easier to decide and all this would go away.
    Now….I wonder WHO could make THAT happen?
    Hummmm???????????????
    Eddy wrote:

    Why wasn’t the clause ‘except if the father’s country of origin automatically confers citizenship to newborns’ added as a disclaimer to the statements that addressed if one parent was a US citizen, the child is a natural born citizen?

    My question exactly..I refer you to one of my earlier post above…….

  1933. Eddy,
    The constitution requires that the anyone that wants to become POTUS meets those three qualifications. That is FacT. You will argue this fact?
    The governmant is of the people for the people. This gives me the right to know without a doubt a candidate is eligible. You will argue this fact?
    obamas citizenship is in question and it is by the millions for which I have no need to prove. If one single man or woman wants proof, that is enough because the question is upheld by the qualifications set by the constitution. You will argue this fact?
    The Current POTUS is a citizen and if he wasn’t , there would have been the same uproar as we have now? Has anyone legally challenged the citizenship of Bush via the court system?
    Obama has not demonstrated to me that he is capable of the job for POTUS and is already letting down the Americans that voted for him and the Americans who did not vote for him by not putting this issue to rest.
    His campaign was based on rhetoric and rhetoric alone. He is already failing the american public for the change and hope he campaigned for. You will argue this? Where is the change ? where is the hope?
    What will he change?
    Will he change the “No Child Left Behind Act”? I hope not
    Will He change the Laws so that we can drill oil? I hope so but in his campaign he said he would “consider it”. Bush and mcCain were blatantly for oil drilling.
    Will he change homeland security? We haven’t been attacked on our soil for seven years. I hope he builds on the policy.
    Will he change infrastructure policies? If so, how will he change them?
    Will he pull the troops out of Iraq right away? LOL NO! He will NOT
    Will he change enforcement of the illegal alien problem that we have that is taking jobs from americans that WILL DO THE JOB? I hope he he takes a hard line…of course i doubt he will just like Bush didn’t.
    Will he change the policy to build a wall to protect our border with Mexico? If he does then he will either close down the effort to build the wall and allow illegal aliens by the millions to cross opur borders illegally or he will build it faster. He never said what he would do.
    Is he gonna raise taxes on the rich like he said he would do? LOL maybe 10 years from now.
    What do any of us have to hope for?
    This man is the best fake I have ever seen. He reminds me of the devil himself.
    Louis farakhan(not sure how to spell his name nor do i care) named him as the “Messiah”. Louis claimjed that the young will listen and that they are his tools. wow, scary for sure. The young may be smart but they are not wise.
    Deception is the mother of all evils.

  1934. drumsalot–
    Your facts aren’t really facts they are arguments. If education isn’t a requirement for the job, what gives you the right to demand the information? Where is your ‘right to know’? He has demonstrated to millions of Americans that he is bright and capable enough for the job. The election is over. You’ve got no right to demand that information. (Just like we didn’t have it for the current POTUS.) You can ask those questions and make those insinuations during the race but, once the race has ended, you only get to ask them if you have evidence that he lied about them.
    Re your second fact. I asked yesterday and I’ll ask again today. Where are these ‘millions’ you speak of? Outside of these blogs, people are NOT discussing this much. If millions were part of your cause, the media COULDN’T ignore them. I’m guessing you’ve got Thousands not Millions. Please, since you declare it’s a fact, provide your link to the Millions.

  1935. Crazy Greek–
    Does this mean you’re willing to concede that he was born in Honolulu and we can stop this birth certificate madness? Or are you holding onto ‘reserve arguments’ just in case the first one doesn’t fly?
    I mean, if you really believe in the argument that it’s this dual citizenship issue as conferred on him by his father’s Kenyan citizenship, what does the birth certificate matter. There’s been NO question about his father’s country of origin. So, if that’s your case, that’s the one you ought to be standing on.
    I personally have trouble with the validity of this type of dual citizenship…simply conferred by virtue of his father’s nationality. Did Kenya view the infant Obama as a citizen? Did he experience any of the rights that go along with citizenship? Your thinking would rewrite the entire ‘natural born citizenship’ criteria that we’ve discussed here previously. Why wasn’t the clause ‘except if the father’s country of origin automatically confers citizenship to newborns’ added as a disclaimer to the statements that addressed if one parent was a US citizen, the child is a natural born citizen?

  1936. Eddy,
    That was not a cheap shot. Your attempts to defend Obama are failing miserably.
    He has not proven all three qualifications to be Pres.
    1) 35 years of age or older. Obvious
    2) To have lived in the USA for 14 years. No arguments
    3) To Be a Natural Born Citizen
    Facts:
    1)He does not have to have an education to be president. Why will he not release his educational records? He is the unofficial pres-elect and yet he will still not realease the records.
    2)Millions of Americans want professionals to examine the facts of his citizenship status and yet he is trying to hide the truth behind his lawyers. He is failing millions of americans as we speak.
    These two facts listed above are irrefutable until he decides to be forthecoming for the good of our nation that he and his wife claim to love.
    Another fact: Michelle Obama has just recently started to love her country when it looked like her husband might have a chance at winning the seat of POTUS by being elected by an ill informed public.
    These two facts

  1937. drumsalot–
    I’ve done a whole lot of refuting…in fact, I think it was c.j. who first suggested that I was overposting. Your cheap shot has been deflected.
    You may think it’s tacky that I’m challenging spelling but actually I ignore typos (slips of the fingers) and even overlook an occasional misspelling but when I see that many–in a post by someone suggesting that others are brainless–well, c’mon now….those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!

  1938. Eddy,
    Your attack on someone who is not spelling correctly in this disscussion tells me that you simply cannot refute the fact that Obama is hiding the truth.
    Robert,
    It is my opinion that the the RNC will not recognize Obama as the POTUS unless he is forthecoming and releases his long and short form COLB, His educational records(for which there is suspicion he recieved foriegn aid) to confirm the final qualification out of the 3 qualifications.
    I will not and cannot be held for treason by a usurper.
    I don”t want civil war. I don’t want riots in the streets. If either of the two happen, It is the fault of the DNC fir whom have not properly vetted their candidate. It will be the fault of the main stream media for whom ran such biased new coverage and did not responsibly raise valid issues. it will be the fault of every single American(And illegal alien) who voted for Barrack Hussein Obama. I will not call for civil war or try to start one. I will certainly folow the group that stands against the usurper.
    There are three simple qualifications to be POTUS.
    If we donot back up and enforce the three simple qualifications for pres, then the constitution is meaningless. With that in mind, yea, you can bet the nation will devide. When a nation devides, what do you have? Well, I guess we could have more than one scenario and one of them is civil unrest which can lead to civil war.
    Every day that passes w/o Obama coming clean and verifying his eligibility, makes me believe that he is a one man sleeper cell and that civil unrest is his objective.
    If Obama is the man that you speak so highly of and blindly defend, then why will he not put the issue to rest? What is he hiding? The truth will prevail and that is exactly what both Obama and his supporters are afraid of.

  1939. Eddy wrote:

    Crazy Greek–
    I found it. Getting good at googling.

    Wonderful Eddy…you saved me some time for sure!
    Now, in reading this, you can see exactly what I mean when I say how convoluted this whole mess is and how I feel it really needs to be heard by the Supreme Court (them being the final say in most cases) so that so sort of precedence can be established for a case such as this.
    This, I believe, is exactly the type of situation our founding fathers were so afraid of being able to happen and the reason they placed their restrictions on who could hold the office of POTUS. I feel they just didn’t go far enough and should have been a lot more specific with their definition of “natural born citizen’ since that obviously was very worrisome to them.
    They probably just never envisioned an America, which was fought so hard for and won with the blood of our forefathers, that would not be an America willing to ask the tough questions of it’s elected officials.
    Our freedom of speech and our ability to openly question those who would want to have the power over us is exactly what makes this country so great. To settle for anything less is to accept anarchy……..and ultimately DEFEAT!
    I served in the United States Navy for 7 years (all active duty) from 1965-72, ending up spending 3 yrs. 11 months and 18 days of my life in a war zone (4 tours) called Vietnam, fighting for my country because (1) my country told me to go and do my patriotic duty, (2) because I believed in the freedom this country afforded all who enter and wanted to see that freedom enjoyed by others in the world. I DID NOT spent that time out of my life to come back and let some guy bamboozle me into just going along with what he has to say without having the common sense to question him when something doesn’t seem right in what he is saying or doing, especially when he is wanting to be my “leader”!
    Even in the military, those of us who serve are SWORN to follow all LAWFUL orders…doesn’t mean follow ALL orders! (However, you had damned well better be right if you are going to question an order in the military…especially during time of war. 😉 )
    We currently have a person wanting to be President of the United States, which ultimately means that he also inherits the title of Commander In Chief of our military. I want to KNOW that this person is EXACTLY who he says he is before handing over that kind of power to him. In the end, it doesn’t really matter what color he is……..it just matters that he be HONEST with those he is sworn to lead.

  1940. LOL. I think I need a blog break. I’m having visions of the first Conservative Gay Marriage Bans Ballet. I don’t think it will ever challenge “Rent” in popularity but would still be fun to watch.

  1941. Oh if conservatism is dead then and lost on all fronts the explain how the Conservative Gay Marrage Bans passed in almost every state that had it on a ballet?

    I agree with you, cj, that conservatism is most definitely NOT dead- and look for a major rebound at the next midterm elections.
    That said (and as a social liberal, I get nothing but glee from this)- your example of gay marriage is awful, at least as a show of the strength of conservatism.
    Think about it: Ten, twenty, thirty years ago whoever would have thought that Gay Marriage would even need to be on the ballot in states?? And “civil unions” are now recognized by private companies and municipalities across the nation (ie same sex partner benefits).
    So- while you are certainly absolutely correct that conservatism will make a comeback in the polls, the line in the sand that you draw will continue to move further and further back. Yesterday, gay relations were against the law and conservatives lost that battle. Today, you fight the official recognition of those relations.
    The culture war ended years ago, and liberals won.

  1942. Crazy Greek–
    I found it. Getting good at googling. Not so great at linking.
    Smears had a link to FactCheck and FactCheck said this:

    “When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
    Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”

    The conclusion of the Obama bashers was:

    That is a direct admission Barack Obama was a British citizen “at birth”.

  1943. Eddy wrote:

    I couldn’t find the reference to Obama’s supposed British Citizenship over at Fight the Smears. There are a lot of smears…can you funnel us in the right direction, thanks!

    It’s probably been removed from the “Fight The Smears” page Eddy. Let me look around and see if I can find reference to it anywhere else. I know at the time I went and took a look at it, whoever it was that had pointed it out stated “Better go look now before it’s removed!” Looks like that’s probably what happened…LOL

  1944. Gene–
    I’ve read nothing that suggests that Obama requested the records clerk to speak out re his birth certificate. Please link to your source that she did this at his request.
    Crazy Greek–
    Loved that image of your wife having a few issues with your online time. LOL!
    I couldn’t find the reference to Obama’s supposed British Citizenship over at Fight the Smears. There are a lot of smears…can you funnel us in the right direction, thanks!
    c.j.–
    Please, please, please…learn to spell or use spell check. I have a hard time taking you seriously when you talk like you’re educated but can’t even spell simple words. Yet that didn’t even stop you from trying to use big ones.
    It’s ‘disintegrating’ not ‘disinigrating’; it would be ‘here’ not ‘hear’; ‘faulty’ not ‘fualty’; ‘evidence’ not ‘evidance’; ‘Pseudo (meaning false) Science’ not ‘Suto Science’; ‘ignorant’ not ‘ignorent’; ‘impact’ not ‘inpact’ and ‘plight’ not ‘plite’. I see you abbreviate ‘intelligence’ to ‘intel’…at least you seem to realize that that word is a challenge.
    It was especially counter-productive when you accused people of ‘ignorent and brainless thinking’. I hope to God that you made up the part about working in the justice department. If your job involves a desk and a computer in any way, God help us all.

  1945. Welcome back c.j. I called you a liar. Prove me wrong instead of running away.
    “I heard from a friend that on either Nov. 19 or 20 U.S. Supreme Court Cheif Justice Thomas put a “Stay” or halt on the Electoral College from voting until Obama provides all his history including his Long copy b-cert. I looked into this and he is right on the money.”
    1 Justice can stay the EC and you have evidence he actually did it! Share with us oh great insider.

  1946. c.j. and Crazy Greek: Thanks for responding to clestes. You saved me a lot of typing. I appreciate and agree with everything you said to defend Conservatism. The following response by Crazy Greek was a classic!!!!!

    About the only thing I can find to agree with in your diatribe is that it is indeed a fact…Reagan is indeed dead! !

    clestes: did you see the video on Youtube regarding why Obama won the election?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8
    Please check it out.
    Conservatism isn’t dead, it has just been temporarily replaced due to people who voted who are ignorant of the facts. Why are they ignorant???? Because the MSM did not do their job.

  1947. Clitus Said,
    2 foreign wars, disinigrating environment
    Lets see, Would you rather have the war hear in the USA or over there?
    Bush and his admin. have kept this country free from attack for 7 Years, bringing the fight to them instead of sitting back and doing nothing. Remember your history the Dems in Congress voted for the war which by the Constitution is a Declaration of War. Bush’s so called fualty intel. was given to him by Clinton in 2000. Clintons outgoing Admin. confided that the evidance of WMD’s was there and a real problem. Hillary even spoke of the intel. to be true and we needed military action if the U.N. could not do anything.
    As far as the Suto-Science of Globle Warming blaming Bush is just plain ignorent and brainless thinking. Our inpact on this planet has be going on long before Pres. Bush was born! The U.S. can not be totally blamed for the Earth’s plite. I beleive it was the Libs in the late 60’s and 70’s that had us worried that a new Ice Age was going to happen, now it’s the Earth is going to burn from warming, just more B.S. by the Left Wing propaganda machine!

  1948. Well…I’ll be danged…all ya gotta do is copy and paste the link in here and it shows it as a link……………..AMAZING…..and all the while I thought you had to clink on the ‘link’ button at the top.
    Hey….even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile! 😉

  1949. Sorry folks…been out of town all day and am now just reading through and trying to catch up a bit here, so I’ll try and answer each in order………………………..
    clestes wrote:

    Conservatism has proven to be a disaster on all fronts. It has saddles us with a 9 trillion dollar debt, a financial meltdown, 2 foreign wars, disinigrating environment.

    You might want to check your fact on that one. Need I remind anyone that is was the DEMOCRATS that were in charge of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the little disaster that started everything? Need I reminded anyone that it was Maxine Water – D who said in front of Congress, with the whole world listening “There isn’t a problem with Freddie Mac…and especially Fannie Mae…blah, blah, blah”…lying through her teeth the whole time! Need I remind anyone that it was none other than BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA who was the #2 man at the money trough of Fannie Mae? Need I remind anyone that it was Raines – D that sucked over $90 MILLION dollars off Fannie Mae and placed that money into his OWN BANK ACCOUNT before being asked to step down as the overseer of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac?
    About the only thing I can find to agree with in your diatribe is that it is indeed a fact…Reagan is indeed dead! If you still think Conservatism is dead, I must point you to the latest Georgia elections!
    Yep…sounds like the Conservatives were most definitely the ones to blame for all this CRAP!
    Let’s wait and see regarding what “foolish claims” Conservatives continue to make in the future, shall we? All we are asking for right now is that Mr. Obama simply show UNDENIABLE evidence that he is indeed a ‘natural born citizen’, as mandated by the United States Constitution.
    You folks DO remember that little document, right?
    cleste wrote:

    you do not need to be born in the US to be a natural born citizen. All you need is to have 1 parent born here.
    President elect Obama’s mother was born in KS. That makes him a US natural born citizen. Are you trying to say his mother was born outside the US?

    Partly true…….read this…………………………..
    Barack Obama’s official web site, Fight The Smears, admits he was a British Citizen at birth.
    Since a ‘natural born citizen’ can be said to NEVER have had allegiance to ANY government other than the United States, this outta tell ya that Mr. Obama MAY be a naturalized citizen but could NEVER BE CONSIDERED to be a ‘natural born citizen’.
    In other words, should Obama produce an original birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii, it will not change the fact that Obama was a BRITISH CITIZEN “at birth”.
    Let me just insert a little personal knowledge here on this matter. While serving in the Navy, I had a Chief Petty Officer that had a brother, both of whom were born in the United States to American parents. This man’s brother carried a GREEN CARD, because he was considered to be an ALIEN. Why? Because when he had gotten out of the military, he decided that he wanted to travel and in doing so went to France. Being an adventurous soul, while there he joined the French Foreign Legion., not realizing that in doing so he was effectively giving up his American citizenship!
    It is a LOT easier than most people realize to unwittingly LOOSE ones American citizenship…and once lost, that person can NEVER be considered a ‘natural born citizen’ EVER AGAIN!
    The laws have recently become more lax in this however, people going through naturalization are required to state under oath that they are renouncing their old citizenship……..something else as yet not proven in Obama’s case.
    Now, to further muddy the waters a bit…and this is key as to WHY this needs to be addressed by the highest court so that legality can be established. We currently have two conflicting policies…………………………..
    1. For children born abroad since 14 November 1986 to a married couple consisting of one US citizen and one non-citizen, the American parent must have been “physically present” in the US for a total of at least five years prior to the birth of the child. Further, at least two years out of this five-year period must have been after the parent reached age 14 (e.g., no good if you lived in the US from birth till age five, then left the country never to return). From 24 December 1952 to 14 November 1986, the minimum requirement was ten years (five years of which had to have been after the parent’s 14th birthday).
    Reading the bold emphasis here, it would seem that Obama could NOT claim American citizenship..however, read on……………..
    2. Different rules apply to a child born out of wedlock outside the US. If the mother of an “illegitimate” child is a US citizen, her foreign-born child is a US citizen by birth if she had ever spent at least one year’s worth of continuous literal, physical presence in the US.
    Reading the bold emphasis here, it would seem that Obama could be considered a ‘nautral born citizen’……correct?
    These two points taken from the following link:

    This is, in my opinion, the reason this needs to be addressed by the Supreme Court.
    I will answer more later tonight folks…right now other issue are pressing at home….like MY WIFE looking at me with KNIVES in her eyes!
    Gotta scoot before a REAL CRIME is committed……………………….Later! 😉

  1950. clestes said,
    You are part of a small minority that still believes that conservatism is the right path for our country. Conservatism has proven to be a disaster on all fronts. It has saddles us with a 9 trillion dollar debt, a financial meltdown, 2 foreign wars, disinigrating environment.
    WOW! WOW!
    Hey, ummmmmm……. you must be the DNC’s poster child because the above is nothing more than pure Left wing trash! We say, you have no mind of your own, just can’t think for yourself can you? Same crap that has been the Dems Bush Bashing stuff since you guys lost the 2000 election! GET OVER IT CLITUS!
    This room is full of both left and right wingers and independents. You have come to the wrong shop for Bush Banging!
    Oh if conservatism is dead then and lost on all fronts the explain how the Conservative Gay Marrage Bans passed in almost every state that had it on a ballet?
    If conservatism is dead, then why did GA just elecy a republican to the Senate?
    If conservatism is dead, then why are there more listeners to Caonserv. Talk Radio now then before the election?
    Think for yourself before writing the same trash that is spoken by all the DNC, in short be yourself!

  1951. As for living in a nightmare, that is exactly what we have been doing for the last 3 months and it doesn’t have anything to do with Obama!
    You are part of a small minority that still believes that conservatism is the right path for our country. Conservatism has proven to be a disaster on all fronts. It has saddles us with a 9 trillion dollar debt, a financial meltdown, 2 foreign wars, disinigrating environment.
    Conservatism is dead, Reagan is dead, and if the republicans continue to cling to this spectacular proven failure of an idea, they will never be in power again. America rejected conservatism on Nov 4th, rather forcefully too, and we continue to become more diverse, more open-minded, more liberal every year.
    You may not be able to accept that fact, but it is true. Mr. Obama will become president on Jan 20.
    What is funny is that you will benefit from his time in office, like the rest of us who supported him, but you will still make foolish claims which will probably go into a future Trivial Pursuit game!
    LOL!

  1952. Gene,
    you do not need to be born in the US to be a natural born citizen. All you need is to have 1 parent born here.
    President elect Obama’s mother was born in KS. That makes him a US natural born citizen. Are you trying to say his mother was born outside the US?

  1953. Gene said,
    Obama apparently loves his country as much as
    any man who refuses to salute its flag can be
    expected to love it.
    We are in for a real nightmare.
    I totally agree with you. Think about it, if the POTUS does not pledge to the flag or salute it then main opinion is going to swing in his lead. If Obama doesn’t have to follow the rule of law, i.e. the Constitution then why should the rest of the country. Thus is the beginning of lawless civil disorder and revolution. Remember in several speeches Obama made referance and even spoke of revolution is coming. Sounds like Castro and look at Cuba now, poor and under military rule!

  1954. The enclosed link to a U-Tube clip makes a strong argument that the “live birth” document used to prove Barack Obama’s eligibility to be a candidate for President of The United States is a forgery.
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82503
    This is getting puzzling too say the least. The Dems say he Obama is good to go and the GOP says hell no! I hope the U.S. Supreme Court makes this case Top Priority!

  1955. Obama apparently loves his country as much as
    any man who refuses to salute its flag can be
    expected to love it.
    We are in for a real nightmare.

  1956. OK, Rich and Warren, I apologize. I promise not to call
    anyone an ‘idiot’. But I am asking you, Rich, to please
    not treat ME like one. Please just answer my question as to
    why Obama has some Hawaiian government bureaucrat tell
    us that the she’s ‘ seen’ the birth certificate, rather just show
    it to us all and end this controversy.

  1957. Dr. Collens you wrote,
    The national press and there vast support for the Left never asked these questions when they had the chance and for the simple fact because they did not want to mudsling at B.O. or Hillary! At some point B.O. will have to answer the questions at hand, either before or after he gets into office.
    I have to agree with you on that one sir. Even the Right leaning Fox News at times leaned Left to kiss the cheeks of Obama or B.O. as you put it. Fox did not want the “Race Factor” tagging their butts!
    You also wrote,
    Yes, B.O. really stinks (excuse the pun).
    That is quite funny and I got a kick out of it. I wounder if that will become a good short for his name, B.O., only time will tell,

  1958. sorry bad on the spelling LOL for got spell check! Even us college teachers make mistakes and that’s what makes us human!

  1959. Crazy-Greek and Robert, you both sound like two lawers battling it out before the court. LOL, makes me feel at home. Greek your facts all real and inportant and I commend you on addressing the real issues at had. I also commend you for standing tall about your feelings about Obama, it just shows that Robert supports him and is his defender. Robert your views of Greek are blured by your love for the “B.O. Factor” and all you seem to see is Greek attacking B.O. as if he was attacking a family member of yours. Yes, B.O. really stinks (excuse the pun) in his lies and failed promises. He told votes two years ago that he had no interest in running for the POTUS, so what changed his mind, his wife, DNC, gain of power, special interest groups,or some outside party? That right there is a mystory that has no clear answer either! B.O. has many questions that should have been answered during his run for office not after the vote! The national press and there vast support for the Left never asked these questions when they had the chance and for the simple fact because they did not want to mudsling at B.O. or Hillary! At some point B.O. will have to answer the questions at hand, either before or after he gets into office.

  1960. Ah, I see Crazy. So it IS a a vast conspiracy preventing you from finding out about Obama’s birth. Even HI state officials are involved.
    Not to mention some “person,” whose name you can’t recall, (and who has been ignored by the media (whoops, of course! The media is in on the conspiracy. My bad.), claims he made the birth certificate up.
    Never mind that such a document was good enough to get Obama a US Passport.
    And – don’t forget- there is also the matter of the sneaky (but now dead) parents of Barack Obama, placing that birth announcement in the Honolulu newspaper. I know, I know- they are his parents. OF COURSE they were part of the conspiracy to deceive America decades later.
    And you have to wonder why those HI hospitals you note would not come forward and verify that Obama was NOT born there- you know, just to clear the air. No doubt they have been contacted by the DNC and have received a huge pay off for their silence…
    Yeah, you’re right Crazy. This just ISN’T Tin Foil Hat stuff. Not at all…
    All of this would be funny if it wasn’t really misleading so many sheep.

  1961. Good luck, clestes–
    I’ve brought that point up about a dozen times and they continue to skate right around it. LOL.

  1962. Crazy Greek,
    Once again, it does not matter where he was born. Try reading the US Constitution’s definition of “natural born citizen”. His mother was born in KS and that fact alone gives him the status of “natural born citizen”.
    As to your other complaints, they are moot. The election is over and 68 million people voted for Obama, giving him a resounding victory. On Dec 15 the majority of theelectorial college will vote for him and he will be sworn him Jan 20, 2009 as our 44th president.

  1963. Robert wrote:

    But the questions you have about Obama’s ELIGIBILITY (i.e. citizenship) I think are more rooted in that dislike than in real questions about his birth place. At least in my opinion.

    Ahhh, but Robert, that is one of my key issues with Obama. I, like many others, DO have questions regarding his birth place? Why? Because NOTHING has been proven, either for OR against, Obama having been born in Hawaii, or Kenya for that matter. As I have said before, there is only ONE person who can do that…Obama himself…and I haven’t seen him trottin forth with any undeniable evidence as of this date.
    The COLB that he posted on his website is nothing but toilet paper. A person has already come forth (forgive me..can’t remember his name right now) stating that he is the one that made the damn thing up, using different programs on a computer to generate said document. It has been said to be a forgery by more than one supposed expert. This is the reason I keep saying that Obama should just hand it over to a known expert agency of the United States government……NOT some Internet supposed guru…for verification.
    I know..I know…..now you are going to say “But the lady in Hawaii in charge of these records (can’t remember her name either..think old age is catchin up with me) has stated that she has seen said document and it is original. Ok……..let’s see it then! Have you, or ANYONE, seen this document she CLAIMS is Obama’s original birth certificate. I DON’T THINK SO! Also, add this little item to her statement……….she said that she has seen and verified that Obama’s original birth certificate is there in Hawaii and on file……..but……she did NOT say that said certificate states that Hawaii is the birth place of Obama……..DID SHE?
    Also……another item for thought for you that just want to give Obama a free pass on this issue…….NOT ONE………EITHER ONE……of the two hospitals in Hawaii that have been sited (one by Obama and the other by his sister) as being the birth place of Obama has come forth with records to support the fact that Obama’s mother was ever a patient in labor in either hospital. Why is that? You would think that therein would lie the PROOF that Obama was indeed BORN IN HAWAII….wouldn’t you? Yet….NOTHING…and that is typical Obama smoke and mirrors!
    Until Obama can answer all these unanswered questions, I’m not about to give him, or ANYONE ELSE that would have similar backgrounds, a free pass to the Presidency of the United States!
    As far as all the court rulings, I’m thinking that the courts have been neutered and don’t have the huevos to rule on this, knowing the repercussions that could arrise if Obama were to be found ineligible!
    We will see by January 20…won’t we? I, like many others, would HOPE that Obama was indeed capable of proving his eligibility and then we could move on. However, at this point in time in history, there has NEVER been this many questions regarding the background of a man elected as President…or even one who was just running for office. Again……Obama could end it all, IF he wanted to! Each day he chooses not to is just another example of his arrogance and shows just how much he does not care for the country he claims to love so much…..well, at least according to his wife Michelle. But then again, she was never proud of this country in the first place…was she? 😉

  1964. What is it you people don’t understand about the fact that it does NOT matter where our soon to be sworn in president was born??
    under the current definition of “natural born citizen” in US law, Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen because his mother was. She was born in KS and gave him citizenship upon his birth.
    He could have been born on Mars and STILL WOULD BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
    58 days and counting.

  1965. WRONG again Robert. My dislike for Obama has absolutely NOTHING to do with “the man” but rather are based in reality…something you yourself even address in your very next paragraph……

    You misunderstand. Your “dislike for Obama” is clearly rooted in real issues (those you mention later in your post). But the questions you have about Obama’s ELIGIBILITY (i.e. citizenship) I think are more rooted in that dislike than in real questions about his birth place. At least in my opinion.

    Unless of course, you were talking tongue in cheek and meaning that these FACTS are not relevant. If THAT is your stance, I have to seriously question your definition of “relevance”!

    Not tongue in cheek in the least. Real issues are real issues. Experience, associations, etc. ARE real issues.
    Obama’s citizenship is not one of them.

  1966. Robert wrote:

    Thanks for the honesty, Greek. It clearly shows that any questions you have regarding Obama’s eligibility are rooted in your dislike for him, rather than in reality.

    WRONG again Robert. My dislike for Obama has absolutely NOTHING to do with “the man” but rather are based in reality…something you yourself even address in your very next paragraph……
    Robert wrote:

    And the issues you raise (his associations and experience) are real and valid issues, to be taken seriously and considered with all other relevant facts.

    Unless of course, you were talking tongue in cheek and meaning that these FACTS are not relevant. If THAT is your stance, I have to seriously question your definition of “relevance”!
    Robert wrote:

    Which the electorate did on November 4th. And elected Barack Hussein Obama the nation’s 44th President.

    Of which I am sure, you are one. Ain’t nothing wrong with that. You had a choice to make (albeit not much of one this time around) just like the rest of us. Can’t fault you for that.

  1967. Thanks for the honesty, Greek. It clearly shows that any questions you have regarding Obama’s eligibility are rooted in your dislike for him, rather than in reality.
    And the issues you raise (his associations and experience) are real and valid issues, to be taken seriously and considered with all other relevant facts.
    Which the electorate did on November 4th. And elected Barack Hussein Obama the nation’s 44th President.

  1968. Let me say this regarding Obama and then I’ll shut up and watch to see what the results are.
    First, I don’t like who Obama chooses to pal around with. If any of us were to put those peoples names on a resume and go try to apply for a job, what do you think the chances of any one of us getting hired would be?
    Be honest in you answer please.
    Also, think about this………if we were to tender that resume to the FBI, CIA or Homeland Security in hopes of getting hired, do you really think any of us would have a chance at getting one of those jobs? Why not try it…I understand that the CIA is actively seeking new employees.
    You KNOW you wouldn’t stand a chance of getting hired by any of them OR any local law enforcement agency you can name. Not with THOSE names on your resume……well, maybe Chicago. 😉
    Second……Obama LIES…period! He’s done it time and time again. Started off with “I won’t take any money for any outside people…blah, blah, blah”. That one didn’t take long to bite the dust. Then, when he’s challenged to submit proof of where all his money came from during the campaign….he doesn’t! Surprise, Surprise, Surprise!
    Third………..Obama LIES…again! He PROMISED his voters that if you vote for me I am going to bring change to Washington…….get rid of the old school politicians and have fresh faces in my administration…blah, blah, blah. Again, didn’t take very long for that one to bite the dust either! He has more OLD FACES in his administration now than there have ever been! Oh yeah..I forgot….”You didn’t expect me to start with NO “experienced people” in my administration, did you?”
    Fourth…….Obama promised that the first thing he would do would be to get rid of the Bush “tax cuts” and really nail it to the rich. Again, another “promise” bites the dust! He ain’t gonna do it folks!! Also, now he is backtracking (the one thing he is good at) on his promise of getting money to the “poor folk”. He even stated, “Well I hope they don’t think it’s going to happen in the first year. This may take 10 YEARS before we see any results!” Hope there ain’t a lot of you out there waitin for that check………cause IT AIN’T COMING!
    Now, having said that, let me say this……………………………IF Obama is sworn in as the 44th President of the United States on January 20, 2009 and takes office, I will be watching just to see what else he lies about (cause I know he will) and the manner in which he represents the United States to the rest of the world.
    I think I am fairly safe in saying this…………………Obama does not have the experience to be President. 142 days in the United States Senate does not qualify anyone for that job. He damned sure did not get elected on his “leadership qualities” because he doesn’t possess any. (Please……..do not come at me on this one with your excuses……….leadership qualities and BULLSHIT qualities are two totally different things!)
    Also, as the leader of this nation Obama will be expected to represent the United States in talks with leaders of other nations. Now this is just my own personal view of the situation, but I believe that DURING the campaign, the leaders of nations like Iran and the rest of the Middle East, along with the leaders of Russia, where just lickin their chops thinking of Obama getting elected President. Now that Obama has actually been elected, they are more than likely SALIVATING AT THE MOUTH!
    We shall see…time will tell. Make a deal with ya…..I’ll be one of the first to say I was wrong if Obama turns out to be a good President. Any of you Obama supporters gonna be willing to say that you will be one of the first to say you were wrong if he doesn’t?
    I really don’t think I made too bad a deal on this one either…but like I said…time will tell.
    As for the nation resorting to “civil war” over Obama as President…….I don’t think so. There will probably be a few “skirmishes” (for lack of a better word), but (and you can mark my words on this one)NOTHING compared to the “civil unrest” we will see in the streets IF Obama is found to be unqualified to be President of the Untied States!
    Like I said…it’s gonna be an interesting couple of weeks for sure!

  1969. Drumsalot.

    World Net daily? I read the article and it is relying on the verification that factcheck.org gave to it’s authenticity.

    Are you dishonest or a poor reader? From the WMD Article:
    A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic.
    So unless the words “separate” and “also” have different meanings where you come from, I think you are barking up the wrong tree.
    So there you have it- you asked for experts that debunked, and it has been provided.

    If he will not willingly do so via a team of professional forensic scientists, and he makes it into office, prepare for civil war bro.

    ROTFLMAO!!!! It sure will be a short civil war!! And don’t forget the penalty for your treason, “bro”

  1970. drumsalot–
    You said:

    If He doesn’t resolve this issue so that there is NO DOUBT of his legitimacy to be pres and becomes pres…

    I hope we can make that ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. I think we can agree that some will continue to doubt regardless of what proof is offered. Once seeds of doubt are planted, some, like weeds, will sprout even under the driest conditions.

  1971. World Net daily? I read the article and it is relying on the verification that factcheck.org gave to it’s authenticity. Those people are no more qualified than myself to verify it. Hogwash man.
    What is totally irrefutable is the fact that Obama is hiding his short and long form COLB from the experts who wish to analyze it for truth and authenticity.
    Let obama pick his experts and they can get together with bergs experts and then this can be put to rest.
    Anyway, there is no use trying to convince an Ostrich that the sun is shining while his/her head is in the sand so I’ll leave things where they are and we shall see how things unfold.
    Hopefully, and I truly hope , that Obama is eligible to be POTUS because if he isn’t and we deny him of the position of POTUS, The riots will begin and people will get hurt. If He doesn’t resolve this issue so that there is NO DOUBT of his legitimacy to be pres and becomes pres…the nation is gonna crack.
    If he proves himself to be eligible w/o a doubt, then I will be happy and can live in peace knowing that my country men/women voted for a legit candidate.

  1972. Robert name one forensic expert that claims that internet posted certification of Live Birth is NOT a FRAUD. Name one single one and give me the link if you can.

    Drumsalot- why should I reinvent the wheel?? See Rich’s post of 6:39pm where he directs you to Worldnetdaily and what their expert says.

    Until then , you are arguing with hot breath while I am gioving you links to dispute your claims. If they are bogus, then give me the links with the professionals that can prove my links as bogus material.

    Asked and answered, Drums.
    And I didn’t even mention the people at “factcheck.org” who said the document is real.
    So you asked for one and I gave you two. What a guy!

  1973. Eddy,
    I am failing to provide that information. Until I find it, I stand corrected for posting something about an individual that I cannot prove.
    Meanwhile, I’m digging for it.

  1974. Rich and Eddy –
    Bless you both for being a voice of reason on this issue – which is only REALLY an issue to those who never liked Obama in the first place. This isn’t tearing the country apart – in fact, I am hard pressed to find anyone who actually cares about this – surely we have better things to talk about???

  1975. “To the new person who suggested civil war once again–
    Oops! Sorry, I can’t comment. Warren’s codes for comments don’t allow for what I’d like to say.”
    Well, you can use a good choice of words I am sure that can get through the loop holes.
    You fail to realize that the man is covering up his ligitamacy to be POTUS.
    Hillary Clinton brought this whole mess up! The people of factcheck.org are no more qualified to verify the authenticity of that COLB than I am.
    Obama can put this to rest! He is failing to do so and as he is failing to do so he is failing the American people wether you like that or not!
    Demand that he comes clean and settles this issue.
    If that man becomes POTUS w/o resolving this issue I will be all for civil war because if this happens that would mean that anybody in the world will be able to run for POTUS if they have enough Charisma and are good at fake documentations and decieving tactics like the devil himself.
    So, you don’t like the sound of civil war? Good, You shouldn’t.

  1976. drumsalot–
    Link please to the more than 50 lawyers that Obama has commissioned to work on his behalf re this issue.

  1977. Robert name one forensic expert that claims that internet posted certification of Live Birth is NOT a FRAUD. Name one single one and give me the link if you can.
    Name one single forensic expert and a link to the web site that can deny the accusations of that video. Until you do, I have only one choice to believe it.
    Until then , you are arguing with hot breath while I am gioving you links to dispute your claims. If they are bogus, then give me the links with the professionals that can prove my links as bogus material.

  1978. Crazy Greek–
    Do you remember how close the 2000 election was? Do you remember that the state that got to decide it all was Florida? Do you remember all the controversies over discounted and discarded votes–the analyzing of ‘chads’? Do you remember that the state that decided that Bush was the winner was governed by the brother of the declared winner? There was a lot of discontent BUT there came a time when the Dems said, “Enough! This quarrelling and quibbling is not healthy for our nation.” I was mad as hell when the Dems conceded but I put my anger aside for the sake of the country. You speculate on how the Dems would respond if this current situation happened but you have no evidence, other than what YOU would do–what YOU are doing– support your speculation. History doesn’t support your speculation.
    You ask a lot of questions that only a mind-reader could answer. I have questions too? Is ALL the media controlled by the Dems? If not, why haven’t they jumped on this ‘newsworthy story’? Why isn’t our current POTUS defending the US Constitution against this conspiracy? Why isn’t McCain speaking to it? Is Obama so powerful already that he controls the CIA? I don’t know the answers because I’m NOT a mind-reader. But doesn’t the non-response from the key players in the election and the key players in our current Republican controlled government seem ‘fishy’ to you?
    You seem to suggest that Obama has his vault copy of his birth certifcate in his possession. If he does, then it’s not the vault copy. The vault copy doesn’t leave the vault. If you request a copy, they consult the vault copy and transcribe most of that information to a Certificate of Live Birth. Some things don’t transcribe…like a raised seal. You get a copy with the state seal on it but it’s not raised. Raised seals, being all the same color (gold is the norm), don’t photocopy well…you can see the shape of a seal but the words don’t reproduce well, if at all. (I’ve photocopied a number of docs with notary seals and the raised letters don’t create enough of a shadow to create a readable image.
    You ask, why doesn’t he just produce the copy they’ve requested. Who is this they? Has any legitimate government agency requested this?
    You question why he doesn’t produce his college records, transcripts, etc. We wondered the same thing about our current POTUS. There were rumors that he majored in P-A-R-T-Y and either didn’t finish or barely got by. I don’t recall that he ever willingly produced any evidence of his schooling. Why? WHY? WHY? (I don’t really want or need the answers, BTW, just trying to show you how pointless ‘the Why Game’ is. And, also trying to point out that Obama is responding–or not–just as any President-elect would.) And, LOL, I’m trying to figure out just what his schooling records have to do with the Birth Certificate issue. It does sound like a bunch of people who can’t deal with the fact that they lost this election and are throwing everything that they can his way in the hopes that something, somehow will stick.
    Others, I don’t think these comments were yours, say that he’s spending outrageous amounts to cover this up. I want links to back that up. How much he’s spending and who he’s paying it to. They also claim that millions stand with them in this ‘natural born citizen’ question. Again, I want links to back that up. I find it unfathomable that with the ‘conspiracy of media silence’ that allegedly exists that millions have discovered that this bandwagon even exists.
    To the new person who suggested civil war once again–
    Oops! Sorry, I can’t comment. Warren’s codes for comments don’t allow for what I’d like to say.

  1979. Robert,
    I could care less about wether or not the Michelle Obama interview and it’s alleged contents are for real or not. I just learned about this alleged interview today.
    My cause is not to undermind obama and all of you kool aid drinkers. My cause is to uphold my duty to make sure that our unofficiall pres-elect is truly qualified.
    The man, Obama that is, Is only harming and deviding our nation due to his lack of forthcomings regarding his qualifications. Wh does that man paying upwards of 50 lawyers to protect his long form COLB?
    He campaigned to run an honest and just government. He is failing miserably already.
    Usurper….Obama will be a Usurper if this issue is not resolved before he is sworn in. I guarantee you the vast majority of americans and the military will feel the same way. I could be wrong as I am sure you will claim that I am.
    Civil war will begin if this issue is not resolved and you can bet I won’t be on the side of the usurper.
    If the man comes clean, lets the naysayers and or courts analyze his records and they find him to be eligible than I would be satisfied. My only question then would be , What took so long? And, How are you going to manage our economy when you have wasted scores of dollars protecting what the american public deserved to get and that is the “Truth”

  1980. Ok Robert…..maybe “lawsuit” was inappropriate….however, the fact remains that Obama, the DNC or their lawyers did in fact file a “motion to dismiss” in a federal court…………………..or am I “wrong” on that also?

    Nope.

    Now…who’s time is it to “put up or shut up”?

    Well. Since you can’t produce a “lawsuit,” and you haven’t asked me to produce anything at all- is it still your time???

    Again, I am going to ask….IF Obama has a certified copy of his vault copy of his birth certificate, wouldn’t it have been so much easier to just say “Here it is…..verify if you want.” But, he (or his lawyers acting upon his bidding) chose NOT to do so.

    Because we both know that the document (if he indeed has one in his vault, as opposed to the State of HI) would be treated exactly the same as the already produced Certificate of Live Birth.
    Internet nutsters would jump in and claim it was a hoax. Like the Youtube “expert” that was quoted by someone here earlier- the “expert” that refused to give his identity. You’d think that no one would be naieve enough to buy such stuff, but there you go.

    Any reason you can think of, if he was in possession of a legal document stating that he was a ‘natural born citizen’ that he WOULD NOT do so?

    As noted above. The tin foil hat crowd will claim it is a forgery.

    I can guarantee you, if the shoe was on the other foot, you would be SCREAMING that the other sides candidate do the same……wouldn’t you?

    Are you this willing to enter into fantasy land that you are telling me what I would or would not think in a fantasy situation? WOW!
    What we have are the facts. And NOT ONE fact supports the allegation that Obama was not born in the United States. In your own words, “NOT ONE!!”
    Occam’s Razor.

  1981. Robert wrote:

    Tell you what.
    Back up your words. Give us a link to Obama (and/or the DNC) filing law suits to stop Berg.
    It’s put up or shut up time.
    Links, please.

    Ok Robert…..maybe “lawsuit” was inappropriate….however, the fact remains that Obama, the DNC or their lawyers did in fact file a “motion to dismiss” in a federal court…………………..or am I “wrong” on that also?
    Now…who’s time is it to “put up or shut up”?
    Again, I am going to ask….IF Obama has a certified copy of his vault copy of his birth certificate, wouldn’t it have been so much easier to just say “Here it is…..verify if you want.” But, he (or his lawyers acting upon his bidding) chose NOT to do so.
    Like Berg said “All Obama has to do is produce and this all goes away.”
    Any reason you can think of, if he was in possession of a legal document stating that he was a ‘natural born citizen’ that he WOULD NOT do so?
    Any reason at all?
    Also, stop and think of this for a minute……….ALL candidates are supposed to clear the air and show all documentation that would be pertinent to them when running for election…..McCain did so…so did all the other candidates. NOT ONE (except for Obama) has failed to do so when asked.
    Let me repeat that………NOT ONE!!!!!
    Now we have good ole Obama………………………
    He will not release his records of birth!
    He will not release his records of schooling at any of the colleges he has gone to!
    You don’t see something just a little bit ‘fishy’ in all this?
    Really?
    I can guarantee you, if the shoe was on the other foot, you would be SCREAMING that the other sides candidate do the same……wouldn’t you?

  1982. Come on Rich…get real here. IF Obama has, as you say, “better things to do”, please enlighten us as to who exactly it was that filed the law suits to deny against Berg? Casper the Friendly Ghost?

    Tell you what.
    Back up your words. Give us a link to Obama (and/or the DNC) filing law suits to stop Berg.
    It’s put up or shut up time.
    Links, please.

  1983. Crazy Greek —
    You and the other anti-Obama people here obviously have little understanding about how lawsuits work. Obama did not “file a lawsuit” against Berg. It was Berg who filed the lawsuit. The defendants filed an Answer and a Motion to Dismiss based upon lack of standing and lack of jurisidiction. That wasn’t dragging of feet, it was SOP for a lawsuit in which standing and jurisdiction are in question. If you are the defendant in what you believe is a meritless lawsuit, you do everything you can to get the lawsuit dismissed. If the lawyers for the FEC, the DNC and Obama didn’t do that, they would be guilty of legal malpractice.
    Even the right-wing worldnetdaily.com concluded that Obama’s copy of his birth certificate is genuine:
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
    A separate WND investigation into Obama’s birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.
    Also factcheck.org:
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
    As for the electors, they certainly have the legal right to change their minds, but the reality is that it isn’t going to happen. And if they did change their minds, do you really believe that they would vote for McCain?

  1984. My husband is a truck Driver in Texas and when we moved to Texas we had to show our Birth Certificate with other ID and Documents. Barack OBama taking the most important position in America USA needs to provide proof of him being a United States Citizen.

    STUDY!!!
    Obama has provided the documents necessary to secure a US Passport, which they do NOT issue to non citizens. You did NOT need to “show our Birth Certificate” in its orignal form.

  1985. Rich, read the first posted link API claims they have the audio and proof of interview. They claim the CIA is interfering….do you see it all or just what you want to see?

    OK, now THAT is funny!!
    Please stop trying to claim that this is a matter for serious discussion, and that there really IS an importance to all of this hot air, while at the same time trying to say that “the CIA” helped Obama to get elected!!!!
    It does NOT help your cause!

  1986. Apparently, the Director of the Department of Health for the State of Hawaii is in on the (vast!!) conspiracy to prevent the trutth from coming out..
    Her words, quoted: “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said.”
    Which, of course will lead us to Tin Foil Hat Fallback Position #32: “The Director VERIFIED the document, but it says that Obama was born in Kenya.”
    Or- will it lead to Tin Foil Hat Fallback Position #33?? “The Director is in the secret employ of the DNC, and therefore refuses to allow access to the record.”
    One wonders how the State Department of Health would have possession of his original birth certificate (AND issue the Certificate of Live Birth, if Obama was not, in fact, born in Hawaii…

  1987. drumsalot,
    Why would the CIA, which currently is operating under a Republican administration, do anything to prevent something negative about Michelle Obama from coming out? The direcor of the CIA, Michael Hayden, was appointed by George W. Bush. What possible motivation could Hayden have to cover this up?
    And even if there is a tape out there, what proof would they have that it was actually Michelle Obama who made the call? What did API do to verify who they were speaking to? After all, Sarah Palin got fooled into believing that she was taking a call from Nicholas Sarkozy. First API claimed that they were afraid of being sued by Obama, now they blame the CIA. Back in October API claimed that they were in discussions with Fox News to release the tape. They backed off of that claim after Fox News denied it. This has HOAX written all over it.
    And I doubt that even one-half of one percent of the American people have any doubts about Obama’s eligibility to be president.

  1988. Rich wrote:

    Besides, it wouldn’t make any difference. Do you understand how the electoral college works? Obama has 365 electors who are pledged to vote for him. They were on Obama’s slate of electors because they are Obama supporters. The notion that anything could happen in the next 12 days to change that is absurd.

    Whoa….Rich…..are you not aware that these very electors can (and should) change their position if something is brought forth that would prove their chosen person (in this case Obama) to not be eligible for the office of President?
    Or is it your position that they are just blind fools who, once committed, are incapable of change?
    They are people Rich…just like you and me. If they blindly follow, then aren’t they just as guilty of fraud as Obama would be?
    Let’s put it another way. Let’s say that you and I go out for a drive in the country to show you my new Vette….what tha hell, I always wanted one of those…….anyway (sigh) while we are out and you are just being a friend tagging along with me, let’s say I decided to pull my new Vette up to the local bank and pull a bank job…….with 15 cops standing around at the door eatin donuts and drinkin coffee!
    I get out of the Vette….damn…love that car…..it’s Candy Apple Red, ya know?….grab my Uzi from the rear seat, look at you and say “You ready Rich?”
    Tell me Rich….just how many seconds is it gonna take for you to change your allegiance to me as a “friend” and say to the cops…as you are runnin away…….I don’t know the guy…I was just along for the ride….HONEST!!

  1989. Rich wrote the following:

    Crazy Greek –
    You don’t seem to understand. Obama has made the certified copy of the COLB which he has in his possession available to the media.

    I don’t seem to understand? Let’s see………the copy…and indeed what Obama “released” on his web site is undoubtedly a forgery and has been proven to be a forgery…………was not initially “made available to the media”……it was made available to the Internet…….is this what you are now deeming to be the media?
    Rich wrote:

    Everyone who has inspected it has concluded that it is genuine.

    You are gonna have to site that one for me Rich! Chapter and verse, please?
    Rich wrote:

    Obama does not have possession of the “vault copy” of his birth certificate, so he couldn’t produce it even if he wanted to. You cannot produce that which is not yours. Obama doesn’t own the “vault copy,” the State of Hawaii owns it.

    I beg to differ Rich. Even the State of Hawaii has publicly stated that it will not release the vault copy to ANYONE except Obama….which me that Obama can indeed get a copy of his long form vault copy for a fee of around $35.00, just like ANY American can get a copy of their vault copy by paying a fee at their records office.
    Rich wrote:

    Obama has nothing to put to rest………Obama has more important things on his mind than a few unethical lawyers who are trying to get their 15 minutes of fame by filing frivolous lawsuits.

    Come on Rich…get real here. IF Obama has, as you say, “better things to do”, please enlighten us as to who exactly it was that filed the law suits to deny against Berg? Casper the Friendly Ghost?
    I hate to take issue with you like this but it’s as plain as the nose on Obama’s face that it is Obama, and ONLY OBAMA, that is dragging this thing out…first by filing motions to deny and now by dragging his feet, stalling and any other maneuver he and his cronies can think of to forestall this thing.
    If I were to say to you….Rich, you are not who you say you are…prove it!…….how long would it take you to do so? I would venture to say not very long, just like any other American in this country.
    Now, you may very well be right (and you probably are judging from the way things are going) that this may just all go away and Obama be sworn into office. I’ll give you that. Can’t you at least take your blinders off for just a moment to at least question the motives of Obama? If there is nothing to hide, why doesn’t your guy do what I suggested in a previous post? Would that be so difficult?
    I can agree with you on one thing…Obama is busy alright! About as busy as a cat trying to cover up shit on a tin roof! 😉
    JMHO, of course.

  1990. Rich, read the first posted link API claims they have the audio and proof of interview. They claim the CIA is interfering….do you see it all or just what you want to see?
    Ig Obama does notset this issue to rest and prove that he is qualified to be POTUS, 1/2 of this nation if not more, including myself will recognize him as usurper.
    This is a serious issue that he needs to address and yet he fails to put the issue to rest. He is already failing millions of Americans and he isn’t even officially the pres-elect

  1991. Gene —
    Calling me (or anyone else) an “idiot” is hardly the way to start a civil discussion.

  1992. drumsalot —
    Yes, the supposed Michelle Obama interview which was going to be released before the election but somehow never saw the light of day. You apparently missed the editorial note at rightpundits.com in which they admit that the tape most likely does not exist:
    Editor’s Update: The failure of the organization to provide a promised audiotape to the public, after stalling and stalling, helps us believe that this story from API was a hoax. We do not believe there was a Michelle Obama interview.
    And now we are are supposed to believe that it will surface before December 15? Don’t hold your breath.
    Besides, it wouldn’t make any difference. Do you understand how the electoral college works? Obama has 365 electors who are pledged to vote for him. They were on Obama’s slate of electors because they are Obama supporters. The notion that anything could happen in the next 12 days to change that is absurd.

  1993. Rich, The bottom line is that if Obama is eligible/meets all three qualifications w/o doubt to be POTUS, then it’s all good. Obama is hiding somethinbg for sure. He is hiding his eligibility for sure. If he has nothing to hide regarding his qualifications, then why spend so much time and money trying to keep it out of the courts. Truth always pre-vails.
    This man is trying to become the POTUS. He is not running for School principle.
    There is major doubt being expressed by the Dems as well as the Repubs. It is Obamas duty to prove that he is qualified. If he will not willingly do so via a team of professional forensic scientists, and he makes it into office, prepare for civil war bro.

  1994. Sheri —
    There is no question about Obama being a United States citizen. Regardless of where he was born, his mother was a citizen, so Obama is a citizen.
    Obama had to provide proof of citizenship when he got his Social Security Number, when he registered to vote, etc.

  1995. Crazy Greek —
    You don’t seem to understand. Obama has made the certified copy of the COLB which he has in his possession available to the media. Everyone who has inspected it has concluded that it is genuine. Obama does not have possession of the “vault copy” of his birth certificate, so he couldn’t produce it even if he wanted to. You cannot produce that which is not yours. Obama doesn’t own the “vault copy,” the State of Hawaii owns it. Try going to the city or town where you were born and demand that they give you the “vault copy” of your birth certificate. They won’t give it to you, because you don’t own it.
    And this is hardly “tearing the country apart.” Most people who are aware of these lawsuits know that they are friviolous and will be dismissed. The only people who are torn apart by it are the fringe elements of the right wing who are obsessed with trying to keep Obama out of the White House.
    Some reading for you:
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/citizen.asp
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
    Obama has nothing to put to rest. Filing a lawsuit does not create a controversy. A lawsuit only becomes a controversy when a court accepts jurisdiction, and so far no court has accepted any of these lawsuits. Obama has more important things on his mind than a few unethical lawyers who are trying to get their 15 minutes of fame by filing frivolous lawsuits.

  1996. Some idiot named Rich says the State of Hawaii has confirmed
    that Obama’s birth certificate is genuine because a bureaucrat
    there named Chiyome Fukino says she has “personally seen and verified
    that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original
    birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
    Apparently, the birth certificate is just too hazardous for us to look at –
    our eyeballs may fall out. So rather than Obama ending all this controversy
    by spending the $35 to produce the damn thing, he saves us all that
    agony by having Chiyome Fukino tell us what it says. How nice.
    Rich also drivels: “And as for Philip Berg, he is an embarassment to the legal profession, an attorney who has a record of filing frivolous lawsuits.”
    Well, that eliminates about 99.47% of the legal profession, doesn’t it?
    Nevertheless, like Berg and Souter, I still want to see that birth certificate,
    FOR MY OWN EYES!
    “Change we can believe in”. Yes, I believe it, alright.

  1997. My husband is a truck Driver in Texas and when we moved to Texas we had to show our Birth Certificate with other ID and Documents. Barack OBama taking the most important position in America USA needs to provide proof of him being a United States Citizen. If he trully is a US citizen this should be easy. If he is a fraud in any way he should not have the presidency and be deported.its , just like Arnold Shwartinger from CA Governor, excuse me if I spelled his name wrong.

  1998. Rich wrote:

    Mark my words — everyone of these lawsuits will be dismissed. In 12 days Obama will be elected by the Electoral College, and he will be sworn in on January 20. Get used to it.

    This may very well be Rich, however there are still a lot of folks looking at Obama and wondering about his actions in this COLB matter.
    Just a ‘for instance’ for ya…….here we have a man that has access to various departments of the United States government given his stature as Senator. Now he is running for President of the United States and questions arise regarding his citizenship, specifically his birth record.
    One would think that this individual (Obama) would want this issue resolved immediately and laid to rest. The United States government has departments that deal in documentation every day…the FBI and CIA, not to mention Immigration just to name a few. Does Obama submit his COLB to any of these organizations? NO! He does the very same thing that you are berating others for doing…relying on an entity of the internet to add veracity to his released document!
    This behavior alone, notwithstanding his behavior in other areas, is what is fueling this problem. Like I have stated before, it is Obama, and Obama alone, that has the power to put this all to rest. No one else! Yet, he fails to do so! Why?
    Everyone knows that Obama is bound to know how this one item on a long list of items regarding his prior life is tearing this country apart. He has publicly stated that he wants to be the man of change, the one to bring this country together!
    His actions tell a whole different story!
    He’s still the man of smoke and mirrors and will continue to be until he answers the questions. One would think that a man wanting to be the man of change and wanting to bring the country together would want this resolved!
    So, again, my question is, WHAT’S OBAMA’S PROBLEM with producing his vault copy of his birth certificate to a judge and saying “Here it is your Honor….take it to any outside source/combination of sources you choose and have it verified…..then publish those sources findings publicly so that there can be no further questions regarding my right to hold the office of President of the United States.”
    Any takers on the possiblitly of Obama doing that?
    Nah…didn’t think so!

  1999. drumaslot –
    Andy Martin’s arguments are ludicrous and will go nowhere. The notion that producing a certified copy of your birth certificate waives your privacy rights is laughable. If I show my birth certificate to my employer to prove that I am a citizen, that doesn’t give my employer the right to order his own copy of my birth certificate without my consent. There is no waiver. In fact, Martin’s emergency Motion for an Order to Show Cause was already denied by the Circuit Court in Hawaii on 11/18. Martin filed another emergency Motion for an Order to Show Cause on 11/26, and that will be denied as well.
    Martin doesn’t explain why Governor Lingle, a Republican and a supporter of McCain, would not have intervened if Dr. Fukino had done anything improper. Martin’s claim that Dr. Fukino inserted herself into this is ridiculous. It’s obvious that Dr. Fukino got involved only because her office was being deluged with questions about the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate.
    As for the forensics — your idea of a “notable expert” is “Dr. Ron Polarik,” someone who won’t even give his real name? Give me a break. And keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the party making the allegations.
    And as for Philip Berg, he is an embarassment to the legal profession, an attorney who has a record of filing frivolous lawsuits. U.S. District Court Judge J. Curtis Joyner had this to say about Berg: “Other attorneys should look to Mr. Berg’s actions as a blueprint for what not to do when attempting to effectively and honorably perform the duties of the legal profession.”
    http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122023117263
    Mark my words — everyone of these lawsuits will be dismissed. In 12 days Obama will be elected by the Electoral College, and he will be sworn in on January 20. Get used to it.

  2000. Rich,
    Your link to factcheck.org is laughable at best. Who within factcheck.org who has “seen’touched’and felt” the document is the experts in the forensics?
    Heck, If I just looked at it and felt it I would probably think it is real but I am no expert. Here is a link to an expert opinion who professionally points out the flaws in this supposedly real document.
    Can you provide a link that has a notable expert claiming that the document is authentic and not a fraud? I would like to see it ….
    http://www.obamacrimes.com/

  2001. Rich,
    Who is the heck is Fukino?
    “Defendant is a medical doctor and a custodian of health records. She is neither a political battering ram nor an agent of presidential politics. She solicited a role as the former while inserting herself in the latter.
    In Justice Lewis’ language, Dr. Fukino can no more
    “blow hot” and then “blow cold” than Obama. Exhibit A and other local coverage reflects that Fukino solicited coverage on the last weekend of the presidential election by purporting to express an expert opinion on a document that she refused to make public and where she was not remotely qualified as an expert. The original 1961 COLB may confirm what she claimed, or it may not. It may eliminate questions or it may raise new ones. We simply don’t know.
    In a democracy, and under clear principles of Hawai’ian law stated below, we don’t have to take Fukino’s word for what the document is or contains; we have a right to examine the original.
    Dr. Fukino cannot make declaratory statements about a public record and then refuse to allow the media to cross-examine her claims by examining the original document that she is discussing. She clearly manifested an attempt to use the statutory secrecy of her office for an improper and unlawful purpose, political manipulation. (Parenthetically, Fukino’s desperate last-minute efforts only confirm the strength and success of Plaintiff’s bona fide efforts to raise concerns about the manipulative actions of Hawai’i officials.)
    If Fukino had merely exercised her right to go into the vault and examine the document in question, that would have in no way constituted a waiver. But she far exceeded her statutory duties, solicited massive media attention and interjected herself into political controversy and sought to bolster Obama on the final weekend of the election. That behavior blatantly exceeded both her statutory duties and professional competence, all while seeking to manipulate a document in her possession and control. The law does not allow a public official to so openly manipulate material and information in her possession.
    Even if Obama had not already waived access to the material in Fukino’s possession, there is no way anyone can test the accuracy and veracity of Fukino’s unconditional claims without actually seeing the document concerning which she was offering testimony. Entirely and completely independently of Obama’s waiver, Fukino waived the secrecy provisions of the statute by her own conduct or misconduct.”
    http://www.pr-inside.com/obama-court-hearing-to-focus-on-r915438.htm

  2002. [§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
    .
    taxes? 1960

  2003. Wouldn’t it be obvious that before a person runs for the highest office in the country that he would be obligated to show his qualification to run: ie the birth certificate. Shouldn’t this be somethng automatic? I would love it if he was thrown out. He is a fraud on so many levels. This man invented and created himself with the help of very dubious characters and players. He must go. Hopefully, he will be shown to be a liar and not a US citizen.

  2004. Eddy,
    “Democruds? Really? Did you wet yourself laughing when you typed that one? Did you give yourself an “I’m So Clever” star?”
    Ah, – but Republicans the country over – Ann Coulter being one of the best – constantly revel in creating new words that mock anything with which she, or her party, doesn’t/don’t agree. They pat themselves on their backs for grade school humor FAR too often 🙂

  2005. Crazy Greek–
    Ah, but Coleman used to be a Democrat. I’m sure he just waiting to ascend to the Presidency before he reveals that his switch to Republican was just a ploy. 😉
    But seriously, this recount isn’t looking good for Franken…which is okay by me. Their race got way ugly towards the end but I still favored Coleman…a good man regardless of his political affiliation.

  2006. Oh well……If Obama gets sworn in (and at this point it looks like he will) at least he won’t have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate…….this just in…….

    Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss won a stunning double-digit victory over his Democrat opponent Jim Martin. President-elect Obama had strongly endorsed Martin as Democrats poured millions to win the state in hopes of gaining a filbuster-proof Senate.

    Also, looks like Coleman is expanding his lead (although only slightly) over Al Franken in Minnesota….maybe one less kook to worry about.
    At least there’s a little bit of a silver lining in this dark cloud.

  2007. Or it may be that legal counsel for Obama and DNC decided not to file a response brief in opposition. In that case, next week the Clerk will distribute copies of the petition to the Justices, and it will be assigned to a law clerk to write a memo analyzing Berg’s petition for certworthiness. After that, conference.

  2008. Supreme Court Rule 29.2:
    Rule 29. Filing and Service of Documents; Special
    Notifications; Corporate Listing
    ****
    2. A document is timely filed if it is received by the Clerk
    within the time specified for filing; or if it is sent to the Clerk
    through the United States Postal Service by first-class mail
    (including express or priority mail), postage prepaid, and
    bears a postmark, other than a commercial postage meter
    label, showing that the document was mailed on or before
    the last day for filing
    ; or if it is delivered on or before the
    last day for filing to a third-party commercial carrier for
    delivery to the Clerk within 3 calendar days.

  2009. Gene–
    Democruds? Really? Did you wet yourself laughing when you typed that one? Did you give yourself an “I’m So Clever” star? “Look what I did…I’m so clever…you see it’s really Democrats but I found this other word that starts with ‘cr’…isn’t that just too funny?”
    And, naturally, you missed the point. People were talking CIVIL WAR, Gene…over a technicality. People are saying they fear that the Constitution will be trashed and yet they say they’re ready to take up arms against their neighbors and co-workers. That IS insane.
    If a civil war did erupt over this matter, it would be far more bloody than THE Civil War we’ve all read about. There would be no North and South dividing line. There would be no safe place ANYWHERE in this country. You think our economy is in a downturn now…what about when you can’t drive down the street? What about when your mall becomes a war zone? When all forms of public transport come to a screeching halt? When trading on the stock market itself comes to an end?
    America in a Civil War. Now, that’s playing into the hands of every enemy our nation has ever had.

  2010. @Gene: The latest I can find is in the update on this post. Berg will probably file an application to stay the Electoral College vote.

  2011. the supreme court has allowed 7 days for the dnc and obama to respong to berg’s scotus…………due to the fact IT MAY BE IN THE MAIL….so says BERG’S SECRETARY 12/02/ 2008

  2012. So much breathless fantasizing by people who can’t accept the fact that Obama is going to be the next president.
    First of all, the State of Hawaii has confirmed that Obama’s birth certificate is genuine:
    Obama’s Hawaii Birth Certificate Confirmed
    Pacific Business News (Honolulu)
    October 31, 2008
    The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was born in Honolulu.
    “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,” said Chiyome Fukino. “State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.”
    Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii’s vital records, Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
    “No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii,” Fukino added.
    Lingle, a Republican, has been campaigning on the Mainland for Obama’s opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
    Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois, was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. He graduated high school at Punahou School in 1979.

    Think about this for a minute. The governor of Hawaii is a Republican and a McCain supporter. If there was any doubt about whether Obama was born in Hawaii, don’t you think that Governor Lingle would be all over it?
    As GeorgetownJD has pointed out, the fact that three lawsuits have been appealed to SCOTUS means absolutely nothing about the underlying merits (or lack thereof) of those lawsuits. All three were dismissed by the lower courts on issues of standing and/or jurisdiction. Because the merits of the underlying cases have not been adjudicated, SCOTUS cannot rule on the merits. The only issues for SCOTUS to rule on are whether the lawsuits were properly dismissed. If SCOTUS rules that any of the lawsuits should not have been dismissed, those cases will be remanded to the lower courts to start all over again. So the idea that SCOTUS might order Obama to produce proof that he was born in Hawaii is nonsense. It isn’t going to happen.
    Besides, as the State of Hawaii has confirmed, Obama does not possess his original birth certificate. The State of Hawaii has possession of it. Obama has possession of a certified abstract of the original. As for the allegations that Obama’s copy is a forgery, those claims have been thoroughly discredited:
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
    In any event, even if the lawsuits are remanded, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to make a prima facie case that Obama is not qualified to be president. Where is their evidence? All I have seen is wild conjecture. Some of the claims which have been made are ludicrous. It doesn’t matter if Obama was adopted by his Indonesian stepfather. The courts have ruled consistently that there is nothing that parents can do to strip their children of citizenship. Even if a child’s parents were to renounce their U.S. citizenship, it would have no effect on the citizenship of the child. Unless Obama at some point personally renounced his own citizenship, he never lost it regardless of what his mother did. Likewise, as GeorgetownJD pointed out, the fact that Obama’s father was a British subject has nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility to be president.
    My prediction is that all of the appeals to SCOTUS are going to be rejected.

  2013. It’s as simple as that!
    Crazy Greek,
    I agree! Remember the disruption Clinton caused when he wouldn’t tell the truth as the majority of people see the truth? Is vs. Is

  2014. I hear ya Ann. I just can’t understand SCOTUS draggin their feet on this one, of all cases before them. You would think that this one would take precedence over anything on their docket right now and that they would want to get it resolved quickly!
    The very fact that this has made it as far as the Supreme Court and that the Justices have even considered it for “discussion” should tell everyone something.
    Resolve the damn issue. This has gone way beyond having a Justice tell the American public what he/she thinks personally regarding a case now. It should be a simple matter of the Supreme Court of the United States simply stating “Mr. Obama, there are questions arising regarding your qualifications to be President of the United States. Before Chief Justice Roberts administers the oath of office to you on January 20, you are required to submit before this body undeniable proof of your citizenship status.”
    It’s as simple as that!

  2015. Hummmmmmmm….election year 2012.
    Since Obama is more than likely going to be sworn in because our SCOTUS is dodging their responsibility, thereby rendering our Constitution just another piece of scrap paper, I can see an interesting race for the Presidency of the United States……Vladimir Putin vs. Barack Obama.
    Hey, I understand that Putin is looking into getting back to running a country again, right?
    ROFLMAO

  2016. Crazy Greek,
    And doesn’t this say something about Barak Obama’s ability to resolve issues? Here is an issue before him that questions his eligibility to be POTUS and it is going unresolved. It seems that would put into question whether he thinks he is the exception to the rule and more importantly, that it doesn’t bother him enough to resolve it.

  2017. Supposedly it’s just in that Wrotnowski’s case has been denied by Justice Ginsberg and that Wrotnowski has resubmitted the case to SCOTUS Justice Scalia, who in turn has sent the documentation to a lab for anthrax testing!
    Man, this thing is just gettin more bizarre by the minute now!
    I don’t understand why so many are runnin scared on this thing. It’s a simple matter of put up or shut up and get outta Dodge!
    This is a Constitutional matter, right? The Justices of the Supreme Court are sworn by oath to uphold the Constitution, right?
    You know the Justices are bound to be aware of the ramifications should a person not eligible under the rules of the Constitution being sworn in as POTUS!
    I know one thing…..this one ain’t goin away any time soon and I would sure hate to be Chief Justice Roberts administering the oath of office to the 44th President of the United States not having done everything in my power to clear this up beyond all doubt!
    This one is really turning bizarre, just to put it mildly.

  2018. To GeorgetownD –
    So you think the Court is going to treat the
    case of possibly an ineligible person taking the oath of
    the US President as ‘just another case’ out of
    a couple hundred? Common sense would tell
    otherwise.

  2019. Eddy argues that Obama is eligible to be President because he
    was “…nourished in the womb by food grown on US soil until the
    final days of the pregnancy.”
    If we follow that line of thinking, any pregnant foreigner who
    eats McDonald’s hamburgers is nuturing a potential US President.
    Did you take your medications today, Eddy?

  2020. Dear Mary –
    No, that is not correct. Markets don’t react to the past
    or even necessarily the present. They typically react to
    what is anticipated in the the future. And the future
    looks pretty bleak under the Democruds.

  2021. Gene said:

    Not being an attorney, I don’t know what full the implication
    of the case being ’scheduled for conference with the full
    Court’ entirely means, but it sure doesn’t sound to me
    like the matter has been resolved.

    Gene, The American Bar Association has published a primer about how a case progresses through the Supreme Court. It can be found at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/scprimer.pdf. The Justices meet every Friday when the Court is in session, to go through a stack of petitions asking the Court to hear the cases. This private meeting is called “conference.” Each petition for certiorari is scheduled for an upcoming conference after the respondent has had the opportunity to file a response brief. Because there are so many cases to go through at conference (about 200), the Justices don’t actually read each one. Instead, the petitions and response briefs go to a “cert pool” and a law clerk will review the briefs and prepare a memo that goes to all the Justices, making a recommendation whether the case is “cert worthy.” Currently all Justices except Stevens and Alito participate in the cert pool; Justices Stevens and Alito have their own law clerks read the petitions and responses. At the conference, very few of the cases are actually discussed. If a Justice thinks a case should be discussed, he/she places it on a “discuss list.” At conference, if four Justices vote to hear a case, certiorari is granted. The petitioner and respondent each file a “merits brief” arguing why the lower court’s decision should be reversed or affirmed, and the case is scheduled for oral argument. Also, other parties may apply for permission to file an amicus brief; sometimes the Court invites certain parties (most often the Solicitor General) to file an amicus.
    The response that is due on Dec 1 in Obama v. Berg is the response brief in opposition to certiorari. After that, Berg may file a reply brief if he wishes. Once all the briefs are filed, the case will be scheduled for conference. The docket entry will look like this: “DISTRIBUTED for conference” and will identify the date of the conference. On the Monday following conference, the Court will publish an Order List that announces whether certiorari was granted or denied.
    The Donofrio case is a little different. Leo Donofrio filed an application for stay rather than a petition for certiorari. Justice Souter denied the application, and under the Supreme Court rules, Donofrio could renew his application and ask that it be directed to another Justice (Donofrio renewed his application to Justice Thomas.) While this is permitted under Rule 22.4, it is disfavored. When one Justice has denied an application, another Justices are most reluctant to overturn that decision, so they customarily punt it by “referring” the application to the full Court for reconsideration. That is what Justice Thomas did. When an application is referred, it is put on the conference list. It does not mean that Justice Thomas thinks the application has merit; rather, he is following custom.

  2022. David Fry — Sorry I missed your post last night. you asked:

    1) For legal experts – if this case gets sent back for trial what will the burden of proofs be? Will this be handled like a civil case where whoever has the preponderance of evidence wins?

    If the case were to be remanded for trial, the burden of proof (on Berg) would be “preponderance of the evidence” as to the facts. I haven’t done the research, but I believe that Berg would have to prove the foreign law upon which some of his facts rest with “clear and convincing” evidence, which would result in a battle of experts.

    2) For legal experts – what other forms of proof of “natural born” citizenship would be considered acceptable.

    Admissible evidence would include a certified copy of a state-issued document showing place of birth. For this purpose, the short form COLB would be admissible, because Hawaiian law provides that it is evidence of the facts stated therein. Other admissible evidence would be testimony by a witness with first hand knowledge. For instance, a doctor or nurse or relative who was present . The testimony must be under oath in accordance with US standards, but it could be by deposition and preferably subjected to cross examination. If a Kenyan relative, there would have to be a court-certified translator. A witness could be impeached by a variety of methods, e.g., showing bias, faulty memory, reputation for dishonesty, poor eyesight (remember that scene from “My Cousin Vinny”?), conflicting testimony, etc. That is where good cross examination comes into play.
    Now, if there were conflicting evidence, say, both a certified COLB establishing Honolulu as the place of birth and a relative’s testimony that Mombasa was the place birth, the factfinder (jury or judge) would decide how much weight to give the evidence and would be the final arbiter of the veracity of the witness.

  2023. FredVN — As between Leo Donofrio and “Judah Benjamin” I would choose Leo’s argument. JB’s argument makes the mistake, as Leo points out, of relying on the 1790 immigration law that was subsequently repealed, and JB also ignores the following language in Justice Swayne’s opinion in United States v. Rhodes: “An alien naturalized is ‘to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.’ Co. Litt. 129. “Naturalization takes effect from birth; denization from the date of the patent.”
    When Justice Swayne wrote of “naturalization” he was using the term in the classical sense of the word: the process by which one becomes a citizen. One process is to be “naturalized” at birth (natural born); the second way to be “naturalized” is to go through a prescribed process sometime after birth. In the second instance, then, when Justice Swayne wrote that an alien who is naturalized is effectively a natural born citizen, what he meant is that the statutory process of naturalization puts the new citizen in the exact same status of a citizen who was naturalized at birth; there is no discrimination between them vis-a-vis legal rights, no first class citizenship for natural borns and second class of citizenship for those naturalized under the statutory process.
    In Rhodes, Justice Swayne was sitting as a circuit court judge (in the 18th and 19th centuries Justices “rode circuit” acting as court of appeals judges in addition to their Supreme Court duties), so the opinion has persuasive value but is not binding on SCOTUS. Keep in mind that Rhodes was decided a few months after the Fourteenth Amendment was proposed but before it was ratified. Nevertheless, Rhodes sets out the principles of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    Where Leo Donofrio veers off course is his suggestion that for purposes of the “natural born” language in Art. II there are three statuses: natural born, naturalized, and dual citizenship. In Donofrio’s view, a newborn who has dual citizenship has divided allegiances. First, there is absolutely no legal support for the proposition that dual citizenship precludes one from being a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court, which has numerous times recognized that there are only two forms of citizenship (natural born and naturalized), is not going to buck more than 200 years of precedent and announce a new, hybrid form of citizenship. Second, from a practical standpoint, it is preposterous to suggest that a newborn infant has conflicting loyalties between two nations. The Justices, even the conservative members, are not such ideologues that they would allow this theoretical conflict to get in the way of real world sensibilities, particularly in this case where Obama’s Kenyan citizenship expired on his 21st birthday. SCOTUS does not rule on hypotheticals.
    Hope this answers your question.

  2024. FYI -The attached link will take you to an article written today entitled: DONOFRIO V. WELLS WAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE OF DECEMBER 5, 2008 BY THE FULL UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
    Some of the comments posted that follow the article are interesting too.

  2025. Have a good week Eddy……….I really enjoy a little light hearted banter just to liven things up every so often.
    Have a good one!
    LOL

  2026. Crazy Greek–
    I said the ‘team’ was well-rounded and well-balanced. They aren’t all cut from the same mold or the same cloth. LOL. The differences in approach and philosophy will lead to lively discussions and, I hope, balanced solutions.
    LOL. Did I really think you’d agree with my impressions? Not a chance!
    I’ve got a big day tomorrow and need to prepare. The holiday weekend is over…boy, is it ever over!!!

  2027. Eddy wrote:

    I believe Obama’s actions re: assembling one of the most well-rounded and well-balanced team of advisors in modern US history speaks pretty loudly.

    Really? Since all of these ‘well-rounded/well-balanced’ folks you speak of haven’t even made ONE decision as of this date, I have to ask….”What crystal ball are you using to get your information?”
    I would also have to take issue with your description of Rahm Emmanuel (Obama’s new hand picked chief of staff) being “well-rounded orwell-balanced. Standing at a table and plunging a knife into the table each time you shout out someone’s name and saying “DEAD” simply because they opposed your way of thinking does not fit any definition of well-rounded or well-balanced that I have ever heard of.
    What Obama is clearly (as you put it) NOT doing is keeping up with the promises he made to his voters during the campaign……and he hasn’t even taken office yet!
    Eddy wrote…….

    and he’s not done yet.

    Yep…..That’s the part that is frightening hell out of a lot of people. 😉

  2028. Crazy Greek–
    Although I disagree with your position, I’ve appreciated your comments when they didn’t involve mind-reading and speculation about motives. I believe Obama’s actions re: assembling one of the most well-rounded and well-balanced team of advisors in modern US history speaks pretty loudly. Ahhh…but that’s another topic thread.
    He’s clearly NOT trying to run a one-man show and he’s even done a little reaching across party lines…and he’s not done yet. But I feel my words are wasted here.
    From today’s insightful post (not all of them yours, BTW) I’ve garnered that his technical right to citizenship hinges on the fact that his young mother gave birth to him while on a trip to Kenya because doctor’s advised that her pregnancy was too far advanced for her to travel safely by plane. Conceived on US soil, nourished in the womb by food grown on US soil until the final days of the pregnancy. And then, by an accident of bad timing born in a foreign country. Wow! What a conspiracy! Definite grounds for a civil war and riots in the streets. Definite grounds for all the hateful talk that’s been circulating.

  2029. I think what is so frustrating for most people is the realization that Obama says he wants to bring this country together, but his actions speak far louder than his words making it evident to all that this man could care less about what the country, or anyone else in the world, thinks of him.
    His arrogance in this matter borders on the criminal since it would be such a simple matter to resolve this issue.
    Still, like everything else in Obama’s world of smoke and mirrors, it remains unanswered.

  2030. Gene,
    You did read the reports that state the recession for america started in dec 2007? that’s what guided today’s trading session.

  2031. QUOTED BY .

    “clestes ~ Nov 20, 2008 at 6:11 pm
    143976
    HighlanderJuan
    As I said, get over it.
    I can only discuss intellectual and factual matters with someone interested in doing so.”>

    Clestes and all others who may find themselves in this predicament…..
    I, Jerry, will not get into a “battle of the wits” with you for one reason. I will not fight unarmed persons.

  2032. I sure HOPE the Court takes up the Obama matter.
    I just can’t take any more of this ‘prosperity’ that the
    markets anticipate with Obama’s ‘presidency’.
    Down down another 680 points.

  2033. Not being an attorney, I don’t know what full the implication
    of the case being ’scheduled for conference with the full
    Court’ entirely means, but it sure doesn’t sound to me
    like the matter has been resolved.

  2034. To Yoshi –
    Well OBVIOUSLY (that is, to people with half
    a brain) Souter is not satisfied. If he was,
    he would have just told Berg ‘petition denied’
    like you’ve wished, and that would be the end
    of it. But that didn’t happen now, did it? Golly gee.

  2035. The business day ends in about two minutes. So much
    for the forthrightness and honesty of ‘PrezDet-Lec Obama’.

  2036. Actually, Gene, I’ve got a pretty good grasp of how filing for a writ of certiorari works. You will note in the excerpted portions of the court’s order above that the court is asking for a response to Berg’s petition. That’s it. No mention about a birth certificate (or any evidence at all).
    Planet Earth says hello back to you.

  2037. OHMYGOD! RIOTS! SOMEBODY CALL THE …
    Oh wait, it’s just a couple kids playing with a yappy dog. Guess the world isn’t going to end today after all. Oh well, I suppose we can all go back to debating whether 9/11 was an inside job or not.

  2038. To Yoshi:
    You don’t GET it, do you? This has nothing to do with
    Berg anymore. He’s irrelevant! It’s now SOUTER
    who is demanding that Obama clear this up. He
    sure as hell is not saying ‘petition denied’!
    Hello from Planet Earth!

  2039. I have to say all the crackpot “legal” theories in the comments below are pretty funny, although it’s discouraging to see what a poor grasp of the law many folks (including Berg) have.
    .
    The unasked question is: why would Berg bring this case in the first place? The answer, as it often is, is: for the money and the publicity. Berg was fined a few years back for unethical conduct. Basically — as an attorney — the guy is damaged goods. So, by launching a wild lawsuit against a controversial presidential candidate, Berg gets himself a moderate amount of media attention. He makes a video and sets up a website … to which donations can be made. The guy isn’t doing this for free — he’s collecting money from his tinfoil-hat army and probably sticking it straight into his checking account. It doesn’t cost him much of anything to hammer out his pleadings and submit them to courts, yet he’s been passing the hat around since the beginning of all this.
    .
    I suspect Berg knows his suit is bogus. Or he’s a really lousy attorney. He sued Obama as an individual, which is completely irrational. He should’ve been suing the US government to force it to investigate Obama’s eligibility or turn over the results of any investigation it might have done under the Administrative Procedure Act or FOIA, respectively. Then, he could’ve argued the FEC (or whomever) failed to determine Obama’s eligibility. Of course, the problem with that is that the government has already determined he is eligible, so Berg would’ve lost the case, and he would’ve had to spend actual money to do so (he would’ve had to call his witnesses, put on his so-called evidence, etc.).
    .
    All I see happening here is the Supreme Court issuing a one-liner: petition denied.
    .
    And then we can see how much of the money Berg gives back.

  2040. It didn’t appear to me that Barry Truthgun contributed very much, if anything, to the blog, so we are all probably much better off with him in retirement.

  2041. To Chuck:
    Imagine if you left your 6-year child alone in the
    living room, and when you came back, you noticed your
    favorite vase missing. You ask your child where it is,
    and he says he doesn’t know. Not only are
    you going to believe that the child knows where
    the vase is, but you are also going to STRONGLY
    suspect that something happened to it.
    THAT is the type of mentality we are dealing with
    here today – something equivalent to that of a 6-year
    old. And this is what we going to trust with the nuclear
    button? God help us!

  2042. Warren –
    I don’t doubt your findings about the FEC, and actually, I’m not
    surprised. Nor am I surprised that the Constitution does not
    spell out any provisions for what should be done should someone
    be elected President who is later found to be ineligible on the grounds
    of birthplace.
    And why do I say this? Simply because I’m sure that neither
    the FEC nor the Founding Fathers of this Nation would have ever
    imagined that some lunatic would get himself elected as President
    under such circumstances!
    God, what a mess!

  2043. Just to get land in Hawaii, one has to produce the original Certificate of Live Birth.
    Per the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands……..

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

    There is a difference in the two documents.
    I have never said that Obama was indeed, in fact, born in Kenya. I did say that it has been speculated that he was, thereby raising questions as to his citizenship as a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States.
    The Certification of Live Birth shown on Obama’s own website has said to have been forged and made from several different documents. Has it? Who knows? However, one thing is quite evident…there is no signature of an attending physician on the document Obama has posted.

  2044. Gene –
    You may be right – perhaps they are hiding something. I dont know for sure – I dont think ANY one can at this point; which is part of the problem. ALL of these questions should have been either decided YES or NO at the front end – for BOTH of these candidates (again, McCain has similar issues re: natural born citizen status…).
    Lack of institutional integrity and CONFIDENCE in those institutions goes to the HEART of these concerns/problems. As I stated before (much earlier in this blog), the fact that ANY candidate for President could actually file the FEC Forms 1 and 2 and NOT be required to provide proof of natural born citizenship status at THAT point (before being a bonafide candidate) is beyond me. Look at the forms yourself on the Federal Election Commission’s website – Forms 1 and 2 are all that are required to run for President. That simple fact means we have a problem in the process and bureaucracy associated with electing our public officials – PRESIDENT’s in particular. I looked at both FEC Forms 1 & 2 and NOWHERE on either of them does a candidate have to “prove” natural born citizenship to run for President of the U.S. NO-WHERE!!! If you guys can find it, please let me know cuz I couldnt…

  2045. It is true that the Obamanites have until the end of the
    day to respond to Souter, though I seriously doubt they will.
    And it’s not because they can’t come up with the $35
    processing fee to get a certified copy of the birth certificate.
    A child at this point can see that they are hiding something
    big. VERY big.
    Maybe the government IS preparting for riots. Check your ammo,
    people.

  2046. Hello Warren. If somebody like c.j. lies such as saying 1 Justice put a stay on the electoral college and I call him a liar for that lie then it is unacceptable? If so I apologize for not reading your rules in advance. I tried to elicit some evidence from him through strong language but these kooks never have evidence and no prodding of them can command any. I will leave you to play with your liar friends in peace.

  2047. Crazy Geek –
    So that I understand what you are saying, you (and others) claim that Obama was not actually BORN in HI, but in Kenya, yet somehow his mother was able to get HI officials to somehow conjure up a HI certificate of live birth? Do I have that right?
    Well, IF in fact what you say is true, then of course, we have a REAL problem. The fact that ANY state would willy-nilly give anyone a certificate of live birth upon request of the mother goes WAY beyond just this case. How then, can we have confidence in ANY such claims if states can just make these things up as they go?

  2048. Warren –
    Indeed…I was just responding to “beijingyank’s” comment/problem with him. My apologies for not doing so in the right forum, good sir! ;o)

  2049. @Crazy Greek: I am pretty sure that he will not do anything more than the Solicitor General already did – which is waive response.

  2050. we the people of the united states should not let our CONSTITUTION BE BULLIED by a non qualified usurper who will not produce aNYTHING BUT A FORGED CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH made from 9 pieced together overlays on a 2007 hawaiian certificate form///// tyranny we have already had…. monarchy we have already had… BRITISH RULE WE HAVE ALREADY HAD…

  2051. A process comment – let’s keep this thread about Berg. I have posted on Obama’s appointments – just did in fact. Let’s move discussion of his staff and advisers to that thread.
    Thanks.

  2052. ….AND he served in Clinton’s admin, as well – no problems arose re: his ties to Mossad, etc. then…
    WTH???

  2053. beijingyank –
    Ummm….
    …And just curious, what is the problem with a former Mossad agent? I am a strong supporter of Israel and HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS… Why is this problematic to you? I just ASSUMED that most folks in America ALSO strongly support Israel and would have no problem with Mr. Emmanuel – goodness, he is a frickin’ badd azz dude just the kind of man you want in that position. What is the problem? We’ve never seen ANY reason to question his loyalty to America – if ANYTHING, this should give people who questioned Obama’s dedication to supporting Israel some relief.
    You disagree? Apparently so… Tell me why?

  2054. Obama et al have until the END OF BUSINESS today to file their response. I doubt if we will see anything much today other than confirmation that they did/did not respond.

  2055. (Sigh)
    beijingyank….
    My point was that we dont have much choice at this juncture…
    This is a done deal – I doubt very seriously that “the powers that be” are going to let anything deride this transition of power at this point over this “citizenship issue” (for all of the reasons Mary stated above and THEN some…), which for all intents and purposes, plagues BOTH former candidates for President.
    And to be fair, it is highly possible that Obama believes he was born in HI. I dont know what he was told by his Mom or Grandma – perhaps they told him the same thing? I havent seen anything saying that he was NOT born in HI – just speculation and possible problems with his citizenship based on the fact that his mom was American and his dad was Kenyan and his mom was POSSIBLY out of the country at some point while carrying Obama. That is all I have seen, but the State Dept. sealed his Mom’s travel records so I dont hink we will know – this is more than likely standard practice for Pres. elect. So what else do we have to go on? We have to trust that HI, a sovereign state, has their records in order and that his records there are valid and official. What else do you suppose we do to prove otherwise?
    Perhaps he simply LOST the original certificate (and never reapplied for an original) and all that remains is the record in HI’s center for vital statistics (or whatever they call it in HI)? If HI says he was born there, then whether we believe it or not, that settles it doesnt it? If the SCOTUS decides not to remand this to the District Court, this thing is done.
    I dunno if he was or he wasnt born in HI – none of us know (even Obama may not know for sure – shucks, when I was born I didnt know where I was born other than what my birth certificate said and what my parents told me – that is all any of us can go on…)
    Without going thru all of the back and forth of facts, let’s see what happens with the SCOTUS after today…
    My guess is, nothing will happen…
    This is a DONE deal, my friend…

  2056. “Let see what he does” by, Chuck
    Dear Chuck,
    I’ve seen enough already.
    A Mossad agent, dual citizen is now the White House Chief of Staff. Hillary Secretary of State. Clinton retreads everywhere especially the ones that destroyed finalcial regulations and enabled the bankersters to go wild and destroy our economy.
    I remember Obama’s promises of open and transparent government. The $800,000 in legal fees so far, attests to Obama’s transparency.
    No man is above the law. Patriots must and will rally to The Constitution.
    It’s regrettable for Obama and his supporters that pledged their hearts, minds and billions to a man that knew beforehand he was ineligible to become President.
    It’s not about race, religion, sectionalism, or any other emotional reason that is the enemy of logic and reason.
    It’s all about the Patriot’s duty to protect the Constitution.
    If Obama does not qualify to be President of the United States. He must disqualify himself before the Supreme Court does it for him.
    Is a $10 birth certificate too much to ask?

  2057. Warren,
    Unfortunately, there are many people who in their undertone of speech and action are preparing their minds for a civil war. Some are predicting that or a revolution. Either way, now is NOT a good time for that. We are broke, we are disrespected in the international community and looking at using China for our bank (depending on how N. Korea acts). We are in a very weak position. Any one who has studied wars, conflicts, civil unrest etc… would know this is not a good time to have a civil war. It will break the country.

  2058. Gene –
    Let’s HOPE and PRAY that Pres. Obama will do the BEST things for this country while in office. That is my hope…
    If that means pissing of his supporters, then so be it. The REALITY is that he cant deliver ALL of those campaign promises – as we can see, he is already backing out of the promise to raise taxes (get rid of the Bush tax cuts). He is also going to find that he will not be able to do a lot of other things now that HE is in that chair. It is easy to criticize and point fingers at others when you are not in the position of authority and dont have access to all the information. But when you get there, odds are, you are going to revise your positions b/c now you know more about the issue/problem. This is just the nature of things…(shrug)
    Let see what he does…
    Only time will tell – he is getting his team in place for the transition. Lets see what they do…

  2059. You’re probably right, Chuck. But something is clearly in the air.
    Warren – I agree, but an illegally-elected President is
    a bad signal as well.

  2060. Guys….
    IMHO….
    Whether we like it or not, this issue with Obama’s citizenship isnt gonna’ go anywhere… Whether we like it or not, Obama is going to become the 44th President of the United States…
    Obama supporters, jump for joy…
    McCain supporters, learn from this and move on…
    (shrug)

  2061. @Gene: Given our situation in the world, civil unrest sends exactly the wrong message to our enemies. Even though I did not support Mr. Obama, I would rather be governed by him than any number of our foreign enemies. This is so obvious as I write it, I am stunned that I feel the need to.

  2062. Frankly, if the riots are going to happen, let them. I don’t
    like civil disorder, but a domestic war can end only one
    way, and WOULD settle a lot of our problems in the end.

  2063. Whether legally married or not, his father was Kenyan. The local witch doctor pronounced Obama and Odinga to be future leaders of government, according to other rumors. The african press says there is an Imam who left Kenya with proof on Obama and sought asylum in England. Anyone know if that is fairy tale?
    By virtue of the fact Obama’s mom was American he is a Citizen, but does he meet the natural born requirement with dual citizenship as well, even if he had a real Hawaii Birth certificate? I have heard there are now suits in 27 states! If all the courts ignore the need for answers, then we might as well move to Russia.
    They will probaly be ruling us soon anyway! Movcing more weaponms into Cuba and Venezuela, doing war evxercises. Arming Kenya and hte Middle east. What is Obama’s plan to talk us out of this?

  2064. Im so tired of hearing about the riots that would happen. So be it! Maybe the other 52% of the country that did not vote for BHO should riot if they dont hear this case and get to the truth!

  2065. Gene wrote:

    Well, today’s the day. Anyone hear anything?

    Give the lawyers a chance to wake up Gene…….it’s still EARLY in Washington, D.C. ya know.
    ROFLMFAO

  2066. OBAMA WILL IGNORE THE COURT I BET, KNOWING THE LOOP HOLES. HE IS AN ATTORNEY REMEMBER, AND KNOWS THE FLAWS IN OUR SYSTEM.
    Obama was a Birtish citizen until they transferred his citizenship to Kenya when they were no longer a protectorate. He was born a dual citizen, whether born in Hawaii or not. Can persons holding dual citizenship be president? The framers said no, but did any one ever make a Congressional interpretation? Obama knows he is putting the country in crises, and he does not care. That is who you voted for. A man who while on tax payer dollars was brokering money to put Odinga in power in Kenya, appearing on the media in Kenya even. Does this suggest divided interests, just as the founders warned of? I when Kenya took all British citizenships, they refused to honor dual citizenship, did that make Obama natural born (if in Hawaii)?

  2067. David,
    All very good questions. I’ll leave numbers 1 & 2 to the legal experts as you requested, but would like to chime in on 3 – 5 if that’s alright. The problem with anyone answering anything bluntly regarding Obama is the fact that nothing is really known about the man.

    3) For HIstorians – what did they do at the start of the republic? Did this issue even come up?

    I think the answer to this is the very reason we are having this discussion today. The framers of the Constitution realized the need for some way to control things so that only a ‘natural born citizen’ could ever be in control of this new country because their greatest fear was of a ‘kingdom’ of sorts (the very type of tyranny they had just left) being started up here on this continent. Realizing that the first President (some actually wanted the mantra “KING” for our leader) would have to be someone not “natural born” to this country is the reason for the wording of the article.

    4) For the Stop Obama crowd – Why do you think Clinton and McCain didn’t question his citizenship? I think a Clinton supporter was one of the first people to bring it up. They would have had standing to question it.

    I think this is the very question that frustrated many McCain supporters, in fact if you will remember, there was a shouting match at one of McCain’s ‘town hall meetings’ where one of the his supporters was almost in tears asking McCain to take the gloves off and go after Obama. Heck, I even sent him email asking the same thing and getting specific regarding Obama’s citizenship. Never heard a peep from the McCain camp. I don’t know why Hillary didn’t go after Obama on this, given her ‘bulldog’ tendencies. The only thing I can think of is that she was so arrogant and thinking that this little upstart didn’t have a chance against her that by the time she realized that she was being left in the dust, it was just too late to do anything.

    5) For the Stop Obama crowd – there are numerous people who have related stories about seeing the baby within a few months of being born. Both Obama’s mother and father were enrolled at college up through May in Hawaii. Do you really think they went back over the summer to Kenya to have the baby born? I didn’t know Kenya had such a great reputation for neo-natal care, gynecology, hospital maternity wards etc? Then if they went to all that trouble to go to Kenya why did they come right back. What record of their travel is there?

    From what I understand, and we will never get the complete story on this, is that the timeline went something like this.
    1. Obama’s Mama is banging Obama’s Papa
    2. Obama’s Papa returns to Kenya (for whatever reason) not realizing (or caring is probably more like it) that Mama is ‘with child’.
    3. For whatever reason (maybe school) Obama’s Mama waits until she is almost full term with the baby before flying to Kenya to confront Obama’s Papa and get a name for her child. When she gets to Kenya, she finds out that Obama’s Papa already has a few wives and is not about to marry another.
    4. Supposedly, Obama’s Mama is so close to delivery that the airline refuses to let her fly back for fear of the child being born on the aircraft, and they tell her that she has to stay in Kenya until after delivering her child.
    5. Obama’s Mama delivers a son in a hospital in Kenya.
    6. After a few months, Obama’s Mama returns to Hawaii with her new born son and applies for and gets (reason known only to Obama’s Mama) a Hawaiian Certification Of Live Birth.
    This is the timeline as I understand it from those believing that Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii and would therefore be a BRITISH subject at birth rather than a ‘natural born citizen’ of the United States.
    I hope I got all that right. If not, I’m sure that someone (LOL) will gladly step forth with a “correction”.
    This is the problem one encounters when trying to discuss Obama’s ( now President elect Obama) entire life. The man is nothing but smoke and mirrors and refuses to release ANY type of record regarding his life.

  2068. So all you can do is hope that our justice department will ignore the possibility of our constitution being violated?
    Your article fals to address the fact that Mr. Obama has NOT provided any proof that he meets the constitutional requirements.
    The justices, congress and president are hired by ALL the American people. If you refused to produced requested proof of being able to work in the U.S., or even worse presented a forgery, you would not be hired.
    Why is this different for the ruling class.
    Stop the legal crap and present the proof, if you have it.

  2069. Warren,
    You should have spell check for this site. LOL
    I was just having some fun jesting at the Stalker who has never wrote back.
    I guess he ment it when he said, STALKER OUT!”
    LOL
    Have to lighten the mood a bit at times. lol.
    Have a good day at work everyone, I and a many others will be at work here in D.C. this week hoping to get the truth out of The O’man before the Electoral Colege votes.
    Hold on to your seats we might hit some big bumps here soon.

  2070. Crazy Greek — That’s legal argument, not facts. The legal argument proposed on the Federalist Blog is one interpretation; other constitutional authors have a different view, including some who have pointed out that the Fourteenth Amendment in no way purported to amend Art. II but only intended to naturalize emancipated slaves, who were not citizens by birth because they regarded as propoerty . The SCOTUS, if the right case were presented, would take upon itself to choose between these competing legal arguments and settle whether “natural born” in Art. II requires that a President be born within the sovereign jurisdiction (Wong Kim Ark) or can be a citizen at birth by conference of state (Nguyen), or both.
    Facts, however, are entirely different from law, and the SCOTUS does not decide facts. A fact would be, for instance: “Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya in July 1961” and “she gave birth to Obama in a hospital in Mombasa” and “she rushed back to Hawaii fewer than four days later.” To establish these facts, one would need evidence, admissible in court, that Ann Dunham Obama got on an airplane and traveled to Kenya (a plane ticket authenticated by the custodian of records of the airline, stamped passport ) and that she indeed gave birth in Mombasa (authenticated hospital record and Kenyan birth certificate) and that she re-entered the US on or about Aug 7, 1961(INS record of entry). Another fact that would have to be proven is how Ann got a newborn infant without a passport into the US. Other facts requiring proof: “Lolo Soetoro adopted Obama” (requires evidence of adoption); “Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport” (evidence that he ever had a passport issued by Indonesia, record of entry in Pakistan using such); and “There was a travel ban to Pakistan in 1981” (authenticated record of a State Department announcement of a travel ban).
    And then there are questions of foreign law that must be proved, for instance, “Under Indonesian law Obama was required to be a citizen of that nation in order to attend school there.” That would require an expert witness on Indonesian nationality law.
    So far the “facts” are merely allegations (in a complaint in which Berg cannot even properly spell “Declaratory” in the caption), some based on unspecified “reports,” some based on unsourced Internet sites (“references circulating on the Internet”), some sourced on a crank Canadian BC signed by Mickey Mouse, some verified by television, some not even anchored to a source (“there are questions”), and finally, some that are admittedly conjecture (“Stanley Ann Dunham could have regained …”). The are allegations, but no evidence supporting them has come forth.
    There is also a problem with reliance on a 1940 law that was repealed, as well as some downright false statements of law (“Obama’s mother expatriated her U.S. citizenship when she married Lolo Soetoro”).
    There is a saying that “bad facts make bad law.” There is also a saying that “the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.” Berg would do well to heed both of these.

  2071. Thanks for the first few posts and the last post. I had to skip over most of the rest since they seemed to be rehashes of things I’ve read on other forums. This site has been the best so far on explaining what’s been happening with Berg’s Supreme Court Case. Most of the forums seem to think that Obama has to produce his Birth Certificate, and that if the Supreme Court thinks it’s fake John McCain would become president. Here are some questions, hopefully they’re not repeats:
    1) For legal experts – if this case gets sent back for trial what will the burden of proofs be? Will this be handled like a civil case where whoever has the preponderance of evidence wins?
    2) For legal experts – what other forms of proof of “natural born” citizenship would be considered acceptable. Is there some sort of point system like there is for getting a driver’s license. I can tell you for certain that there are MANY people in the United States who are natural born citizens, have always been treated like that, and don’t have a birth certificate and weren’t born in a hospital. Come back in 30 years and there probably won’t be any, but I have very old relatives(95+) who fit that description.
    3) For HIstorians – what did they do at the start of the republic? Did this issue even come up?
    4) For the Stop Obama crowd – Why do you think Clinton and McCain didn’t question his citizenship? I think a Clinton supporter was one of the first people to bring it up. They would have had standing to question it.
    5) For the Stop Obama crowd – there are numerous people who have related stories about seeing the baby within a few months of being born. Both Obama’s mother and father were enrolled at college up through May in Hawaii. Do you really think they went back over the summer to Kenya to have the baby born? I didn’t know Kenya had such a great reputation for neo-natal care, gynecology, hospital maternity wards etc? Then if they went to all that trouble to go to Kenya why did they come right back. What record of their travel is there?

  2072. Wow…
    ….You guys are still at it? LOL…
    Georgetown JD is right – let’s see if the SCOTUS kicks it back down to the District Court. If not, this thing is over…
    If they do kick it down to the district court, I am sure that one way or the other, Pres. Elect Obama will end up “winning” the factual battle in court. Mark my words, right or wrong, natural born U.S. citizen or not, Pres. Elect Obama will become the next President of the United States in January 20, 2009…
    When it happens, good folks, whether you like it or not, we need to move forward and support this President just like we supported Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Bush 41 before him as PRESIDENT of the United States. I am an AMERICAN first and I want our President to be successful b/c he/she leads this nation and I want AMERICA to be successful – whomever it is holding that office…
    So in my prediction, call it intuition, call it understanding how this “things work” in the “back room deals” that are made all the time, etc. – whatever you want to call it, this thing is a done deal at this point. Obama is going to be the next President of the United States…
    Now, if by some off chance it doesnt happen and Obama is NOT inaugurated on Jan. 20th (I dont think this is going to happen but it could…), then we are going to have a lot more to worry about than who is right and who is wrong. A REAL CRISIS will be looming over us all if this happens. And if you will recall from discussions WAAAAY back in this blog, Sen. John McCain, the next logical choice for the Office of President if something happens to Obama, has some rather “questionable” natual born citizenship issues, himself. Which is why I do not think this claim against Obama is going to go anywhere – the GOP’s candidate has his own peculiar set of problems in this regard…
    Just my thoughts on a prediction of the outcome of this whole thing….

  2073. Skydancer…..
    I am sure that you are correct. Once the courts rule that will be it.
    However, the courts are bound to rule on a preponderance of evidence and it would seem to me that they cannot do that without having some outside agency (the United States government has many that are qualified) to examine a certified vault copy of Obama’s birth certificate. Based on the findings of this agency, the court can then make their ruling based on evidence, good or bad.
    It’s gonna be an interesting couple of weeks, that’s for sure!

  2074. Barry Truthgun wrote:

    I asked about facts as I specifically stated.

    Ok…facts you want….how’s this for FACTS?

    “Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” This national law does not endow upon any person allegiance through birth alone as was the custom under the old English common law practice but only recognizes citizenship of those born to parents who do not owe allegiance to another nation. In other words, national law prevented the creation of conflicting dual citizenships between other nation’s citizens.”
    “Secretary of State Bayard ruled under Section 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes in 1885 that although Richard Greisser was born in the United States, his father at the time of his birth was a subject of Germany, and thus, Richard Greisser could not be a citizen of the United States. Furthermore, it was held his father was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.”

    Also this………..

    The constitutional requirement for the President of the United States to be a natural-born citizen had one purpose according to St. George Tucker:
    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom. … The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of the fraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than once threatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated among us all the evils of Pandora’s Box.”

    ‘Factual’ enough for ya?
    We are talking about the requirements set forth in the Constitution of the United States here for someone to hold the office of President of the United States….and that IS NOT something to be taken lightly!

  2075. Crazy Greek said: I think the point most people are missing here is that it is Obama, and Obama alone, that can make this all go away simply and quickly.
    ———————————-
    Crazy Greek,

    I see this kind of thing on science blogs all the time. Scientists are constantly bombarded with people saying things like “Just buy my $50.00, 800 page book and read it cover to cover and you’ll see how it proves Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and the Big Bang and everything else wrong”.

    The reason scientists quickly learn to ignore them is because they know they can’t make them go away. When people are determined to prove their point, it doesn’t matter how many of those points you disprove. They’ll keep coming up with more. And they say exactly the same kinds of things. e.g. “You’re persecuting me”. “You’re ignoring me because you know it’s true”. “You’re ignoring me because you’re conspiring to hide the truth”. etc.

    I’m quite sure its exactly the same for politicians.

    I can’t imagine why the copy of the birth certificate that Obama has already produced wouldn’t be sufficient evidence. To say that it’s not, is basically saying that the President-Elect of the United States of America and the Department of Health of Hawaii are deliberately conspiring to commit fraud. Although such a thing is certainly possible, I expect extraordinary claims to be accompanied by extraordinary evidence. To expect the opposite (i.e. for the accused to provide evidence of their innocence) is, IMHO, appalling!

    I’ll wait for the court’s decision and if they decide that it’s so baseless that it should be thrown out of court because of jurisdictional issues, then as far as I’m concerned, that’s pretty solid proof that it was a nutcase argument to begin with.

  2076. Well the kooks couldn’t answer my simple questions and cj I proved you a liar. Lucky for Obama nobody with brains are behind any lawsuits.
    FredVN I am not interested in reading more garbage from forums and blogs. I only want a couple of facts as I stated. One of those facts RE: 1982 Georgetown confirms. Can you prove him wrong there? I suspect not.
    HighlanderJuan nobody gives a crap about a fake Dr. on blogs saying things are fake. I asked about facts as I specifically stated.

  2077. Back on point, and to the subject at hand.
    Will Obama respond by tomorrow, EOD, at the Court?
    Let’s wait and see what happens in the ongoing saga of Obama against the truth seekers.
    Night all.
    ///

  2078. GeorgetownJD,
    Excellent. Now I understand.
    And I agree with what you have written.
    Acknowledging that, you must admit that Obama re-opened the redistribution door when he was talking with Joe the Plumber in Ohio.
    If Obama is really a closet libertarian, the simple comment to Joe the Plumber destroyed his credibility in that area.

  2079. Wee awl mak misstakes GeorgetwonJD.
    However, some are quick to point out the errors of others. We all type as fast as we can w/o realizing mistakes are being made along the way until we push that darn “submit comment” button at which point our errors become glaringly obvious. Let’s all be understanding of this fact and only point out the errors when the meaning of the comment is unclear as a result. of such errors.
    The idea posted to first type the comment as a “word document” then insert it is a good idea for those seeking perfection.

  2080. The “redistributive change” was the redistribution of the calculation of property tax-based funding for schools, i.e., funding between school districts with a high tax base (think Dallas or Fort Worth) and school districts with a low tax base (think San Antonio or Brownsville).

  2081. Juan — Warren would have to open up a new thread on that. The “negative rights” comment was made in the 2001 radio interview that got everyone’s underwear in a twist during the campaign because Obama spoke of “redistributive change” and everyone thought he was advocating socialism. What Obama meant when he said “the Constitution is a document [pr perhaps her said “charter”] of negative rights” is that the Constitution limits or restricts the actions of the state against the individual. For example, the First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging free speech and from dictating religious thought. The Fourth Amendment restricts the government from engaging in unreasonable searches and seizures. Etc. This notion of negative liberties comes straight out of the philosophy of Hobbes and Locke. In the roundtable discussion that was broadcast, Obama stated that the leaders of the civil rights movement failed to understand that the Constitution is primarily a charter of negative rights, and hence, since they were seeking positive rights, they were going about it the wrong way by pursuing change through litigation. Specifically, he was referring to San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, a 1973 case that challenged the unequally funding of school districts. The plaintiffs who brought the suit were emboldened by the advancements of the civil rights movement which had been victorious in equal protection arguments in cases such as Brown v. Board of Education. In Rodriguez they argued that the Equal Rights provision in the Fourteenth Amendment should be read to require [i.e., a positive action] equalization of the tax base for school districts. The Supreme Court rejected the argument. Obama pointed out that the civil rights leaders didn’t really understand the negative rights grounding of the Constitution, and that it was their downfall in trying to take their movement too far, with the result that they lost Rodriguez. Their remedy, he was arguing, should have been to seek legislative change rather than litigative change. t was in the context of his discussion of Rodriguez that Obama made the statement that Dr. Collens is troubled by.

  2082. Eddy wrote:

    Well I do live in Minnesota:-) maybe that explains it.
    And my online friends are from California.

    ROFLMAO…….now that IS F U N N Y!!!!!
    Maybe this also explains why they think you are crazy to be involved in this discussion!
    LOL

  2083. ROBERT wrote:

    So are you trying to say that Obama does NOT hold a US Passport?

    Not at all Robert. I am sure that Mr. Obama does indeed possess a United States passport…probably a Diplomatic Passport. Doesn’t mean that he is a “natural born citizen’ in either case.
    What I was referring to is that a copy of a person birth certificate is one of the items required to prove proof of citizenship when applying for a passport.
    Understand the difference?
    Now, if Mr. Obama did NOT have a problem providing proof of citizenship when he applied for and got his current passport, why is he fighting such requirement now?
    The ONLY reason I can think of would be that ‘natural born citizen’ status is NOT required in order to obtain a passport while ‘natural born citizen’ status IS REQUIRED in order to hold the office of President of the United States.
    Simple really.

  2084. Crazy Greek–
    Well I do live in Minnesota:-) maybe that explains it.
    And my online friends are from California.
    Scariest thing though is that I can’t even get them interested in it. They think I’m crazy for being involved in the conversation!

  2085. HighlanderJuan (and GeorgetownNJ)–
    Just a suggestion on this one. Warren has probably had about 2 to 3 dozen posts on Obama in the past few weeks. There’s at least one on the socialist viewpoints…not sure about the libertarian. Anyway, I’m thinking that with the way this thread has been running, it might be better to have that conversation on one of those threads. Of course, it’s up to you. but then, I thought you might find it interesting to see the other topics Warren has had. LOL. Just go up to the search box on the top right and search ‘Obama’.
    For the rest of you, you are likely subscribed to this topic. If they do decide to start commenting on another thread, check for their names in the ‘Recent Comments’ box also on the upper right. Warren doesn’t mind having a sleeping topic revived.

  2086. EDDY……Holy crap…….are the people you hang around with sittin with their head in the sand of something? (I mean that in a nice way now…jokingly) I’ve got people I work with who don’t even know how to use a puter and they know about this stuff regarding Obama.
    I can’t believe that these people you know, especially at the VFW, wouldn’t be aware of some of this stuff. Maybe not as into it as we are, but at least have some sort of vague idea of what is going on in the world…know what I mean?
    Actually, in a weird sort of way, I can understand what you are saying. It’s the same when you ask anyone a simple question regarding Obama…one I’ve been asking of anyone who supports him…”Name ONE accomplishment Obama has to his name since serving in the United States Senate.” I always get the same response…a dumbfounded look on their face and a “DOH” for an answer. LOL

  2087. Crazy Greek–
    The people at my work haven’t a clue that this discussion is even going on. I’ve mentioned it there; I’ve mentioned it to online friends; I even brought it up at the VFW I hang out at…it was news to everyone I spoke to.

  2088. GeorgetownJD ~ Nov 30, 2008 at 6:54 pm
    Now, you’ve made an interesting comment.
    Obama’s background appears to me to be socialistic, and it would be hard for me to think of him in any other manner.
    Having said that, if he is indeed a libertarian in disguise, I’ll take that.
    I guess I miss the subtle undertones of his comments.
    Can you elaborate on this a bit?

  2089. Interesting Crazy Greek- from an earlier post, you cite the documentation requirements to hold a US passport.
    So are you trying to say that Obama does NOT hold a US Passport?

  2090. @ HighlanderJuan stataed:

    “If the good Dr. Collens is correct in his observations at ~ Nov 30, 2008 at 5:57 pm, then Obama will not respond to the courts because he does not respect the law.”

    What do you mean? What are expecting to happen? No response is mandated, the brief is optional, and it is possible that Obama and DNC will (like the FEC) waive response.

  2091. EDDY wrote:

    Crazy Greek–
    You keep saying “all we’re asking”…who is this ‘we’, kimosabe? The ‘we’ you speak of is the frantic online bloggers…the very ‘court of public opinion’ I’m referring to. And I’m saying that he won’t play your game but will respond to the real courts if they feel the matter has any merit. Playing into the hands of the blogging folks would be incredibly foolish.

    The ‘We’ I am referring to is the American people that are asking these questions EDDY……and they all are not bloggers. Haven’t you been listening anytime you enter a restaurant or hear someone at work talking. This subject has gone WAY beyond blogging and I think you know it.
    Just because the question keeps coming up does not necessarily mean that this is something that is ‘just on the blogs’ and carries no legs. Heck, it’s obviously got some kind of legs since it’s made it all the way to the Supreme Court and other courts in about 8 different states so far…with more to come, I’m sure.
    Gotta remember EDDY, there has to be a ‘We’ in order for anything to get done and the “WE” in this case are the American people, demanding that Obama simply produce 1/3 of the requirements set forth in the Constitution in order to be Commander In Chief!
    To put it another way…and I am just paraphrasing here…..”When they came for the Jews, I didn’t say anything….because I wasn’t a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I didn’t say anything…because I wasn’t a Catholic. When they came for the Protestants, I didn’t say anything…..because I wasn’t a Protestant. When they came for ME…..there was no one left to say anything!”

  2092. Hey, you’re either underachievers or new to this blog addiction thing. Since yesterday’s pronouncement that I was leaving, I’ve been to two garage sales, took some pictures in the park, did two loads of laundry, two batches of dishes (a third is soaking), practiced a dozen karaoke tunes. The key is multi-tasking!
    LOL. Warren knows how much I’m teasing. I don’t know anyone who can juggle as many tasks at one time as he does. I’m a slouch by comparison. And working a little levity into the blog is a good thing too!

  2093. Actually, what Obama said in the interview was “the Constitution is a document of negative rights.” Any professor of constitutional law would understand what this means, and would readily recognize it as a libertarian philosophy.

  2094. c.j.–
    While I appreciate your concerns for Stalker’s style, please realize that the criticisms also set you up for some.
    It’s ‘swallowing’ not ‘swollowing’; it’s ‘ignorant’ not ‘ignorent’; it’s ‘separation’ not ‘seperation’ and it’s ‘berate’ not ‘burate’.
    Truth is though that many people are spelling-impaired and it does not mean that their comments have no substance or value. Even Dr. Collens had a few. I’m mostly telling you because I believe you are serious about your message and it could cause some to minimize your thoughts without fully considering them. (I’m compulsive about spelling but a genuine ditz at anything beyond simple math…I tip 20% only because calculating 15% makes my head hurt.) One trick is to open a word document on the side, type your comments there, use the spell check and then cut and paste your comments here.
    But I agree with your opening sentiments: Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Blessed Ramadan. (Yikes…I don’t think I spelled that last one right and I don’t think spell-check will help me. LOL.)

  2095. This blog is addictive. I keep trying to do other things like watching football or reading online news but I keep coming back to it. I guess I am hooked!!!!
    Back to work tomorrow though….not complaining….I thank God I still have a job.

  2096. Eddy,
    If the good Dr. Collens is correct in his observations at ~ Nov 30, 2008 at 5:57 pm, then Obama will not respond to the courts because he does not respect the law.
    This is what starts revolutions, thinking back on the French Revolution.
    Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.

  2097. Beverly–
    Yes, I’ll admit that I was being sarcastic. But, think about it, if Obama said he had 3 birth certificates, wouldn’t we then be demanding to see all three so we could compare them and wonder which one, if not all of them were forgery since most of us (I think) only have one? “Why three?” would be the big debate for the next week.
    And, please, that was a cheap and totally unfounded shot you took at Obama supporters. The truth is that you likely don’t know very many Obama supporters at all…not in any way compared to the number who voted for him. And, I’ll grant that you likely have met with sarcasm on blogsites from Obama supporters but that’s because your comments are mostly ‘flame’…you haven’t been adding much to the discussion other than your belief that he’s a fraud. I don’t mean that unkindly; it’s just that if you compare the substance of your comments to those of others who actually bring links or information to the discussion, you’ll note that yours pale by comparison. And, please believe me, on ANY blog on ANY topic, if you overdo the caps, it inevitably brings sarcastic replies. It’s our way of saying “Why are you shouting?”
    Crazy Greek–
    You keep saying “all we’re asking”…who is this ‘we’, kimosabe? The ‘we’ you speak of is the frantic online bloggers…the very ‘court of public opinion’ I’m referring to. And I’m saying that he won’t play your game but will respond to the real courts if they feel the matter has any merit. Playing into the hands of the blogging folks would be incredibly foolish.
    Consider that this blog, even with its faults, is probably one of the more sane and mutually respectful of the blog discussions that is going. Many of the others are still running at ‘high flame’ level with more rhetoric than facts.

  2098. HighlanderJuan,
    I agree totally with you and I hope the good Doctor can find time these next few weeks to keep us motivated with his good comments.

  2099. I hope everyone has had a very happy Thanksgiving weekend and now it’s time to prepare for Christmas and the other holiday fun at this most festive time of the year!
    Stalker,
    I work for the U.S. Justice Department but I had a hard time swollowing what you wrote. You seem to be very ignorent of the seperations of power in our government and how things work he in D.C., your comments a off topic and overbearing! The way you signed out tells me you are Military, maybe a Marine. I was in the Military before my current job so it is easy to tell from the way you sound-off! Shorten your comments and try not to burate other bloggers. This is a good debate and we would like to keep it that way without the obtuse comments!

  2100. Stalker,
    You said, “Add a few misspellings, most folks jump to the conclusion that not only was the writer angry, but the writer was ignorant as well. Often times when someone thinks you are angry and ignorant, they call you names. So if you want people to take you seriously, just follow some basic rules of grammar.”
    Look if you are going to point out the faults of other then first correct your own mistakes. I counted at least 25 grammer errors in you blog entry. If you notice the stort postings get read and commented on. Your long winded lecture on the best way to blog is uncut and unrefined! Lets stick to the conversation at hand, which is Obama having to prove his legality to the Free Peoples of the USA!
    Dr, Collens Out!

  2101. I lmost forgot,
    I was listening to some of Obama’s resent pre-election inteviews and in one he refers to the Bill of Rights as the “Bill of Negativity!
    Makes one think that he does not look of it with a friendly eye, may have something to do with his outstanding disreguard for the Constitution and the law!
    Just my thought.

  2102. Well Gang,
    I have to get ready for teaching my law students this week and ending the semester. I will continue to tract posts at this site in whatever free time I get but I hope to see the truth come out soon. If this problem is not taken with a serious
    stance, then we will face the truth that the Constitution means almost nothing and is no more that a old document with no meaning! I fear if Obama gets in and it is later found he is not qualified then we all will have hell to pay. Anarcy will happen I fear. I am praying every night to God, Budda, Alla, and anyother head honcho out there that this matter is resolved and the Constitution is upheld to the highest standards.

  2103. soon no one will want to read you comments. I thought you were done with this blog, you said, “THIS forum is worthless …NOTHING accomplished.. SO I refuse to participate further.”
    Then you come back Nov 30, 2008 at 4:54 pm with a new comment? I guess the above was just more of you hot headed ignorent venting!
    LOL
    Welcome Back to the Great Debate.

  2104. Who would be “playing into a game” here? All that is being asked is that Obama produce a viable copy, to be certified by any ‘professional’ the courts deem.
    No one is asking that Obama submit to any ‘internet group’ for certification here.
    Most of us have seen the ‘Certificate Of Live Birth’ that Obama has placed on his website. A lot of people believe that to be a forgery! I know that his certificate of live birth posted looks nothing like my birth certificate…or my wife’s……or my children…or anyone else’s I have ever seen!
    The State Of Hawaii has stated that they have a copy but will not release it to anyone but Obama. They did not say that the copy they have is the same as the copy Obama placed on his website, nor did they say that the copy they have list Hawaii as Obama’s place of birth specifically.
    What’s the big deal with releasing a certified vault copy of someone’s birth certificate? If it contains information on it that verifies what you say is there, no porblem. I’m sure there aren’t that many people in this world that are concerned with Obama’s length or weight at birth. It’s not exactly information that is of a ‘national security’ issue!
    I disagree that Obama is ‘acting Presidential’ in this matter. What I see his actions betraying is someone with something to hide…otherwise, Obama would have put this matter to rest a long time ago and would be able to assume the office of President of the United States without any worries of something following his administration around for his complete tenure.
    It may be about c o u r t…but it’s also about t r u t h!!!!!

  2105. Beverly
    I have to agree with Stalker and some of the others that you are overkilling it with all the capss use. You end up sounding like a very angry and bitter writer. This blog is a very civil and mature debate on Obama. The use of so many caps turns people off and

  2106. Juan– I’m sorry for your cynicism. I have more faith in our system, even if I (frequently) disagree with our President and Congress. Before I went to law school I was on the staff of a Senator and then served on a Senate Judiciary subcommittee staff. I saw the letters and took the phone calls from constituents. The members of Congress do take seriously the comments and concerns of those they represent and they have staffers who look into the substance before forming a response. However, they are frequently bombarded with mail and calls about conspiracy theories and rumors, and they know how to spot them. They also receive a lot of mail about popular causes that, legally or constitutionally, cannot be redressed. For instance, when I was on staff, my Senator receive a huge volume of mail and calls about a Monte Python movie, “The Life of Brian,” that outraged them because it was (in their view) blasphemous of Christianity. They wanted him to introduce a bill in Congress outlawing movies like that. Yet the First Amendment protects such speech, and the Senator would not, and could not, do what thousands of his constituents wanted him to do.
    If your Congressman or Senator does not act on this Obama citizenship thing, perhaps it is because he/she has information that satisfies the issue.

  2107. Everyone — I’ll share with you a website that allows you to listen to audios of actual argument in the Supreme Court. It will give you a sense of the give-an-take between the Justices and the attorneys as the Court seeks to refine the argument and define the parameters of the Constitution. The site is maintain by the Oyez Project:
    http://www.oyez.org/

  2108. GeorgetownJD,
    You said:
    “Those who send letters and petitions to Congress are recognizing and respecting this procedure. Since you have strong feelings about this, I hope you have made them known to those who will be seated in the next Congress.”
    The reason why Congress has such a low rating with the American people at this time is specifically because they do NOT listen to their constituents.
    I have written to my Congressmen and Senators for the last twenty years, and grade them 1) on whether or not they respond at all, and 2) whether the answer I receive is connected with the question I asked or the position I made.
    I subscribe to the school of thought that everything you do counts – it either counts for you or it counts against you.
    Government, in general, and except in our small towns, has shown by its actions that it is hugely incompetent, and getting worse (e.g. bailouts).
    So, for me, government in general hasn’t done much that counts for me, except wage the war against the terrorists (thanks, President Bush). That counts.
    Obama hasn’t done anything (for me, personally) that counts. He’s been untruthful in many things like his birth status, and has changed his story on many other things. That doesn’t count in my book of records.
    I simply want the truth out of the man. Then he’ll count in my book.
    How’s that for being pithy?

  2109. Well, Eddie..
    It is NOT overkill to have 3 copies.. they are ASKED FOR in a number of places. SO when I need it I have one available… I feel you are a bit sarcastic but you know I have found that most Obama supporters are.. The capital letters ARE to emphasize things some miss otherwise.. For your info..

  2110. Crazy Greek–
    I believe Obama is not caving to these pressures because they are ‘off the mark’ and he won’t play into the games. It’s actually a very presidential stand to take–to not be bullied unreasonably. He saw all the speculations that arose from producing his Certificate of Live Birth…people questioning it’s lack of creases, the type fonts, the letter spacing. Public ‘pseudo experts’ fueling a rumor mill. So, he ain’t playing. If the courts see merits in your challenges and he still has no answers, then I’ll worry but for him to respond to the rantings of a misinformed public whose sole purpose is to discredit him would be a sign of genuine weakeness.
    The courts will either see merit to the allegations that he’s not a natural citizen or they won’t. If they don’t see merit, you can then start ranting about how they all–both Republican and Democrat–are a part of that vast conspiracy against the Constitution. If they do see merit, I trust he will produce it for the courts to review rather than the blogging pseudo-experts. One presentation…one day in court rather than the court of uninformed public opinion.

  2111. Juan: I don’t think it’s so much a matter that the Supreme Court hates to hear cases, so much as the Court has limited resources and so selects with care those cases which will have the greatest impact or resolve a long simmering issue. From that standpoint, the citizenship issue would be ripe for the Court. But your point that the Court rules on the narrowest grounds is well taken, and that is why the cases that have been docketed are not going to be successful — each can be resolved on state law grounds.
    Scalia’s opinion in MIller was a concurring opinion, and the view that there are only two kinds of citizenship is based on a long line of cases and is noncontroversial. It is probably accepted by all nine Justices. That’s why I opine that Donofrio — who argues for three classes of citizenship — will be unsuccessful, even assuming the Corut agrees to hear his case.

  2112. Jim Graham..Nov. 20.
    Yes. I have to agree with you, Jim They are hell bent on this guy becoming president EVEN IF HE IS A FRAUD.. Obama has not shown any concern about the Constitution & his worshippers haven’t either.. Sad to say, this country is in BIG TROUBLE if the Constitution is NOT even respected or applied by the people AT THE TOP!! & the American people don’t care enough to INSIST IT BE FOLLOWED.

  2113. Crazy Greek: No, Obama is taking the right approach. Already some (like Keyes) have announced that they intend to file suits challenging every single act that Obama takes. It is better to let the courts handle it and determine whether the allegations have merit, otherwise Obama would be forever tied up in litigation. If the suits are deemed meritless, and litigants continued to file them, at some point there will be monetary sanctions imposed.
    Ours is a representative form of government, so it is up to our representatives to stand in our stead. If they are satisfied that Obama has met the constitutional qualifications, then they will certify the electoral vote. If one or more is in doubt, the law provides for them to raise objection and then there must be two hours of debate and a vote of both houses of Congress. If a Congressperson or Senator demands proof of citizenship, then Obama should — and will — comply. Those who send letters and petitions to Congress are recognizing and respecting this procedure. Since you have strong feelings about this, I hope you have made them known to those who will be seated in the next Congress.

  2114. Beverly,
    With GeorgetownJD posting comments (who obviously has the credentials) I believe we ARE bringing this topic into greater focus. Although some may not agree with all of GeorgetownJD’s opinions and views, the debate has become more elevated. My opinion on this matter has changed even just today and I now have more confidence that it will be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
    Eddy, nice closing arguments. Your passion came through loud and clear…… and you made some very good points.
    .

  2115. GeorgetownJD,
    Scalia point well made, but have learned a few things from my own studies and in my review of the several Supreme Court decisions I have read.
    1. The Supreme Court hates to hear cases and will use any one of about 15 criteria to prevent a case from being heard.
    2. The adjudicated case will be narrowly ruled upon.
    3. Sometimes you learn more about the case material from the dissenting opinion than the deciding opinion.
    I haven’t read the case in question, but I suspect if the Court wants to ignore Scalia’s opinion on citizenship, they’ll find a way to do so.
    Just my opinion.

  2116. Beverly–
    All the caps are very, very distracting. I’m glad you have 3 copies of your birth certificate although it does make me question the standards of the state you’re from. 3 is a bit of an overkill don’t you think?
    My point is that it doesn’t matter. Unless you are questioning his mother’s birth certificate and what country she was born in, you are ‘off the point’.
    It doesn’t matter if he was born in Kenya; his mother was a natural born US citizen. It doesn’t matter if he was born in Kenya; his mother was a natural born US citizen. It doesn’t matter if he was born in Kenya; his mother was a natural born US citizen. It doesn’t matter if he was born in Kenya; his mother was a natural born US citizen. I could go on but why….
    HighlanderJuan–
    Thanks for the bio info on Viera. The title of his book “How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” certainly suggests someone who has an axe to grind.

  2117. Thanks, Crazy Greek,
    Obama won’t make this issue go away by open disclosure of his records because he isn’t being truthful, and never has been truthful with regard to any of his politics as near as I can determine.
    Obama does have something to hide. He has a lot of something to hide.
    Any truths we get about Obama will come from someone else.

  2118. Juan: You make some valid points. But law is all about interpretation, and the courts do look to a number of sources to discern original intent. That is where the works that have studied the history of citizenship law will be consulted if this somes before the Court. AndJustice Scalia, a conservative and an “originalist”, has already written that there are only two kinds of citizenship, citizenship at birth and citizenship by naturalization. In his view, there is no third status, so he is not likely to be receptive to Berg’s. Donofrio’s and Wrotnwoski’s (and Keyes’) arguments.

  2119. I think the point most people are missing here is that it is Obama, and Obama alone, that can make this all go away simply and quickly.
    All he has to do is to produce his vault copy of his birth certificate that includes his mother and father’s name along with the delivering doctor’s name and any witnesses to the birth.
    It’s really just that simple and yet, Obama refuses to do so. Why is that? Is it really all the difficult or is he in fact trying to hide something?
    It is Obama’s actions that keep this issue in the forefront. This would have gone away long ago. Mr. Berg even said as much publicly…”Produce evidence that you are a natural born citizen and this goes away!”…..but Obama and the DNC have another approach……….petition the courts for a dismissal!
    Is it therefore any wonder that there are questions?
    Obama must know, given his supposed understanding of the legal system and his (self proclaimed) ‘love’ for this country, exactly what reactions his ‘refusal to produce’ are having upon our nation and yet, it’s like he is telling everyone in this nation “I don’t care!”.
    There are only 3 requirements for one to hold the office of President of the United States. Constitutionally, all three must be met!
    I’m sure glad that Obama didn’t want to play Little League Baseball! Not wanting anyone to see your birth certificate will get you a set in the stands at any game, but it won’t get you on the field!

  2120. Fred: I share your desire for SCOTUS to clarify this, but I don’t believe that the cases that are pending before it are procedurally postured to accomplish that. The issue in Berg is limited to standing; the Court will not opine on citizenship in a case that is about standing. Donofrio and Wrotnowski have two defects. First, both are before the Court on application for stay, not petition for writ of certiorari. The Court will rule on the stay, not the substantive issue. Leo Donofrio hopes that the Court will treat the application for stay as a petition for certiorari — this was done in Bush v. Gore. Wrotnowski, whose stay was denied by Justice Ginsburg (and will no doubt be renewed and “shopped” to Thomas or Scalia), also asked that his application be treated as a petition. SCOTUS is unlikely to comply, because that would deprive the respondents (the secretaries of state of New Jersey and Connecticut) an opportunity to be heard on whether certiorari should be granted.
    Second, Donofrio and Wrotnowski both challenged secretaries of state, under the theory that state law imposed upon them an obligation to investigate the qualifications of the candidates. Thus, the issue on appeal is whether (1) the state court’s interpretation of its own state law was erroneous — something SCOTUS absolutely will not do, or (2) whether Art. II imposes some implied duty on a state officer to investigate — which neither Donofrio or Wrotnowski cited authority for. And remember, SCOTUS will not opine on a constitutional or federal issue if the lower court’s holding is supported by independent state law grounds.
    I predict that SCOTUS will decline to hear any of these cases. Of course, there is a slim chance that SCOTUS would issue some ruling just to quell the outcry, in which case I predict that it would be a “per curiam” opinion — a short decision that does not identify which Justice authored the opinion.

  2121. Eddy,
    I disagree. Obama’s citizenship is part of the question at hand.
    Too much of this argument is redundant.

  2122. As you noticed maybe… I have chosen to not participate longer in this so called discussion. There is NO benefit in it. Everyone is ONLY CONCERNED in supposedly “proving” what THEY THINK. There IS REASON TO QUESTION HIS CITIZENSHIP OR there would NEVER HAVE BEEN THIS OUTRAGEOUS MESS to begin with. & YES, Eddie..(on Nov. 18th) I have 3 of copies of my ORIGINAL BIRTH certificate.
    The problem with Obama is that the copies of HIS ..SO CALLED BRITH RECORD.. are NOT Copies of an authentic ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE.. Otherwise NO PROBLEM. Mr. Berg, who DOES KNOW THE LAW & is a Democrat,. has checked out this issue. He would NOT have gone through this whole thing just because he “thinks” he is right. He has others who also agree. I am NOT someone who KNOWS what the original birth certificates DID LOOK LIKE & WHAT THEY CONTAINED in HI at the time of Obama’s birth. His OWN GRAMDMOTHER says he is Kenyan..she was there when he was born. Why doesn’t he Disprove this? He could with a copy of his ORIGINAL RECORD.
    This has just become a one side against the other…NOT a place to get real answers & see what we can learn about this situation.
    As far as I’m concerned THIS forum is worthless …NOTHING accomplished.. SO I refuse to participate further.

  2123. GeorgetownJD,
    You said:
    “And yes, I do discount Edwin Vieira, J.D., Ph.D., for reasons explained in my previous post. His article is considerably at odds with more scholarly work, and he is well known for his ultraconservative views. It does not surprise me that his article is little more than apologetics for an anti-Obama view. Charles Gordon wrote his article in 1968 and so it does not suffer from the same partisanship.”
    With all due respect, I thought the law was the law, and not subject to political interpretation (idealistically speaking). So, the fact that Vieira is a conservative doesn’t mean his opinion is wrong, and in fact, if you disagree with his opinions, it would seem reasonable for others to ask you to point out specific elements of his argument that you disagree with, and subsequently back up your own arguments with your own research material and case cites. This isn’t a court of law, so I don’t actually expect you to do this herein.
    It has been my observation that conservatives hold to the intent of the lawmakers when interpreting the law. Liberals tend to think of the written law as ‘evolving law,’ subject to interpretation.
    No offense, but I’ll go with the conservative attorney every time.

  2124. I’m afraid that many here have fallen for an old debater’s strategy–if you were given the role of defending a point that was false, you could still win the debate. The easiest way was to shift the focus away from the basic premise and then have your opponent scrambling needlessly to answer to a thousand points that were ‘off the point’.
    In this case, GeorgetownNJ has brought us back to the basics. And it explains a whole lot! Obama’s citizenship is NOT in question. His mother was a natural born citizen and, therefore, he has that status as well. Case closed.
    It doesn’t matter where he was born. It doesn’t matter whether he presented a birth certificate or a certificate of live birth. He simply IS a citizen based on the fact that his mother was a natural born citizen.
    Just like in the debates, when you move away from this point, you get to raise all kinds of fun and/or scary questions and allegations but, the fact remains, they are all ‘off the point’. It explains why this conversation lives on among blog pseudo-experts but is being ignored by the media. It also explains why Obama isn’t playing into the game. In the debating strategy, if you play into the hands of your opponent who is ‘off the mark’, you lend credence to their ‘off the mark’ points. Any response will only give them another ‘talking point’–even if it’s nonsense talk.
    I’ve found it most interesting that everytime I’ve suggested the most logical solutions to this imaginary crisis like contacting the current POTUS himself, it’s been met with silence and non-response. Why? I believe it’s because the real interest is simply in disparaging a man NOT in putting this foolish debate to rest.
    Oh, another debate tactic, if people aren’t buying into your point, go for the fear level. “Imagine the threat this would be to everything we hold near and dear.” Toss in value-laden words. “He would be a usurper.” And, by all means, use that word a gazillion times. Soon, people are reacting to the image of a usurper rather than to the fact that Obama ISN’T one.
    I actually can’t wait for the Open Letter to appear in the Chicago Tribune. I do hope that it’s signed. It’s high time we started to make people pay for this foolishness that only has one intent: to divide America. Yes, the very thing that they are accusing Obama of.
    His mother was a natural born citizen therefore he is! If you’re going to challenge his citizenship, you need to start there. Otherwise you are simply ‘off the point’.
    I believe that there are people involved in this debate who are quite sincere in their concerns. Please try not to be led down the thousand paths to nowhere that are being presented. Our Constitution is not being threatened. If it were, our current POTUS, who is neither blind or deaf, would certainly be stepping into the fray.
    Many challenge Obama’s silence, why then aren’t you questioning the silence of President Bush? I believe one or more bloggers suggested that the White House simply doesn’t want to touch this issue. I find that ludicrous.
    Consider that he’s now in what’s traditionally called the ‘lame duck’ phase of his presidency. Consider all the negatives (our economy, the bailouts, etc.) that are being blamed on him. What better way to restore his good name for all of history than to thwart a serious challenge to our Constitution? Suggestions that he isn’t doing this for any reason other than that the issue has no merit are scandalous. If he’s resisting responding for any personal or political motives, then you have nothing to fear from Obama, because all those values you hold near and dear have already been flushed down the toilet for the sake of personal and political expediency. (I don’t even like President Bush but even I have more respect for him than that!)
    One more comment for those who are involved because of their genuine concerns for America. Please consider seriously the flip-side of this issue. If Obama is truly our President Elect by virtue of his mother’s citizenship, what then is the intended impact of this debate other than to minimize his ability to lead? A war of doubt and uncertainty is being waged at a time when we need focus more than we ever had in my lifetime. The damage of rumors, whether they be true or not, is far reaching and often lives on even after the rumors have been squelched. Consider that serviceman, serving on foreign soils, who may have been exposed to the rumors but not their resolution. Has his or her trust or faith in their new Commander-in-Chief been undermined? Would they choose to disobey because they’ve been led to believe he is a usurper?
    I learned a parable in my youth about lies and rumors. The child apologized for lying and they were forgiven but then the parent took a feather pillow, ripped it open, and cast the feathers to the wind. They then instructed the child to gather all the feathers. Immediately the child protested, “But that’s impossible.” The parent then responded that it’s that way with our words as well.

  2125. Juan:
    As an officer of the court, I am obligated to present only evidence admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Surely you can understand that I view this debate over Obama’s citizenship from a legal standpoint, and that includes scrutiny of evidence that would be necessary in a court of law, not the court of public opinion. This blog is about a legal proceeding, and I am sorry that you think this is arrogant to write in terms of legal proof and research.
    There is no ongoing criminal activity. If I had evidence, I would be obligated to report it. All that I have seen is hearsay, and more frequently, double and triple hearsay. What began as conjecture has been copied and pasted as “fact.” None of it is “evidence.”
    Again, the “registration” is a non-starter. That law was first enacted in 1982, about 21 years too late for even a woman as clever as Ann Dunham/Soetero. Also, a “registered” birth nonethless is evidenced by a certificate that shows the actual place of birth, so even if Barrack and Maya were so registered, their Mombasa and Djakarta birthplaces would appear on their repsective certificates.
    I discount Maya’s recollection of the hospital where Barrack was born, as she is nine years younger than he. Whatever she believes has come from other sources, again hearsay.
    And yes, I do discount Edwin Vieira, J.D., Ph.D., for reasons explained in my previous post. His article is considerably at odds with more scholarly work, and he is well known for his ultraconservative views. It does not surprise me that his article is little more than apologetics for an anti-Obama view. Charles Gordon wrote his article in 1968 and so it does not suffer from the same partisanship.

  2126. @GeorgetownJD
    Thank you for your response regarding Vieira. For the sake of the “doubters” in the general public and for laymen such as myself, I hope the SCOTUS at the very least will offer an opinion that would be concise and easily understood to put this matter to rest once and for all. A response from SCOTUS that will help unite our country would be most welcome.
    May God bless America.

  2127. GeorgetownJD,
    Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
    For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.
    He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. http://www.piecesofeight.us
    He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. http://www.crashmaker.com
    His latest book is: “How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary” … and Constitutional “Homeland Security,” Volume One, The Nation in Arms…
    He can be reached at:
    13877 Napa Drive
    Manassas, Virginia 20112.
    E-Mail: Not available

  2128. Sio that we are all aware:
    Key Electoral College Dates and Events
    * November 4, 2008 – General Election: The voters in each State choose electors to serve in the Electoral College. As soon as election results are final, the States prepare seven or nine original “Certificates of Ascertainment” of the electors chosen, and send one original along with two certified copies (or three originals, if nine were prepared) to the Archivist of the United States.
    * December 15, 2008 – Meeting of Electors: The electors in each State meet to select the President and Vice President of the United States. The electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining original “Certificates of Ascertainment.” The electors sign, seal and certify the packages of electoral votes and immediately send them to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States and other designated Federal and State officials.
    * December 24, 2008 – Deadline for Receipt of Electoral Votes: The President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and other designated Federal and State officials must have the electoral votes in hand.
    * January 8, 2009 – Counting Electoral Votes in Congress: Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009 from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008 presidential election.
    The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (unless Congress passes a law to change the date).

  2129. GeorgetownJD wrote:

    Without understanding, for example, Justice Scalia’s rationale that he elaborated in his concurring opinion in MIller v. Albright, I don’t see how Vieira can come to the conclusion he does.

    I think this is the crux of the problem here that I have not seen anyone address.

  2130. GeorgetownJD,
    A couple of points. Actually a few.
    1. If I understand your comments accurately, you are suggesting that posters do the legal work involved in proving our point, which I think is a bit arrogant and presumptuous on your part. Most of us are not attorneys and don’t have the resources necessary (experience or financial) to do as you suggest. We expect people like you, as officers of the court, to do the right thing when you see criminal activity happening.
    2. None of us really know the mother (S. Ann Soetoro), nor do we understand her intent when she made certain her son’s birth was registered in Hawaii. She is known to be bright (Phd, Anthropology), although odd in some respects . She may very well have known exactly what she was doing by assuring that her son and daughter had registered births in Hawaii. Think about it. Why would she rush home from Kenya shortly after giving birth, just to register her son’s birth?
    3. Barack says he was born in one hospital in Hawaii while his sister Maya Soetoro-Ng says he was born in the other hospital. I have seen no signs of verification from either hospital in question that Barack Obama, his mother, or his sister were ever registered as patients in either hospital. What does that tell you? As Berg says (I paraphrase): the truth is always the same, and liars change their story.
    4. It looks to me as though you completely discount the article and opinion written by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. entitled “OBAMA Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down.”
    So, I hope you don’t think my comments are too harsh, but there is so much crap in the blogs, and most of it is by American citizens just trying to figure out the truth level that has been obfuscated by the DNC and Obama himself, I’m hoping you can help us understand what you know. The ultimate answers to the fraud questions will come from the courts I expect, although I personally would rather see them come from the FBI or the Secret Service before Obama is elected by the electors.

  2131. I do know of him, and he is a self-professed constitutional scholar. Other than his single article on the blog, he is not a published author. Nor does he list his credentials that suggest that he has a specialty in immigration law. For instance, I did not see any analysis of recent cases such as Miller and Nguyen in his article, yet these cases signal the direction that SCOTUS is going vis-a-vis scrutiny of laws granting derivative citizenship. Without understanding, for example, Justice Scalia’s rationale that he elaborated in his concurring opinion in MIller v. Albright, I don’t see how Vieira can come to the conclusion he does. Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio, or Cort Wrotnowski seemed to have overlooked Scalia’s opinion and apparently think theyare going to be able persuade the conservative members of the Court to accept their arguments regarding Kenyan/Indonesian/dual nationality.
    My views have been informed by the writings of a number of academics who have published in scholarly journals and/or learned treatises, and whose works are (or may be) cited by courts in written rulings. It’s a matter of weight.

  2132. @GeorgetownJD.
    I am not a constitutional lawyer, scholar or specialist in immigration law. However, thank you for thinking that may even be possible. I am flattered. I have gleaned most of my information from this and other blogs, from numerous websites and from various media sources. It took a day and a half just to read all of the comments and visit most of the links associated with this only this blog. However, for the time I have invested in this very interesting and educational debate to date, I found the article written by Dr. Edwin Vieira PhD, J.D. (perhaps you know of him) to be the most informative and educational. I would very much like to know your opinion regarding the major points made in Dr. Vieita’s article which can be found at:
    http://www.sodahead.com/blog/25353/obama-must-stand-up-now-or-step-down/
    Thank you.

  2133. It’s not too late to apply for SCOTUS’s consent to file an amicus on whether the Donofrio application for stay should be converted into a petition for cert and cert granted. Why hasn’t anyone who doubts Obama’s citizenship taken this tack?

  2134. You have misconstrued my point. It doesn’t matter where in the universe he was born, Obama acquired citizenship through his natural born citizen mother. Did you check the blue book as I suggested? Constitutional scholars and specialists in immigration law just don’t seem to be jumping on this Titanic, and for good reason. They have studied the origins of the “natural born” term in Article II and they do not share your view. In the very remote chance that SCOTUS were to accept a case presenting this question, these are the academics whose amicus curae briefs would be entertained by the Court. They are going to hold enormous sway.
    If you want to present your professional credentials, I would be happy to consider your view along with those of academics. Perhaps you could petition for leave to file your own amicus brief.

  2135. The liberal interpretation of the residency requirement is supported by Charles Gordon, Stanley Mailman & Stephen Yale Loehr, Immigration Law and Procedure, sec. 93.02[5](c). Prof. Gordon, as you probably know, is the former General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, so his view carries substantial weight.

  2136. @ GeorgetownJD
    You omitted one important factor, the BHO COLB that has been made public is alleged by multiple sources to have been altered. Perhaps the original in the vault in Hawaii says he WAS born in Kenya, and perhaps that is why it has not been released. If what you say is true, and he can prove via his COLB that he was born in Hawaii then it would be VERY EASY for BHO to put this entire matter to rest by allowing the true and authentic copy of the COLB to be made public. That is all any of us are asking. For the sake of our nation I hope and pray he CAN prove he is legit. Otherwise, we would have a Constitutional crisis on our hands if he is sworn in as POTUS (as a usurper) and later it is proven that he was born in Kenya. Those on the left imply that those of us on the right want BHO replaced by McCain. That is absolutely NOT the intent, at least from where I stand. He convincingly won the election. If he is legit he deserves to be the POTUS. What we want is proof that BHO IS qualified to be the POTUS. As of now he has failed to do so. It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS weighs in, assuming they do.

  2137. FredVN wrote: “According to FindLaw.com, cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama’s birth, state, “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”
    Fred, have you researched the legislative history of subsection 1401(g)? Given that Congress and the courts have historically broadened citizenship rights rather than narrowed them, see Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815, 826 (1971), I think you will find that the five-year residency requirement was intended for a naturalized citizen-parent. As Ann Dunham was a natural born citizen, citizenship could be acquired through her regardless of her age. You may want to check the Congressional Record and the blue book on this.

  2138. Dr. Collens:
    You are no doubt familiar with Charles Gordon’s, Lawrence Friedman’s, Malinda Seymore’s, and others’ scholarly writing on this subject. Also, a number of student notes have addressed the originalism debate, including and, as you are aware, have come to differing conclusions. I’m wondering if you would comment on the various theses and offer your opinion which of these authors makes the more persuasive case.

  2139. @Eddy you wrote:

    Again–why does it matter where Obama was born if his mother was a US citizen? I’m really very interested in clarity on that point. I’ve appreciated the general ‘cool down’ here and a focus on the real issues. Towards that end, I’d appreciate a thoughtful answer rather than a zinger. Thanks!

    From the 2nd link provided by HighlanderJuan above I copied the following in response to your question regarding Obama’s mother’s citizenship:
    “Jim Geraghty, reporting on the Campaign Spot blog of the National Review and one of the original writers on the controversy, cited the “rumor” that Obama was born not within the United States, but elsewhere, possibly Kenya.
    Geraghty stated that “If Obama were born outside the United States, one could argue that he would not meet the legal definition of natural-born citizen — because U.S. law at the time of his birth required his natural-born parent (his mother) to have resided in the United States for ’10 years, at least [f]ive of which had to be after the age of 16.'”
    He then points out that Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother, was 18 when Obama was born “so she wouldn’t have met the requirement of five years after the age of 16.”
    According to FindLaw.com, cited by Geraghty, the requirements that were in force from Dec. 24, 1952 to Nov. 13, 1986, encompassing the time of Obama’s birth, state, “If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.”
    I hope this helps.

  2140. And, BTW, the amended certificate has been accepted — without question — for all legal purposes (passport, Social Security, marriage license, driver’s license, etc.)

  2141. Barry:
    I understand your frustration that you cannot get a straight answer to your question. Pointing to another blog is not “support,” particularly when the “article” is riddled with legal error.
    Here is the answer: The provision under the Hawaii statute for a birth certificate for a child born outside the State of Hawaii was, indeed, as you pointed out, added in 1982. It did not apply to births prior to its effective date, and the provision is not grandfathered. It has absolutely no application to Obama.
    Moreover, nothing in H.R.S. 338-17.8 provides that a birth certification for a child born out of state would reflect that the child was born in Hawaii when, in fact, the child was born elsewhere. The certification of birth that is issued pursuant to this provision reflects the ACTUALl place of birth. Interestingly, no one “relying” on section 338-17.8 has offered any legislative history, and I surmise that the provision (which, by the way, is parallel to similar statutes of other states) was enacted to facilitate adoptions.
    This is supported by H.R.S. 338-20.5 (which none of the COLB cult has addressed) which addresses the certificate that is actually issued for a child who is born abroad. That statute provides, in relevant part: “The department of health shall establish a Hawaii certificate of birth for a person born in a foreign country … when it receives the following: … (3) A report on a form to be approved by the department of health setting forth the following: … G) True or probable country of birth. The true or probable country of birth shall be known as the place of birth …; and (4) A request that a new certificate of birth be established.” Section 330-20.5 goes on to state: “THE NEW CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH SHALL SHOW THE TRUE OR PROBABLE FOREIGN COUNTRY OF BIRTH, AND THAT THE CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP FOR THE CHILD FOR WHOM IT IS ISSUED.” (emphasis supplied)
    The bottom line is that, if Obama were born anywhere but in Hawaii, his certification of live birth would show the actual place of birth. The State of Hawaii’s certification that the “place of birth” was Honolulu is that state’s legal assurance that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu.
    With regard to the “amendment” question, a birth certificate can be amended by application of the child’s parents, but without a court order, the certificate must show the amended fact by striking a line through it. Again, this is a common provision in most states’ statutes. My own birth certificate was amended, because the clerk who took the information from my mother spelled my name wrong. Sixteen years later, when I went to MVD for my first driver’s license, my mother noticed this, and she and my dad requested that my name be corrected. My birth certificate has the wrongly-spelled name stricken out, and the correct spelling inserted above it.

  2142. Documentation required to obtain a United States Passport…………

    A certified birth certificate copy is typically the initial document needed to begin the process of obtaining a new US passport

    …….this from
    Documentation required to play tournament play in Little League Baseball in the United States……

    Little League requires that all teams produce residency eligibility verification for each player once the team wins the district championship game. (See http://www.littleleague.org/tournaments/residence.htm.) Little League also requires that all tournament teams carry copies of proof of birth documents at all times. These documents are to be used by the Tournament Committee whenever a controversy arises regarding eligibility, or to expedite a resolution of a protest. All Little League tournament teams are required to have these documents available for inspection when required to do so by the Tournament Committee.

    ….this from
    Documentation required to play Little League Baseball……..

    Original proof-of-age document issued by federal, state or provincial registrars of vital statistics, or local offices thereof, are acceptable proof of age, provided the document was filed, recorded, registered or issued within one (1) year of the birth of the child.

    …….from this form…..
    So, my question is……………….WHAT IS OBAMA’S PROBLEM?

  2143. Where do I start? Lets start with government employees. There is a great line in a movie called backdraft, “you see that little red light blinking in the corner of your eye? That is your career dissipation warning kicking into over drive”. I work do a lot of work for the government. I work with government employees every (work) day. One thing they all have in common is the protection of their jobs. Government workers for the most part just want to keep their jobs with all the benefits and then pension. It is very rare that a government employee, will do something they know might jeopardize their continued employment. So why did Chiyome Fukino do it? Can someone explain why this career government worker, gave a statement to the national press, that would eventually be proven to be a lie, just so she could protect someone she barely knew? Assuming she knew Barack Obama at all. What possible motivation did she have to jeopardize her pension and benefits? As near as I can see it she had none. If she tells the truth she keeps her job she goes on to retire in a few years with a nice pension, and all is well and good in her world. If she lies she is screwed. Government workers don’t get fired for doing their jobs. That is one of the reasons many people go into government work in the first place. There is an overwhelming attitude that doing what you are supposed to wont get you in trouble. It might get you some bad press, but in the end the powers that be will stand behind you, for doing it the way you are supposed to. However go give a statement to the press that eventually is proven to be a lie and you are done! Toast! A member of the former government workers guild, which really means unemployed, no pension, no health insurance. Someone has to supply a credible explanation for why she lied, before I even begin to consider that she did. For the record she said “she has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on file in Hawaii.” In other words he was born in Hawaii. As Director of Health for the State of Hawaii she is more qualified to comment on this subject, than (almost) anyone else in the world.
    It has already been pointed out on numerous other posts that Senator Obama has provided a birth certificate. I would like to point out something else. At a previous job I worked in an environment that caused many people to threaten me with civil law suits. I personally never responded to any of them, in court. That is not how it works. I would give a statement to an attorney. The attorney would go to court and get the case dismissed. This is done every day in our court system, when dealing with frivolous lawsuits. There is no reason to believe someone with Barack Obama ‘s knowledge of our court system, would do it in any other way.
    As for all the hatred. Come on people. If you want people to take you seriously, you can’t refer to Barack Obama as B Hussien Ossama. Or John McCain as senator McSame/McPain or whatever other sophomoric name you think of.
    Stop typing in capitals. Capital letters don’t add to the strength of your message, they show a lack of verbiage. When most people read a sentence written in all upper case letters, they assume the writer was very angry. Add a few misspellings, most folks jump to the conclusion that not only was the writer angry, but the writer was ignorant as well. Often times when someone thinks you are angry and ignorant, they call you names. So if you want people to take you seriously, just follow some basic rules of grammar.
    Now about that electoral college. Many have posted the vice president will be elected if fo rsome reason the president can’t be sworn in. No one has brought up how th eframers would have interpeted this. Originally the vice president was the person who got the second highest vote total for president. This does lend some credibility to the people who think John McCain could still become president. I personally don’t think that will happen, but it is interesting to note that all the so called experts haven’t brought that up yet. It is the most compelling argument for McCain becoming president.
    Stalker Out!

  2144. Barry Truthgun ~ Nov 29, 2008 at 10:35 pm
    You asked:
    “If Obama was born in Kenya yet Hawaii was generous to allow him citizenship 4 days later why would his Mom fly back so fast and lie applying for this COLB and needlessly say he was born in Honolulu?”
    The issue of the Barack Obama (or Barry Soetoro) birth certificate being valid seems almost moot at this point, but if you would like a fairly thorough review of the Hawaiian birth certificate process, try this site:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/why_the_barack_obama_birth_cer.html
    If you want more on Barack Obama specifically, here’s one more review for you to examine (this is part 1 of 4 parts):
    http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12932.htm
    I’m kinda wondering if we elected Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro.
    Anybody know the answer to that question?

  2145. Again–why does it matter where Obama was born if his mother was a US citizen? I’m really very interested in clarity on that point. I’ve appreciated the general ‘cool down’ here and a focus on the real issues. Towards that end, I’d appreciate a thoughtful answer rather than a zinger. Thanks!

  2146. What was denied in the Supreme Court case, was a “stay” of the general election.
    What was submitted as “new” in the Supreme Court case was affidavits from witnesses who interviewed Obama’s grandmother in Kenya, and she alleged Obama was born in Kenya in Mambosa, and she was present at his birth.
    I agree that this suit may very well be tossed for lack of standing, which means Berg cannot prove he was damaged personally if the allegations are true.
    There is another suit out there, however, that does have legs. That one is from the candidate that lost the US Senate race to Obama. So, if the allegations are true, he truly was damaged by the actions because he would have been the US senator, not Obama.

  2147. Actually, the FEC does NOT have standing to bring a lawsuit against Obama. Originally, the FEC requested dismissal from the Berg suit in the lower courts stating the FEC does not have oversight on Constitutional requirements for POTUS.

  2148. Barry,
    please read the article at the following link. I believe you will find this the most comprehensive analysis of the BHO birth certificate/eligbility issue:
    http://www.sodahead.com/blog/25353/obama-must-stand-up-now-or-step-down/
    By the way, if you think this is all nothing but a scam, wait until you see The Open Letter To Barrack Obama that will appear in the Chicago Tribune on December 1 and December 3. If you scroll up through the thread you will find most of it’s content posted by other commenters.
    This response is brought to you courtesy of Conspiracy Kook FredVN
    Have a pleasant evening.

  2149. Hello conspiracy kooks. None of you answered my last post. Here it is again I would like your newest, freshest conspiracy for it.
    If Obama was born in Kenya yet Hawaii was generous to allow him citizenship 4 days later why would his Mom fly back so fast and lie applying for this COLB and needlessly say he was born in Honolulu?
    People say Maya did this also. Where is her COLB? I haven’t seen it.
    Didn’t the law allowing this possible late birth cert scam only pass in 1982?
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

  2150. Dr. Collens–
    Again, my bad! It was c.j. who claimed to work for the department of justice. (Nothing bad intended in the word ‘claimed’…I’m just not sure that c.j. ever revealed his or her gender..so I slip into 3rd person talk which sounds stilted.)
    And since c.j. is going by initials I can understand why c.j. wouldn’t want to reveal anything further that could lead to problems at the DOJ. (LOL. I was puzzled when I thought it was you who said that. “Why, on earth,” I thought, “would someone reveal that info and then attach their name to it.”
    c.j.–
    Please be careful. If there is indeed a conspiracy afloat, and if some of the things you mention here are considered ‘privileged’, you could get yourself into some serious hot water.
    As for me, I’m going to check out for awhile. (Famous last words, I know.) I’ve been running myself thin following these comments along with those on unrelated topics on two other threads.

  2151. Eddy,
    I can tell you now that since 9/11 secerity is so tight that c.j. must either work at a lower level or be writing from a secure terminal. I have a feeling that he will not be very willing to tell total strangers what his job is whatever his capacity there. I don’t expect to much inside info to come from c.j. unless it is autherized by the FEDs.

  2152. Eddy,
    lol,if you scroll up several postings you will see where c.j. said, “Our FREEDOMS and even the very future of this outstanding country which I served proudly under Presidents Bush, SR., Clinton, and G.W. Bush with the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Military could all come to a terrible end such as the fate of Rome!”
    I am a Professor of Law. I have no want to work in the stress of D.C. not to mention the U.S. Justice Dept.
    Redirect questioning to c.j.

  2153. And- more REAL news: Obama has assembled most, if not all, of his economic team.
    You all should look into this, and get to know the people. They will have an impact on your life in years to come, as they take over the reins of government…

  2154. It would be interesting to come up with a list of people that would have to be “in on” such a conspiracy for it to be true.
    Of course, that’s outside the obvious left wing psychos who work for the state of HI and whatever commie pinko placed that “Announcement of Birth” in the Honolulu newspapers back when Obama was “born” in the state.
    Of course, the national media isn’t exactly a party to the conspiracy- simply culpable in not following up on what would be a sure Pulitzer Prize Winner for the investigative journalist who uncovered the real story…
    And cj- I understand about conspiracy theories, and how they live on in the gray areas of society- but at least get FACTS down right. Clarence Thomas has not (and cannot) “put a stay” or a “halt” on the Electoral College vote…
    Shoddy work on the facts is ONE reason conspiracy theories live on…

  2155. I misspoke about the hot potato. I meant to imply the feds didn’t want to touch the idea of telling the public. Too much backlash. Who wants to tell the folks that voted for ‘The Messiah’ that he’s not real? I surely wouldn’t.
    And, Eddy, it is just my opinion. I have no insider information to pass along, and in that respect, I’m just like you – I’m just trying to learn what the real scoop is.

  2156. c.j. & Dr. Collens,
    I just read your link to the Open Letter to Barrack Obama authored by Robert Shultz that is to appear in the Chicago Tribune.
    http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/Obama-USA-TODAY-ad.%20htm
    I would venture to guess that Shultz obtained much of his info from Dr. Vieira or from his article. It is reassuring to know that this cause is gaining momentum and that some legitimate voices are starting to be heard. Thanks for the post.

  2157. Ah, so it has gotten exposure in the national press (USA Today) and it is being followed up on (the US Ambassador to Kenya has been sent there). I’m puzzled by the seemingly contradictory statements that the White House doesn’t want to touch this hot potato but that we’ve sent an Ambassador to check it out. Anyone?
    Dr. Collens, am I clear in that you said you said you work for the Department of Justice? May I ask what your capacity is there and what you have your doctorate in? You obviously haven’t been sanctioned against speaking here. Are we in a position where the Department of Justice is divided on the matter? Could it be that they are waiting for the report from the Ambassador?
    It was the list that you provided detailing who qualifies as a natural born citizen that led me to think that it doesn’t matter where Obama was born but rather what was the status of his mother’s citizenship. Others cited his mother’s age at the time of his birth as being the sticky wicket. I believe it was while googling this matter that I learned she was 3 months shy of the time requirement for conveying natural citizenship to him. You didn’t cite the age matter in your first post, can you elaborate on that and whether those age and time standards have either been tightened or relaxed? Do you see the matter as being bigger than the issue of his mother’s age and, if so, how and why?
    LOL. I’m still trying to wrap my brain around this whole matter but, on the bright side, I feel I’m closer than ever.

  2158. c.j.
    I concur with Eddy, Your posts, c.j., appear to be verbatim what Dr. Vieira wrote in his article at:
    http://www.sodahead.com/blog/25353/obama-must-stand-up-now-or-step-down/
    However, your postings of excerpts of the article are helpful to those who would otherwise not go to the link or who would not take the time to read the entire article.
    I also agree with you and Dr. Collens that this issue is truly worth fighting for, however, taking up arms should not even be dicussed at this juncture. We are a nation of laws and we need to live by those laws.If a tyranical goverment were ever forced upon us, then we will all need to do what we must to protect our faith, our freedom and our families. Hopefully, the courts will sort this out to everyone’s satisfaction and we can all move on in full support of a legitimate POTUS.
    Have a great day.

  2159. Dr.Collens,
    Thank you for clearing upthat little mess with Eddy.lol
    HighlanderJuan said,
    I suspect that everyone in the White House, the DNC, the Secret Service, the FBI, and probably a dozen other fed agencies know very well the status of this whole Obama situation and believe it is a hot potato they just don’t want to touch.
    As one who works in the U.S. Department of Justice thust me we are touching this all over! The U.S. Ambass. to Ken. has be sent there by Pres. Bush to question and gather data on Obama from the Ken. Gov.
    The problem is that it is the national media who does not want to touch this and report it. If they do report anything on Obama it is on his picks for offices, his life, and family changing to be President.
    It is what we call possitive propaganda where as the media uses negitive reporting with Iraq and never tell us the good the is being done over there.

  2160. Eddie,
    I beleive c.j. was siting a almost two page article from the USA Today paper back in early Nov. 2008. Here is the link so you and others can read the whole thing:
    Robert L. Schulz,
    Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
    http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/Obama-USA-TODAY-ad.%20htm
    I got this from one of c.j.’s ealier postings uptop if you want just scroll up a read the whole thing.

  2161. I suspect that everyone in the White House, the DNC, the Secret Service, the FBI, and probably a dozen other fed agencies know very well the status of this whole Obama situation and believe it is a hot potato they just don’t want to touch.
    For us, the Little People, this would be a great time for a whistle blower to surface with some real G2 on what is actually known within government and what is being done to resolve the situation. Absent that, this has all the earmarks of ‘Constitutional Crises’ written all over it.
    I gave up believing in coincidences and in people having secrets a long time ago.
    Especially with something as important as this topic.
    Somebody outside Obama knows and just isn’t saying anything.
    And, yes, I do believe in conspiracies. People are jailed every day for participating in conspiracies.

  2162. C.J.
    I guess if you work for the U.S. Justice Dept. you could give us all the details as they happen. I hope you all in D.C. get the truth out of Obama and the DNC about his background! Well you comments are right to the point and br the book to the letter. I had to check myself, don’t know what to beleive anymore on these blog site. Thanks for bringing the facts to surfice about what could happen if Obama became a usurper.
    I like your ending, look I am a teacher and no fighter but if it came to fighting for this counrty as our fathers did in all the wars past the yes you can count on me to tke up the Flag and a rifle march to battle so our childrens children my injoy the vast Freedoms of our great country!

  2163. c.j.–
    We do get it. We got it when HighlanderJuan linked to it in his post re Dr. Viera. I’m not sure if 1) you didn’t follow that link 2) you followed it and thought it would heighten its impact if you reiterated it via 4 posts 3) you picked up the earth-shattering tidbits from others who did numbers 1 and 2.
    If you got your info (which sounds almost like it was lifted directly from Dr. Viera’s comments) from some other breaking news source, please accept my apologies. In the meantime, your desperation is beginning to minimize the significance of your words.
    Has anyone on this thread as yet tried to get this info into the hands of our current POTUS? Since the White House is still predominantly staffed by Republicans, I would think that someone should be able to access the President’s ear. If our current President, charged by the people with an obligation to defend the Constitution, weighed in in favor of Obama on this matter that threatens that very Constitution, would that be enough to satisfy you?
    More and more it’s sounding like folks are wanting this to be decided in the courts of public opinion rather than by those entrusted with the responsibility to preserve, protect and defend.

  2164. @c.j. wrote:

    I heard from a friend that on either Nov. 19 or 20 U.S. Supreme Court Cheif Justice Thomas put a “Stay” or halt on the Electoral College from voting until Obama provides all his history including his Long copy b-cert. I looked into this and he is right on the money.

    I visited the sites provided by HighlanderJuan but did not see any specific reference to a “stay” or halt on the EC from voting until BHO provides the long copy BC. Perhaps I missed it. Nevertheless, this would be tremendously good news. Do you have another link that states this clearly or can you get the link from your friend? Thanks.

  2165. And in finishing:
    Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID
    As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove Obama from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
    I hope you people out in blogger land read and understand what I just wrote. Our FREEDOMS and even the very future of this outstanding country which I served proudly under Presidents Bush, SR., Clinton, and G.W. Bush with the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Military could all come to a terrible end such as the fate of Rome!
    Give us liberty or we should die protecing it!

  2166. Obama’s every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling him to no obedience whatsoever from the People
    As a usurper acting in the guise of the President, Obama could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to him.
    No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of Obama’sproclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID
    Obama’s appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well

  2167. Should Obama proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, he would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences.
    Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect Obama, except as a poseur – a usurper;
    As a usurper, Obama would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President he cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States

  2168. As I have stated before hear it is agian for those still in debate about what would happen if Obama gets into Office.
    As Obama has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that Obama produce evidence of hiscitizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, he isunder a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.

  2169. Hey guys and gals,
    I heard from a friend that on either Nov. 19 or 20 U.S. Supreme Court Cheif Justice Thomas put a “Stay” or halt on the Electoral College from voting until Obama provides all his history including his Long copy b-cert. I looked into this and he is right on the money.
    I like how the news outlets are totally ignoring the news about Obama. It’s seems to be the method of thinking is, “ignore it and it will go away!” My towns local paper is all over this case and it has made front page news for three weeks straight. None of the national papers or news channels seem the least bit interested in the whole thing. Hell, they care more about dancing stars and Reality TV stuff than a national debate on Obama’s legality to be president.

  2170. Warren,
    I just visited your bio and website to find out more about you (yea, I was checking up on you) and came across the link to “ChristianBlues”. I intend to thoroughly check out this site. In the short time since I have joined your blog I have also found links from many of your commenters to very interesting and informative sites that I would not have otherwise known even existed. My “favorites” list has been expanding rapidly. Thank you Warren and thank you commenters for those links….keep them coming.

  2171. @Eddy,
    I agree with you Eddy. Sean is a lightning rod for the left, he would be attached w/o mercy and the story would certainly be dismissed by the MSM. However, he is probably the only one in the media with the “brass tacks” to do it. After I made the last post I came to the same conclusion that you did….that if Sean did jump in the frey he should do it head on. He should have Dr Vieira as a guest on his show to allow him to do most of the talking (if Vieira would be courageous enough to do so, for obvious reasons). Another option would be for “WE THE PEOPLE” to secure the services of Dr. Vieria to see if he could bring a case to the courts on the behalf of all of us who want our Constitution upheld….assuming the current filings with the SCOTUS are dismissed or inconclusive. That option could be explored after December 5.

  2172. Warren–
    LOL! That one’s a keeper!
    I noticed the time thing a day or so ago but thought it was a glitch in my computer.

  2173. Warren, I think your system clock is off. My clock says 1:21 p.m. EST. Let’s see when this posts.

  2174. LOL. I’ve been stressing getting this into the hands of legal folks NOT a political commentator who is already infamous for a conservative bias. This situation wants resolve not more speculation and divisive talk.
    The notion of discussing the constitutional ramifications without mentioning Obama by name is misguided. Anyone with half a brain would wonder what brought this topic to the forefront at this time. If Hannity does feel impelled to discuss this, I’d rather he did it head on, citing the specifics of this situation. Anything short of this would only fan the rumor mills rather than lead to resolve.
    Darn but it’s easy to avoid doing the dishes!

  2175. Eddy, HighlanderJuan and Robert,
    I appreciate all of your comments. FYI – I sent an email to Sean Hannity this AM with the link to Vieria’s article and asked Sean to PLEASE bring this to the attention of all Americans. Hopefully he will follow through. I also intend to fax a copy to SCOTUS from my office on Monday. Sean could certainly do a “Hannity’s America” show with a Constitutional lesson demonstrating what would happen to our country if we swore in an illegitimate POTUS w/o even naming Obama. For the love of God, I hope the SCOTUS (or somebody) forces Obama to prove he is legitimate w/o a shadow of a doubt so we can put this behind us. For the sake of our Country I hope and pray Obama can indeed prove he is legit. Otherwise, there will be hell to pay which would make Watergate look like child’s play. The left will say this is just another “right wing conspiracy” and that there are a bunch of sore losers on the right . To that I say, this is not a left or right issue…this is an American issue.

  2176. HighlanderJuan–
    Agreed on all points! Have a great day.
    LOL. I’ve been procrastinating on housekeeping chores and really need to give the blogging a rest until I make some progress. (And a round of cheers swept the land….)

  2177. Eddy,
    Good comments. I have a few additional thoughts for you to consider.
    1. I think the Berg case discusses the mother influence.
    2. Regarding the Abe Lincoln situation, I think we are all discussing the verification techniques that are available during the last 50 years for Obama, and we should be able to take advantage of newer technology where possible.
    3. There is also the question of fraud with Obama, and that is why we are all looking so closely at his offerings (or lack thereof).
    4. So far, Edwin Vieira appears to be the most complete and concise describer of facts and legal issues that I have read on this whole matter.
    As I suggested earlier, the final judgment should/must come from the courts, perhaps only the Supreme Court, as the lower courts seem to be biased.
    But I really like Vieira’s discussion.

  2178. Okay…so I opted against another cup of coffee. It was good reading, Highlander and I agree with Robert that it was much better than the YouTube offerings. Between that and the posting from Dr. Collens I feel we have some solid facts and a base for an informed discussion.
    I’m puzzled, though, I realize that Dr. Collens opens with agreeing with C.J. but then it seems that Obama is covered in the expanded definition of what constitutes a natural born citizen. Even if he, himself, was born somewhere other than on American soil, his mother was a U.S. citizen. Wouldn’t the question go more to whether she had renounced her citizenship prior to his birth? If not, on what basis are we questioning his natural born status? (I believe someone, somewhere earlier in the comments, said that her age at the time of his birth threw another wild card into the mix…is that what disqualifies his citizenship?)
    My reasoning, although it certainly could be flawed, is that his citizenship hasn’t been ‘credibly challenged’ (based on my logic–or lack thereof–in the previous paragraph). If the mother’s age is a legitmate disqualifier, then that would be a credible challenge. If evidence exists that she renounced her U.S. citizenship prior to his birth, that would again be a credible challenge. If evidence exists that Obama, himself, renounced his citizenship that would, of course, be another.
    My mind keeps wandering to Abe Lincoln, ‘born in a log cabin’. Perhaps we’ve played with the facts there and mean simply that he was ‘raised’ in a log cabin. If he was indeed born there, then there was likely no attending physician witness or nurse to authenticate a birth certificate. I keep wondering if the ‘certificate of live birth’ is the document we use when a child, for whatever reason, isn’t born in a hospital with medically licensed attendants.
    At this point, however, I submit that the reasonings of both Dr. Collens and Dr. Viera need to be submitted to a higher court for review. Beyond that, as a lay person with only an associates degree in theology, I’ve got more questions than answers. Thanks again for the second link!

  2179. Thanks for the clarification, C.J. I, too, have jested–mostly on other threads–only to realize that my attempts at humor or jesting were lost on those reading. My bad!
    FredVN–
    Thanks for the new link. I’ll follow after my next cup of coffee. It was a late night at karaoke last night.

  2180. Eddie,
    I ment no offence to any party, I was just poinying out how eay it was to cheat the system. As far as a recall that was just a bit of jest. It still would be interesting to see the differances.

  2181. FredVN–
    My computer must have been hijacked my the lefties…I followed your link but could not find anything with the title “Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down”,

  2182. This article is a MUST READ! Dr. Viera has impressive credentials and he obviously knows his stuff. Please read the entire article. We can not allow the scenario he describes play out in our great nation.

    Thanks for that important link, Fred. I was especially fascinated by the evidence presented on Youtube, from an “expert” who obscured his own identity in the video.
    When I first saw it, it looked and sounded a bit like my neighbor Hank. But that couldn’t be, because he knows nothing about forgery and birth certificates. And we know that no way he could get something like that up on Youtube without credentials…

  2183. Red Alert!!!
    There is a great article by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
    linked to:
    http://www.obamacitizenshipfacts.org/
    Scroll down to bottom and click on:
    “Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down.”
    This article is a MUST READ! Dr. Viera has impressive credentials and he obviously knows his stuff. Please read the entire article. We can not allow the scenario he describes play out in our great nation.

  2184. c.j.–
    This is one of those side issues I was referring to. It come across like you’re trying to throw a dozen mudballs at the wall in hopes that one of them will stick. This particular topic is about Obama’s citizenship.
    But, beyond that, I have two major problems with your complaint. First, it seems to suggest that only Democrats would be dishonest enough to attempt to take advantage of this systemic flaw. That’s just a tad offensive, don’t you agree?
    Second, it wouldn’t just demand a presidential race recall but would challenge every election for candidates on every level where this new machinery was in place–whether the current declared winner was Democrat or Republican. Do we really want to go there?
    I do commend you for the follow through on this technical flaw but I think it’s something we need to push to have corrected by the next election. To go back and have a revote on all levels for the 2008 elections seems implausible.

  2185. Why has no lawmen gone after these new eletronic voting machines and challeneged then in their ability to keep voter fraud at bay. I have been hearing many people in different circles both Dems and Rep. complain about how easy it was to cheat the system. With the paper chads you got one, punched it, then put it into the machine to be counted. These new machines you press the screen to start, make your selections, then hit finish. The screen goes back to the beginning and any fast fingered person could quickly vote 2-3 times in a row a leave. I have contacted the Board of Elections and they did amit that it is a serious loop-hole in the system. Then the election could have been rigged by fake votes and the Lady I talked to said there is the chance that it did happen at the larger voting places. I would like to see a revote but with the paper chads instead of the electronic machines and see how different the results would be.
    RECALL<RECALL,RECALL!!!!!!!!!

  2186. @FredVN: Yes, Fred, we strive for that here.
    Let me say thanks for that because it makes blogging a lot more fun for me. To all the new commenters, I am glad to have join in.

  2187. All,
    I find it refreshing that the commentors on this blog are respectful to one another (with a few exceptions).
    May we all stop and count our blessings, even in these challenging times.
    Happy Thanksgiving to all.

  2188. I hear you. There have actually been about 28 new topics presented by Warren since this one was posted. Several deal with Obama and one is actually an update to this particular topic. I’m a regular here…it’s really the only place that I blog. This particular ‘thread’ has brought in a host of ‘newbies’ and, I’m assuming, they are coming in via web links otherwise they’d likely be posting on the more updated version.
    My personal bias is that I tire of endless discussions especially when they go ‘circular’…saying essentially the same thing in a different way. I’m action oriented and really mean it when I say “Please, please take this information and put it in the hands of someone who can do more with it than just spin.” It feels we’ve devolved to that point. (LOL. After the 100th comment or so, most threads do. It goes more to ‘tit for tat’…or ‘pithy’ as Highlander called it…or ‘snarky’ as we tend to call it around here.)
    In short, I feel we’ve reached the point where little new is being said and we’re all (myself included) simply going for ‘the zingers’. We might be winning some debate points, might be impressing the folks already on our side, might be stirring things up…but are we accomplishing anything other than fostering a spirit of animosity? So, I shamelessly took advantage of your suggestion directed at ‘the lefties’ and turned it around. At the same time, though, directed our attention to the fact that we ‘spin’ here; if the concerns are both serious and legitimate, time is running out.
    If a legal response is justified and called for, the sooner it comes the better. We are in a very rough spot in our nation; I hungered for the time that the election process would come to a close so that we, as a nation, could focus on the positives in one another once again rather than our political and idealogical divides. My bias just wants the infighting to end.
    That isn’t just because it would hopefully favor my candidate of choice. I hated the entire chad-counting mess in Florida that preceded our current POTUS’ first term…but I hated even more all the conspiracy talk, the insinuations against his brother Jeb as Florida’s governor, the resurfacing of issues that I thought we had resolved or adequately addressed during the campaign, all the side issues that distract from the real and basic challenge. So I keep going back to “gather all the allegations and proofs” that challenge Obama’s natural born citizenship and get them into the right hands.

  2189. c.j. ~ Nov 27, 2008 at 1:13 pm
    This is a vexing problem for all thinking Americans. The only ones escaping the issues are those who are poorly informed or those who are brain dead and just don’t care.
    Time to enjoy Thanksgiving and remember all of the wonderful things we do have in our lives.
    Happy Thanksgiving!

  2190. HighlanderJuan,
    Absolutly not. I love a grand debate and look foreward to more on Obama. Although the U.S. Constituion defines the rights to be president and they are fact!
    I find this whole thing very vexing indeed.

  2191. Eddy,
    I was just kidding a bit with my comment on the two dozen entrees stuff. lol.
    I was just trying to joke a bit. I do think you right about that Highlander gal. You too have quite a few comments hare as well. Oh, well we live this life to to have fun and make sport of our nieghbors in your turn. Talk is cheap but actions make history!

  2192. Hey Guys,
    I’m all for keeping things pithy, but the title of this blog is: “Berg vs Obama: Response to Supreme Court due December 1,” and I thought that was what we were discussing.
    If the subject matter has changed, I must have missed that class.
    If you’re saying that all that can be said, has been said, I would disagree.
    If you’re saying difference of opinion is irrelevant, I would ask how we would learn if we all believed the same things.
    If you’re questioning the legal resolution to these questions about Obama, then we can discuss the elements in this blog, but the courts will have to decide how the final resolution will be decided (I don’t trust the parties to decide because they are too prejudiced in their own favor).
    So, are you suggesting this blog is finished?

  2193. James Ralston ,
    I have to disagree with your comments. “There is a lot of hateful nonsense posted on this site.”
    I beleive that the bloggers on this site are just having a very mature debate and to call it “hate ” is very ignorant on your part. Maybe it is time to look at your own life and first find the hate in you before finding it in others!
    Eddy and C.J.
    I have to commend both of you on sticking to the facts and siting your faults when they happen instead of blaming another. Thank you both!
    Eddy,
    I think your up there with HighlanderJuan on the number of comments on this site. I do think that C.J. was just using a little embellishment on the two dozen comments. lol.

  2194. CJ–
    I haven’t noticed anyone questioning the importance or significance of the Constitution…unfortunately it uses the phrase ‘natural born citizen’…some are questioning what that means and others are questioning exactly what proves that status.
    I also haven’t noticed any one blogger posting two dozen times in this thread. I’ll have to count but I’m thinking ‘highlanderJuan’ is our winner.
    I agree with you that it’s time to move this discussion off the blogs. Since I am satisfied (perhaps in my stupidity) that Obama’s Certificate of Birth proves his citizenship, don’t count on me to be the one to contact the necessary powers that be to defend the challenges made against that certificate. For those of you who feel that the certificate doesn’t count or that it’s been altered, I agree totally with c.j., stop blogging here about it and take your evidence and/or suspicions to someone who can do something about it. It’s very good advice!

  2195. Hey everone,
    Read these and get the facts cut and dry from the U.S. Constitution:
    Fourteenth Amendment (1868): Defines a set of guarantees for United States citizenship; prohibits states from abridging citizens’ privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law; repeals the Three-fifths compromise; prohibits repudiation of the federal debt caused by the Civil War. (Full text)
    Twelfth Amendment (1804): Changes the method of presidential elections so that members of the Electoral College cast separate ballots for president and vice president. (Full text
    HAVE A HAPPY THANKSGIVING

  2196. Lynn David,
    I am sorry for my mistake about Obama’s father’s back ground, I had bad info from a independent web blogger. I should have done a better job in my research. Obama’s real father is all Ken. and of that nation.

  2197. Hey everone,
    Lets all just google U.S. Constitution and get the facts as they stand!
    I have to laugh when I read peoples comments that question the big deal over the requirements to be the President of one if not the most powerful nation on earth. I mean what the heck? If you have the time to write two dozen entrees in thisblog and others then first do you research before making ignorant entrees. It offends me that there are people who live in the USA and don’t even know what the facts are conserning the right to be President!
    People stop writing and start researching before making uneducated comments to blog sites!

  2198. I am a professor of law and a defender of the U.S. Constitution at Penn State. First, after reading through all of the wrangling here “C.J.” hS IT RIGHT! He did his homework to the letter. Lets recape to get this mess right. many here think or do not know what the real facts are to be president of this counrty. The Constitution is fact and clear!
    Articles of the U.S. Constitution state:”To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.”
    Natural-born citizen
    Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”
    “Anyone born inside the United States
    Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
    Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
    Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.”
    That is how it stands, cut and dry!
    People, if you have any problems in what to think, try reading Article 14, Section 8 of the Constitution and be informed.

  2199. Oh my goodness, there’s an important ‘must see’ video by a doctor using a pseudonym on a website called ‘ObamaCrimes’. Why, I think I’m going to drop everything and rush right over there to check it out.
    One poster provided about 50 links to governor’s offices; I suggested going to the chief Defender of the Constitution himself. LOL. Was that the blog where they were reminded that any attempts to delete or derail the message would also be punishable crimes? And yet, this ‘fight for truth’ still runs primarily on blogs. The major news sources, including those that endorsed McCain, are ignoring the story. No governor, of either political persuasion, is heeding the demand for action. The current POTUS is either unaware of this alarming threat to our Constitution or hasn’t deemed it worthy of comment. What could possibly explain that? Does Obama have them ALL under his spell?

  2200. Food for thought:
    What if McCain were the Pres-Elect and he was the one being pressured to prove his citizenship. Let’s suppose that McCain now realized, at this late stage in the game, that he could not possibly prove that he was qualified to be POTUS. What if it became perfectly clear to him that this issue is not going to go away. What would he do?
    McCain is a man of integrity. He obvioiusly loves his country. He honors and upholds the principles of the US Constitution. I am certain that he would say something to the effect, “I screwed up and my campaign screwed up. We truly thought we could produce a valid birth certificate but we can not. We did not expect this issue to become a major problem. Unfortunately it has. It is now clear that I can not prove that I am quailified to be the POTUS . Therefore, for the sake of our great nation, I have no choice but to step aside and turn this matter over to the Courts and to the Congress to bring to a reasonable resolution.”
    If on the other hand, McCain could prove his citizenship, he would have done so immediately (as he actually did) to eliminate any doubts or ambiguities.
    Another significant difference would have been that if it were McCain as Pres-Elect who had not produced the appropriate birth certificate, this issue would have been the lead story every night on all of the major news networks. It would have been above the fold in all of the daily newspapers. The MSM and liberal blogs would have been relentless in their attack mode hammering away every day until McCain either proved he was qualified or until he stepped aside.
    Even though I am a conservative who voted for McCain, I too would have insisted that he prove that he is indeed qualified to be the POTUS. The mess that would be created by having an illegitimate POTUS could be disasterous to our nation at this critical time in US history.
    I pray that Obama will honestly and thoroughly resolve this matter before he becomes POTUS.

  2201. One thing is clear to me, a citizen, and a voter, the GOP sures hates to LOSE an election. This is, sorry, scholars of the law, chickenshit shenanigans for us ordinary citizens. Barack Obama is our next president. Get over it!

  2202. New Video: Dr. Ron Polarik on the authenticity of Obama’s COLB:
    http://www.obamacrimes.com/
    This video provides an analysis of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth by Dr. Ron Polarik detailing the factors contributing to his conclusion that the document is not authentic. “Dr. Polarik” is a pseudonym and his identity is obscured in this video.

  2203. RE: FredVN
    (1) Information included in various pleadings in other filed cases . (2) Based on statements made by Obama’s Kenyan half brothers and sisters (some older and some younger than Obama). TRS

  2204. HighlanderJuan ~ Nov 25, 2008 at 8:30 am
    Yes, I saw the video you posted last week. It apparently has the “left” steaming mad and understandably so. Makes them look very foolish and uninformed. I understand someone (a conservative) offered money to Zogby to do a similar poll of McCain supporters but Zogby refused. It would have been an interesting comparison. What is worrisome is that the vast majority of voters I talk to are not well informed at all (thanks to the MSM). People need to spend time digging around on the internet to find the truth. Most are too lazy or too busy to do so.
    To TRS: where did you find info that Obama’s birth Father was already married when he married Obama’s mother? I don’t recall reading or hearing about this before but perhaps I missed it. Do you have a link?
    Thanks

  2205. The original birth certificate and Obama’s country of birth are moot issues. Since Obama’s father was apparently already married at the time he married Obama’s pregnant mother, the purported Hawaiian marriage was “void ab initio” per Hawaiian statute(s) and Hawaiian case law. Accordingly, an entirely different set of United States’ citizenship laws are applicable. A child born out-of-wedlock in a foreign country to an American citizen mother and an alien father gains United States’ citizenship at birth if the mother had been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of one year prior to the child’s birth. If it is proven that Obama’s father was already married in Kenya, President-elect Obama will be President Obama come January. (A Retired Lawyer)

  2206. James Ralston,
    One other thought. Well, actually three.
    You said:
    “Some of this hatred is political, some of it is cultural and unfortunately, some of it is racial and religious…”
    1. Hatred is a strong word, and I’m not certain I would see that emotion very prevalent in these blogs. To hate someone or something, you have to know them or it. We-all just don’t know Obama well enough to hate him. In time that may happen. Then again, Americans are a pretty forgiving people. Look at what we put up with in Congress.
    2. The only racism I observed in this election was on the part of the black community, and that was in nearly 100% deference to Obama who appears to be half black and half white, but promotes himself as being black, rather than being white. Is that the racism you see?
    3. I have no idea what you are referring to with the religious comment, unless you are referring to Obama being declared Muslim while in Indonesia, and that being held against him in today’s United States. Our Judeo-Christian country being at war with certain Muslim extremists around the world may account for some of that prejudice. And it is real.
    Interesting that you did not comment about Obama’s political training and theories. Now there’s a can of worms for some one to take on.

  2207. James Ralston,
    Contrary to the legal opinions you are expressing in a couple of your posts, there appear to be actual legal issues involved in the Obama matter. Let’s let SCOTUS and the lower courts decide if there is any legitimacy in these Obama cases. Unless you are a Constitutional attorney and have reviewed all of the various case files, I’m not certain you really want to be expressing legal opinion.
    By the way, Obama can clear up any misunderstanding concerned with his birth status by merely revealing his background material, which, as you well know, he refuses to do. Combining the Obama secrecy with the changing stories (like which hospital he was born in), and you have disbelief. People pick up on that and then ask questions. Nothing sinister going on, people just want to know their president to-be is qualified and eligible.
    So, the question has to be asked ‘why won’t Obama reveal his background information?’ You can’t answer that question, and neither can I, but it needs to be answered. Soon.
    And, finally, regarding hateful comments, you ain’t seen nuthin here. I suggest you review some conservative web sites (e.g. TownHall.com) and see how absolutely nasty and vile some emotional and immature liberals can be. They put conservatives to shame.
    My own belief is that, if everyone, who adds to this blog and the other blogs associated with Obama’s being a qualified candidate to run for the Office of President, can be cordial to each other and treat the topic with reason, logic, and common sense, we will all benefit, and maybe answer a few questions along the way.
    Sounds like a win-win solution to me.

  2208. Hospitals can’t release medical records without breaking the HIPA law.
    To suggest otherwise is to create yet another avenue that the right wingers will consider thwarted by Obama and his minions.
    Look, if the nut cases think Obama has committed a crime by running for office as a non-citizen, then it is up to the accusers to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. But they know they can’t.
    They just want to create doubt and fear, stoke hate and foment discord and division.

  2209. doesn’t the hospital have medical records from the attending physician and nurses and anesthesiologist for both labor and delivery and then after the birth? That would be a good place to start as far as where he was born.

  2210. @Warren: I’m not pointing to any particular commenter, but to the comments themselves. It’s exhausting listening to and reading this stuff from the right wing. Enough already. I got here today because my wife and I heard about this issue over the weekend. I’m amazed at how many suits have been filed. It’s nonesense.
    I think it’s undeniable that some of the comments doubting Obama’s citizenship are expressions of hate and my comments are directed at those. Some of this hatred is political, some of it is cultural and unfortunately, some of it is racial and religious, but it’s all hateful and I’ll call ’em like as I see ’em.
    It’s hateful because it can’t be based on reality. Barack Obama is a qualified citizen and has shown sufficient documentation to prove it. By virtue of being born of his mother, a US citizen – even it his birth occurred abroad and his father is foreign – President Elect Barack Obama is a citizen. Minors can not renounce citizenship and forfeiting US citizenship is very difficult and extremely rare, so some of the assertions here that he has compromised his citizenship are baseless. There is absolutely no credible evidence to indicate that his citizenship is in question.
    Many of the assertions about citizenship on this site are simply factually wrong and show the posters, and the propagators of these myths to be lazy and hateful. A visit to the State Department will be enough to get the facts.
    When people make comments, or file law suits, that have no basis in fact, they should be dismissed and if my tone is dismissive toward them, then so be it. There’s no reason to entertain nonsense and lies as if they are somehow credible when they simply are not. Haven’t we had enough of lies driving this country’s conversations and policies over the last eight years?

  2211. “Regarding Karen’s question of who should enforce the eligibility requirements: current precedent is the secretaries of state of each of the states for which the candidate is on the ballot.”
    And if they don’t — citizens also don’t have standing to sue the SOS to force the SOS to keep unqualified candidates off the allot. See Steve Marquis case.

  2212. @James Ralston: There is some hate in the commenters (if you mean me, please point it out); but there is also lots of misunderstanding fueled by far right blogs. I am interested in this on several levels and one is the power of this narrative. But I also have attempted to debunk some of the claims regarding this narrative. The information you provide is a part of that narrative but sadly, so too is your dismissive tone toward those who are misinformed.

  2213. There is a lot of hateful nonsense posted on this site.
    A certificate of live birth is acceptable proof of Obama’s citizenship and has been accepted during the course of his life and by EVERY STATE in order to place him on the ballot during the election.
    The US Government is NEUTRAL as the question of multiple citizenship. You can check the Dept of State’s website. I am a dual citizen and possess two passports.I didn’t have to renounce my US citizenship and using my US passport to enter and leave the US is about the issue with it. Please get your facts straight.
    As for having to renounce (not denounce) US citizenship, this is true for naturalized citizens who are ADULTS. Renouncing US citizenship is a serious matter and is not taken lightly by the US government. Once should expect an interview with a State Department official before such an act. Minors are unable to renounce their citizenship because they are minors. Parents can not do it for them in the event that they claim other citizenship.
    Barack Obama won the election and will be the next president. Get over it.

  2214. just show the birth cirtificate … ive got mine, youve got yours … where is his ?????? were not asking for him to anything really hard or demeaning, if he was truly born here, then why is that so hard fro him to do? i hade to show mine to play little leauge ball, water polo, go to college and get my license, if i cant have them without my birth cirtificate, then why should he be allowed to lead a country without his? for all of you saying get off his back, i say get off his nuts. once he grows a pair and shows hes from here (if he can) then well back off. common sense will tell you that somthing is fishy if he will not relese his documents

  2215. If Obama was born in Kenya yet Hawaii was generous to allow him citizenship 4 days later why would his Mom fly back so fast and lie applying for this COLB and needlessly say he was born in Honolulu? This secret Muslim plotted his illegal Presidency at birth?
    People say Maya did this also. Where is her COLB? I haven’t seen it.
    Didn’t the law allowing this possible late birth cert scam only pass in 1982?
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm

  2216. @Eddy,
    I agree Eddy with one exception; I think it would be far easier for the former or even the POTUS – Elect to hide a cocaine problem, even if it were occuring today. I could take one look at my Mom and know when she had taken even one drink…….I could see it in her eyes. Furthermore, the odor of alcohol is very strong and distinctive. I can tell when someone has gotten tanked up the night before, because they smell like booze the next day. The odor can’t be easily washed away. Plus, continued abuse soon becomes evident because the person’s performance starts to suffer. I don’t know if any of this would be readily evident with cocaine abuse. Notwithstanding, we all need to pray often for Obama. He is inheriting a very difficult job indeed.

  2217. FOI request for Obama’s birth certificate –found on the internet at http://www.DailyJeff.com-has all 50 SOS emails-1 stop emailing!
    FOI REQUEST TO ALL SOS FOR OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE
    We need to find out what the SOS of the various States know about Obama’s birth certificate and qualifications to be president. If you have time, please send/fax/email the following FOI (freedom of information letter) to some or all of the SOS bureau of elections. After you get a response please post on http://www.obamacrimes.com, http://www.freerepublic.com, http://www.peoplespassions.org, http://americamustknow.com,www.rallycongress.com.
    1. The address , fax number and email address for the Bureau of elections for the states are at http://www.eac.gov.
    2. I like the faxes because they will respond quicker to them. Print off your generic FOI request and past/tape the next name over the top and fax it off. See emails listed below for all 50 SOS.Cut and paste to send all 50 at one time. Sit back and wait for answers.
    November 21, 2008
    TO: BUREAU OF ELECTIONS
    Bureau of Elections, California
    1500 11th St, 5th Floor FAX: 916-653-5634
    Sacramento, CA 95814 Email: [email protected]
    ATTN: Freedom of Information Officer
    REF: Freedom of Information Act Request/Privacy Act/ Open Meeting Act, Common Law
    This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Please send the following documents for examining and photocopying:
    1. Documents that show that Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States , including but not limited to:
    a. Original birth certificate
    b. Proof that he is a natural born United States citizen
    c. Proof that he was born in Kenya
    AS you know , the FOIA provides that if a portions of a document are exempt from release, the remainder must be segregated and disclosed. Therefore, I would like to examine all nonexempt portions of the records that I requested and I ask that you justify and deletions by citing specific exemptions of the FOIA
    This is a continuing request into the future for 6 months.
    If this is not the proper department, please forward to the Election Bureau/SOS.
    I promise to pay reasonable search and duplication fees in connection with this request. (Note: The FOIA permit some fee reduction or waivers).
    Please notify me if the charges will exceed ($20.00), so that I can decide whether to authorize a higher amount.
    Thank you for your assistance, I look forward to receiving your reply within five business days, as required by law.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Johnson
    123 Main St
    Anywhere , CA
    Cc: Clerk of the US Supreme Court
    One First Street N.E.
    Washington, DC 20543
    FAX: (209) 479-3021
    WARNING
    Should any person try to cover up this request or documents herein, BE YOU HEREBY PUT ON NOTICE: You may be indicted under USC Title 18 Sec. 3. 4, 2381, 2382, 2383, and 2384. Also, 4 U.S.C. & 101, federal law requires all state employees and officers take an oath of office and records kept of such administered oath.
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected] ,[email protected] ,[email protected] ,
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],
    [email protected],[email protected],[email protected],

  2218. In REAL news:
    It looks like Bill Richardson will be named to a cabinet post.
    Moral of the story: While the far right makes up issues that don’t exist, the real work of preparing to govern continues.
    Just more evidence that this stuff about birth certificates, etc. is rightfully ignored. These are dangerous times for our country, and distractions like this must be kept to the wingnut fringe.

  2219. FredVN–
    There were also some pretty strong rumors that our current POTUS dabbled in cocaine as well…I believe back in his college days. Like many drugs, there are the dabblers and the addicts. Dabbling would have put him at the risk of dependency and addiction and been a temporary drain on his wallet but I’m not sure there’s any hard evidence re permanent brain damage caused by dabbling or experimenting. I worried more about the alcohol because I believe his position and his marriage likely provided some pretty major roadblocks to revisiting cocaine. Alcohol would be more insidious since we have a construct of acceptable, moderate usage…hence, easier to play around on the edges without raising any huge red flags.

  2220. @Eddy
    Yea Eddy, I thought of that too.
    “remember that our current POTUS apparently had a few issues of his own before he settled down”
    And based upon some of W’s decisions recently, who really knows except perhaps Laura? I do know how alcohol abuse can affect someone because I have seen it in my own family and struggled with it my self until 1976. However, I am not sure how someone’s mind adjusts to cocaine abuse, especially over the long haul.
    It may be providential but the Youth Pastor at our church this morning gave a message called “From Gangs to God” describing how in his youth he formed a gang in Lancaster, PA, abused drugs (he did not use cocaine), committed crimes and every sin imaginable under the sun. By the grace of God he was able to turn his life around and is now living the clean life. Someone recently approached him about writing a book about his life. His story would make a great movie. By the way, his name is Eddie. So, I know anything is possible if we turn to a power greater than ourselves to overcome the vices in our lives.
    Have a great day.

  2221. Howard Roark–
    You tell the Obama supporters to quit complaining. LOL. But I thought the issue was that we weren’t listening…we weren’t take this seriously…that we were blissfully following our Messiah. Complaining seems to be your domain not ours.
    FredVN–
    While Obama’s admission of cocaine usage may be alarming, please remember that our current POTUS apparently had a few issues of his own before he settled down.
    To all:
    Isn’t one of the primary roles of the POTUS to defend the Constitution of these United States? Time is running out. Rather than wasting your time here trying to convince us wacked out Obama supporters, may I suggest that you take your complaints and allegations straight to the top…to King George himself.
    Then, after we’ve resolved this issue, I’m thinking we need to update or make clarifying amendments to the Constitution. I’d really like to avoid any challenges in future elections based on ‘natural born’…we ought to clarify the meaning so some don’t challenge a future candidate based on the fact they were born by C-section.

  2222. @Warren, Thanks for your response Warren. FYI – I found these videos regarding an analyis of the polygraph tests taken by Larry Sinclair:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1uMEXiv1ng&NR=1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc8Ys8iXTiU
    It seems that even the results of the polygraph tests are debatable and inconclusive. What I found interesting is that the gentleman speaking on these videos, George Maschke, “said he is an Obama supporter and even donated to Obama’s campaign. If these videos had been prepared by someone on the “right” , i.e. someone who has an ax to grind”, they would have much less credibility. I think the jury is still out on this one. Nevertheless, I hope and pray none of this is true. What concerns me the most is how would a former cocaine user hold up under the tremendous stress and strain that inherently comes with the job of being the POTUS, especially in these very difficult times? Isn’t it a fact that Obama has openly admitted to using cocaine at one stage of his life? I have never used cocaine and do not know what it takes to get someone to “fall off the wagon” or what it would take to trigger someone to start using the drug again. Maybe others who know more about how a former cocaine user holds up under stress could weigh in on this sidebar issue if you feel it is appropriate.
    I know we are deviating away from the primary focus of the dicussion, however, it all relates to the man’s capacity to serve as POTUS. Discussions regarding the distasteful sexual content of Sinclairs allegations I will leave for others to opine.

  2223. On Nov.21, The KENYAN AMBASSADOR CONFIRMED OBAMA WAS BORN IN KENYA.. (NOT IN HAWAII, NOT ON AMERICAN SOIL….)
    LISTEN TO THE CALL TO THE KENYAN EMBASSY ABOUT BARACK OBAMA ON November 21, 2008.
    THIS CALL IS 100% REAL! http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916
    You who think this is fake or “a bit”…
    IT IS NOT!
    Now take a listen…Quit complaining…And take it for what it is-a cancellation of the ELECTION! B. HUSSEIN OBAMA SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ALLOWED ON THE PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT TO BEGIN WITH-THERE WILL BE NO INAUGURATION ON JANUARY 20TH-PERIOD. TO ATTEMPT TO DO SO WILL BE A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

  2224. @FredVN: I cannot find the link but I remember reading that Obama’s accuser failed two polygraph tests about his claims. His stories were not consistent and had no evidence.

  2225. You’re welcome Ann.
    Someone in the string of comments mentioned a relationship Obama had with Larry Sinclair. So I did some research and found the following site which is a video of Sinclair’s press conference regarding the matter:
    http://larrysinclair.org/press.html
    It appears the MSM decided to give Obama another pass.
    There are many more videos on YouTube using “Larry Sinclair” as a search entry. I hope none of this is true. If it is God help us.

  2226. Ahh, Juan. After telling me people like me are what’s wrong with America, why would you expect ANYTHING out of me?
    Other than the last fact: The USSC knows this is a non issue and will dismiss it without comment.
    Mark my words.

  2227. Robert ~ Nov 22, 2008 at 6:34 pm
    You prove my point.
    Sadly, I had expected more from you.

  2228. Thanks for the fun post Highlander!! I about fell out of my chair laughing at you, but that’s OK right? Funniest moment? This little gem:

    I hope one day Robert, you grow up and understand that it is people like you who attack your neighbor that are causing the problems we have in America today.

    That, from a guy who spends about half his post attacking “liberals” for “undermining” America! LOL!!! Physician, heal thyself!
    So- you want an FBI forensics lab to vet Obama’s birth certificate?? GOOD for you, Gene!! [pats Gene on head].
    Now you go run along and play while the rest of us non tin foil hatters accept the HI state officials as the authority on whether or not someone was born in their state. Don’t pop a gasket while you watch the inaugration!
    Regarding SCOTUS: Sorry, you have heard the last of it from them. The next note will be a “REJECTED” on the writ. Without even a comment. Simply put- they know it is meaningless.

  2229. To all who have weighed in on this very interesting and educational debate, I offer the following: Last night and today I read every entry and visited almost all of the links. I have listened to the arguments on both sides of the issue regarding Obama’s eligibility to be The POTUS. Although I am a conservative, for the sake of our country, I hope and pray that Obama WILL respond by providing the necessary documnetation that WILL prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is eligible to serve. As my President I will pray for him often. If he can not or refuses to prove his eligibility, our country is going to sink even further into the pits of despair, especially if Obama is legally required to step aside. However, let not your hearts be troubled, and do not be afraid. God has everything under His control. Everything happens for a reason. God places rulers in their positions of power and He can remove them just as easily. God will have the final say in all of this. Therefore, we need to fully trust in Him. For those of you who are “non-believers” I know I am speaking Chinese. For those of us who do “believe”, we know there is a much greater reward beyond the relatively short lifespan that most of us enjoy here on planet Earth. We also know that we can only see a very small fraction of a much bigger purpose and plan for all of mankind that is unfolding before our very eyes. May God bless and protect the USA.

  2230. People grasping at straws. If God appeared and attested to Obama’s citizenship, a number of fanatics would disavow God. Let’s put it this way, he’s proven it to a majority of Americans who would not tolerate obstruction of his inauguration. I knew people could be bitter, but this is really going to some depths. Sewer news. For the sake of the Republic, let’s hope that the Justices just give this a quick merciful depth and the radicals can fume in provate.

  2231. I doubt Bush Jr could have been an eligible candidate for the FBI or CIA either. Look at his record. He probably would not have passed the IQ test anyhow.
    Obama was elected. There be no need to have qualifications. Pretty face, nice voice, good word choices and selection. Oh yeah and he’s black. Most of America is not white, male, protestant. Most of America is made up of men and women, from different minority groups, with a middle protestant view. Has anyone noticed that he has not been photographed with rolled up sleeves since the election? Or at least not much at all??? Kind of makes you wonder how everything is staged for perception. He’s now, buttoned up, jacket on (usually bottuned again, etc…. Different profile is emerging.

  2232. I don’t think Barak Obama could ever qualify for a position with the FBI or CIA because of his past associations – he would not be eligible for a security clearance. Seems the presidential position might be as important, if not more, than a job at the CIA or FBI and yet he got elected based on, well, I haven’t figured that one out yet.

  2233. MinutemanCDC_SC ~ Nov 22, 2008 at 3:25 am
    You said:
    The downstream media will probably keep this quiet until the Supreme Court gives a decision. SCOTUS may rule that Pres.-elect Obama is indeed a natural born citizen, and that he automatically reverted to his U.S. citizenship according to Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952. Then riots will be averted.
    However, if SCOTUS rules that Barack Obama II is indeed not Constitutionally qualified, the riots will begin at that time. But they will have been averted during the interim between now and then.
    My response:
    Good thoughts. I might add a few comments.
    Department of State’s regulations are found here: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html, and that may be worth a re-read.
    Overriding that, Article. II., Section 1of the U.S. Constitution says this:
    “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”
    The use of the word ‘shall’ means mandatory. Eligibility requirements are not an option – they are mandatory, and the Constitution over-rules all other legal documents.
    With that said, I don’t believe SCOTUS can rule in Obama’s favor until they have been provided verification of Obama’s birth origin, and with all of the claims of fraud, that will require a forensics lab test and a background check in Kenya, Indonesia, and in Hawaii, and the subsequent legal ruling on Obama’s status as a natural born citizen of the United States.
    Of course, having Hawaii’s rulings on birth certificates as they are (http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/newbirthcert.html) doesn’t help matters very much, because it provides for the registration of foreign births and allows amendments to its records.
    If Obama’s sealed birth records in Hawaii do reflect he was born in Kenya, then he may be of British citizenship as other posts herein have indicated. Under any circumstance, not being a natural born U.S. Citizen will automatically exclude Obama from being president.
    I’m not sure about the riots. We have had many conflicts in our nation’s past, and I’m certain all of the compassionate liberals and socialists will merely turn the other cheek and accept their Messiah’s fate.
    Ooops. There I go, thinking like a conservative again. My mistake.

  2234. Robert ~ Nov 22, 2008 at 12:56 am
    You said:
    Gene shows in spades why Obama should NOT publicly release his birth certificate- no matter what is released, no matter who reviews it, the sheep of the easily led far right will be led to believe the document is false.
    My response:
    The problems I see with liberals and socialists are that they are disingenuous and duplicitous as hell. On the one hand they talk about how divisive the Republicans have been. On the other hand, they undermine everything America stands for, and then dribble on about how stupid conservatives and Republicans are.
    I hope one day Robert, you grow up and understand that it is people like you who attack your neighbor that are causing the problems we have in America today. The day will probably be when your children attack you and you will have no idea what happened.
    Regarding the birth certificate, I, as a conservative, don’t need to see the piece of paper, but I do want to know that someone who has America’s interests at heart has seen and verified its validity. Like the FBI Forensics lab.
    I also want to know that Obama isn’t the fraud I believe he is. I want to think he’s legitimate. Having said that, if he shows himself as a fraud, I want him tried and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
    BTW, I want ALL national figures properly vetted by the FBI. The DNC and the media clearly don’t do a good job, unless it’s someone on the conservative side of the aisle – then they pull out the stops and slander at will.
    Now, Robert, if you think I am some sort of sheeple, let’s have it. I’m basically pretty tired of smart a$$ liberals like you taking cheap shots at conservatives because of your own immaturity.

  2235. The downstream media will probably keep this quiet until the Supreme Court gives a decision. SCOTUS may rule that Pres.-elect Obama is indeed a natural born citizen, and that he automatically reverted to his U.S. citizenship according to Section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952. Then riots will be averted.
    However, if SCOTUS rules that Barack Obama II is indeed not Constitutionally qualified, the riots will begin at that time. But they will have been averted during the interim between now and then.

  2236. Today, it looks like Clinton might be the next Secretary of State. Excellent, pragmatic choice.
    Why? The only pragmatic reason I can see is that it puts her in the administration which will discourage her from running against him again in 2012. Oh goody, just when it was looking safe that the Clinton’s would go away and finally leave us alone, our newly president elect decides to kiss and make up to them by nominating her for this critical position. When you compare her to a James Baker, well….there is no comparison.
    Romney/Santorum 2012

  2237. Gene shows in spades why Obama should NOT publicly release his birth certificate- no matter what is released, no matter who reviews it, the sheep of the easily led far right will be led to believe the document is false.
    If these people are gullible enough to believe that HI state officials are part of some Obama Conspiracy, then nothing will convince them of what is true and what is not. Best that they are ignored.
    Today, it looks like Clinton might be the next Secretary of State. Excellent, pragmatic choice.

  2238. Interesting that Obama’s choice for Sec. of Treasury is Timothy Geithner. Proud member of the Council on Foreign Relations, IMF, etc…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Geithner
    This political puppet show goes a lot deeper than many people realize. Many still believe we are actually under a two-party system. They don’t understand that our ‘Republican’ and ‘Democratic’ candidates are pre-selected and presented in the form of a choice.

  2239. To all those who keep insisting that they’ve already ‘seen’
    Osama’s “birth certificate”, that copy posted by the DailyKos
    (as if they were some sort of reputable, official body) has
    already been shown to be a fake. Why, by the way, did they
    blank out the serial number? To protect his identity? It doesn’t
    make any sense!
    And obviously, Justice Souter was not convinced, else he would
    have dismissed this case by saying “I’ve seen his birth certificate.
    He was born in the USA.”. But he didn’t do that. Get it now?
    Dow down 400 points today, another 400 points the day before.
    But alas, it’s up a whopping 18 points today!!!! The Osama recovery
    in action! I just KNEW the world was waiting for all the wonderful CHANGE
    he’s going to bring us! Hallelujah!!
    My God, are we in for TERRIBLE times.

  2240. Tell you what. Somebody get ahold of Larry Sinclair up in Duluth. (He claims that he did drugs and had sex with Obama on several occassions.) I would be willing to bet that Larry has the information in regard to Obamas qualifications to be Potus.

  2241. LOL…
    Still at it I see…LOL
    I’ll be back AFTER December 1st and see what (if anything) has happened…(shrug)

  2242. HighlanderJuan–
    It was good to chat with you. I’ve been a regular blogger on this site for a year or two. It’s only been recently that the topics have been political in nature. I recall when the political topics started I vowed to stay out of them. I detest the whole campaigning process for the attitudes of animosity and hatred that it seems to provoke. This particular topic thread has been a pretty good portrayal of the snideness and snarkiness that I detest.
    I appreciate your sincere efforts to rise above that. Another time, another topic perhaps we would have discussed further but I’m going to move on from this particular thread. It’s been my experience that real communication and the quest for real answers suffer greatly when the comments turn into a flame war. Or, at best, the journey to the answers is both compounded and confounded by the snide and the snarky. I’m thinking it’s not worth the trip. In the end, it really won’t matter what I personally believe; that’s really for the courts and the electoral college to chew on.

  2243. Beverly
    The reason they dont ask is because they dont care! They are so hell bent on this guy becoming POTUS that they could care less about the constitution.

  2244. clestes ~ Nov 20, 2008 at 6:11 pm
    143976
    HighlanderJuan
    As I said, get over it.
    I can only discuss intellectual and factual matters with someone interested in doing so.
    Have a nice day.

  2245. HighlanderJuan
    As I said, get over it. The Supreme court will not even ask for the lower courts ruling documents. It has been tossed out of court twice already.
    And yes he has been properly vetted. Do you really think that when he filled out the paperwork for applying for the job of president of US, the DNC didn’t ask for and get all appropriate paperwork??
    John McCain lost the election in 2008. Looking around at the problems facing us today, I am glad he did.
    He has neither the vision or strength to lead this country today. His time was in 2000. It is past.

  2246. clestes ~ Nov 20, 2008 at 3:57 pm
    143955
    To continue,
    try this link for a view of Obama’s BC.
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
    If this does not convince you, nothing will. Obama was legally vetted and elected. He will take office on Jan 20, 2009. Get over it.
    ==============
    Sorry, Clestes, if you understand the vetting process, you will understand that Obama has NOT been properly vetted. Mostly his fault because he hasn’t produced any background documentation.
    Also, Factcheck.org has been challenged for this situation because they have been shown to be in the bag for Obama.

  2247. To continue,
    try this link for a view of Obama’s BC.
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
    If this does not convince you, nothing will. Obama was legally vetted and elected. He will take office on Jan 20, 2009. Get over it.
    Trying to blame Obama or the democratic congress of 2006 for our current economic problems is more than a little fanciful. These problems go back to the successful efforts of Phil Gramm and others in 1998 to deregulate banking. They managed to create the “free market” they were so sure was needed, dispite all evidence to the contrary, and it resulted in the chaos we see today.
    As for appointing some of Bill Clinton’s people to cabinet posts, what is the problem?? Why appoint someone with no Washington experience or contacts in positions where Washington experience and contacts are vital.
    So far, Obama seems to have made sensible decisions, with the possible exception of HRC and even that won’t be known until she has accepted and has a chance to show her stuff next year.
    When one looks around at the shambles our country is in the resulting resounding defeat of the republican party in 2006 AND 2008 can not be surprising!
    What happens now remains to be seen. Several scenarios are possible.
    I’m guessing this one will be correct. Obama will govern from the center left, his liasons to congress will be effective in getting his agenda passed and the country will start to recover. The republicans will still be in the grip of the rightwing in 2010 and will lose even more seats. They will finally start to realize that the days of Reagan are over. That the Rove strategy of focusing on divisive tactics and white Christian voters will NEVER win them power in Washington again and they will start to try and modernize their party.
    They will not accomplish this by 2012, nor by 2014. Maybe not even by 2016. The old guard of Newt, Boehmer, Romney etc will all have to be dead or ignored.
    After the hell of the last 8 years, I finally have hope that our country can once again be respected as the “land of the free”.

  2248. All you people who think Obama has not presented an actual BC should try linking to
    The tanking of the stock market has nothing to do with Obama’s election victory nor his cabinet choices. It is the result of almost 10 years of unregulated financing including banking, insurance and mortagages.
    Think about it. This recession is as bad as 1982 and probably will be deeper and longer than anyone is willing to say. There is no way it could have precipitated since the democrats took control of Congress in 2006. They had neither the time nor the power to accomplish such a calamity.

  2249. I am STILL WONDERING WHAT IS THE PROBLEM with all you people who defend Obama in NOT presenting the REQUESTED DOCUMENT? Evidently SOME LEGAL ISSUES are involved with this and he is just evading it ALL.
    Don’t YOU have ANY CONCERNS about a LEGAL president? WHAT is YOUR problem with Obama making SURE THE PROPER DOCUMENT IS IN PLACE? That is what this IS ABOUT! HE just believes he can get away without OBEYING THE LAW or that nothing will be done to FORCE HIM TO COMPLY. It seems that he has TOO MANY SUPPORTERS in this WILLFUL DISREGARD TO THE REQUEST…which has now become a legal issue. Maybe IF he thought his supporters even cared about the truth he would finally decide he needs to do something about it.

  2250. Never have much time in the morning…need to catch that bus to work. Woke up thinking about that certificate of live birth from your earlier first link…the one with the creases. Who is holding it and having it photographed? I can’t imagine anyone from the Obama camp having any reason to display the creased document. Nor can I imagine them releasing the original. If it was done as part of a legal inquiry into the veracity of the document, that would be evidence that the protests are being heard and entertained by the political powers that be.
    Something’s fishy. I suspect that an Obama detractor used their Photoshop skills to make a copy of the uncreased version Obama furnished and then toyed with it. That would also explain why the creases are ‘gentle’. If it had been creased and stored away for years, the creases would be much more severe. Just some musings. I am not a legal expert but I do know quite a bit about document handling and storage and something just doesn’t ring true about that scenario.
    Ah, technology, both a blessing and a curse!

  2251. Eddy, one more for your perusal and enjoyment.
    From another post at:
    http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=973&posts=12
    This, previously posted by Philomena on another thread, still seems the most salient argument…
    Don’t be distracted by the birth certificate and Indonesia issues. They are irrelevant to Senator Obama’s ineligibility to be President. Since Barack Obama’s father was a Citizen of Kenya and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Senator Obama’s birth, then Senator Obama was a British Citizen “at birth”, just like the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore, even if he were to produce an original birth certificate proving he were born on US soil, he still wouldn’t be eligible to be President.
    The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that’s why the Framers declared that, while they were Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens”. Hence their inclusion of the grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:
    No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President;
    That’s it right there. (Emphasis added.)
    The Framers wanted to make themselves eligible to be President, but they didn’t want future generations to be Governed by a Commander In Chief who had split loyalty to another Country. The Framers were comfortable making an exception for themselves. They did, after all, create the Constitution. But they were not comfortable with the possibility of future generations of Presidents being born under the jurisdiction of Foreign Powers, especially Great Britain and its monarchy, who the Framers and Colonists fought so hard in the American Revolution to be free of.
    The Framers declared themselves not eligible to be President as “natural born Citizens”, so they wrote the grandfather clause in for the limited exception of allowing themselves to be eligible to the Presidency in the early formative years of our infant nation.
    But nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause since nobody alive today was a citizen of the US at the time the Constitution was adopted.
    The Framers distinguished between “natural born Citizens” and all other “Citizens”. And that’s why it’s important to note the 14th Amendment only confers the title of “Citizen”, not “natural born Citizen”. The Framers were Citizens, but they weren’t natural born Citizens. They put the stigma of not being natural born Citizens on themselves in the Constitution and they are the ones who wrote the Document.
    Since the the Framers didn’t consider themselves to have been “natural born Citizens” due to their having been subject to British jurisdiction at their birth, then Senator Obama, having also been subject to British jurisdiction at the time of his birth, also cannot be considered a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

  2252. Eddy,
    A bit more from another thread:
    Obama’s “Certificate of live birth” proves nothing whatsoever.
    From Free Republic:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2133728/posts?page=138#138
    Well, here’s proof that Obama’s “Certificate Of Live Birth” means nothing.
    Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country.
    This is straight from the Hawaii Department Of Health Website:
    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/index.html
    In other words, the “Certificate of Live Birth” posted on Obama’s website, Factcheck.org and the Daily KOS doesn’t prove anything, simply because someone born in a foreign country could file for an amended certificate — click the link, read it for yourself.
    Obama’s sister Maya was born in Jakarta, Indonesia, but Anna Dunham registered her as “born in Honolulu” shortly after her birth. Maya has a State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth, and just like Obama — proves nothing.

  2253. Eddy,
    Good comments. There’s another site I couldn’t find last night that goes deeper into the inspection of Obama’s Hawaiian BC and discusses the anomalies in much greater detail.
    My own personal view is that presidential candidates need to be vetted by the FBI (including the Forensics Lab) before they are nominated for office (to minimize the impact of the candidate’s political power over federal agencies), and then be certified, very much like security clearance requests.
    Because I’m not a forensics guy, I personally don’t have to see any candidate documents, but I want someone who guards American interests to have seen and verified the documents,and to put their individual names down as having verified the validity of documents submitted by the candidate.
    Think about it. If Obama isn’t really an American citizen, or if he’s been a member of the socialist party, or if he’s just a liar and a fraud, what loyalty does he owe to the United States? Obama likes the Europeans, we know that. If he wants to change the Constitution, or withdraw the troops from a battle zone, how do the American People know he’s doing that for their best interests? Loyalty and love for the American way (opposed to the European way) should be a given for presidential candidates. None of us get that feeling of loyalty from Obama – he wants change.
    And, you know, Americans shouldn’t have to worry about whether they can TRUST their POTUS to do the right thing for America. They shouldn’t have to worry about a president who won’t wear an American flag pin and who won’t place his hand over his heart during the playing of the national anthem.
    I think right now, there is huge disbelief in about a third of the Americans who are aware of the birth certificate issue, and that number is just too high. Obama can settle all questions and disputes, one way or the other, by just openly displaying his credentials as McCain has done.
    Why won’t he do it? What’s he hiding?

  2254. LOL! I loved the link that suggests he can’t even prove that he was born. Just shows where unbridled logic can lead you.
    I have several problems with the first two links. He keeps mentioning that ‘a certificate of live birth’ is not the same as ‘a birth certificate’ but doesn’t fully elaborate. Seems to be suggesting that it is a document produced when the actual ‘birth certificate’ can’t be found. But, gee, they have a space for time of birth and they filled it in. Could it be that people who are so lame as to lose the actual certificate (or, as suggested, weren’t really even born where they say they were) can produce enough support to have the state issue such a certificate and can be expected to document the time of birth?
    The bottom of the certificate of live birth states that alterations make it invalid. If it’s not a legal document as the ‘expert’ proclaims, what’s the difference between valid or invalid? What’s it valid for? Why is that not considered ‘legal’? I’m having trouble wrapping my head around ‘a valid document’ ‘issued by the state of Hawaii’ that is somehow not ‘a legal document’.
    Then, even though he says that this document is legally meaningless, he goes to great lengths to show us the document (he claims two versions)…a physical one with creases and the scanned version without…as proof that this also has been altered. I actually do a fair amount of scanning in my line of work and, if a document is gently creased, as ‘version 1’ was, I won’t be satisfied with my scan unless I can make those crease marks disappear. In the case of a gently creased document, I might not even have to apply pressure to the scanner cover to get rid of those unsightly puppies. I did note though that in the one version, the document number (right side, about a third of the way down) was visible and in the other blacked out.
    Of all the ‘proofs’ this ‘expert’ provided, the only one that gave me any pause was the Adobe Photoshop evidence. Naturally, since he’s wanting to believe the worst, he’s going to think that some nefarious trick was being pulled but I’ve got Photoshop myself and often use it for such innocent things as resizing an image, sharpening it, cropping, etc.
    I think we’ve reached a time when America is going to have to trust the government that is already in place. I think between them the first two videos had over 100,000 hits. Rather than discuss this with a bunch of non-experts (myself included), let’s recommend that they get all these ‘proofs’ to the powers that be and trust them to judge fairly and honestly.
    We shouldn’t need to make demands. We shouldn’t need to stir up the masses to call your senator, congressman, governor, mayor. If the evidence of fraud is so obvious, the evidence, when placed in the right hands, should speak for itself.
    As I said, I’m no expert. I’ve got a brother who spent his adult life working with birth and death records…but it was in a state other than Hawaii. But, I’ve recognized that there aren’t any experts checking in to this discussion. So, what we’ll have is just an endless back and forth that really leads nowhere. I’ll wait for the story to break on the national news or as an updated topic here…but, in the meantime, i’m going to remove my non-expert self from this discussion. Dec. 1 is only two weeks away.

  2255. If I have to show my BC to the BMV, SS office to be legal I show it or I walk. That’s the law. I guess when you are Barack Obama you are above the law right? Whatever, he will be certified as a citizen to avoid a race war. The needs of many out weigh the needs of one. But for all practical purposes Obama is not my president. I am a natural born native of Ohio, USA .
    AND I HAVE THE DOC TO PROVE IT!

  2256. List of missing Obama documents:
    Original birth certificate — Not released
    Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
    Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
    Soetoro adoption records — Not released
    Besuki School application — Released
    Punahou School records — Not released
    Selective Service Registration — Released but under suspicion of being a fraud
    Occidental College records — Not released
    Passport (Pakistan) — Not released
    Columbia College records — Not released
    Columbia thesis — Not released
    Harvard College records — Not released
    Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned – of course if it’s unsigned??)
    Baptism certificate — None
    Medical records — Not released
    Illinois State Senate records — None
    Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
    Law practice client list — Not released
    University of Chicago scholarly articles — None

  2257. Eddy,
    Try the following links to see some of the flaws:
    Obama Birth Certificate Fraud Proof (Pt 1):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIsQJNTvlUE
    Obama Birth Certificate Fraud Proof (Pt 2):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAZAbqgpoGQ
    Obama Birth Certificate TOTAL FORGERY FAKE FRAUD; Kos Kaught in Krime!:
    http://firedoglake.com/2008/07/05/obama-birth-certificate-total-forgery-fake-fraud-kos-kaught-in-krime/
    The October Surprise:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs
    I hope this is helpful.

  2258. It is VERY important that everyone contact their Senators, Representatives, and the Supreme Ct to make them demand Mr. Obama present evidence of his citizenship before December 15 when the Electoral College casts its vote. Otherwise, the election should be disqualified as a fraud.

  2259. Gene–
    The post Warren deleted was the one where instead of answering my questions you chose to refer to me as ‘a little boy’. That’s considered both a taunt and name-calling. And, while I am quite short, I’m old enough to qualify for a senior discount in many fine restaurants.
    I’ve heard several of you mention that the Hawaii birth certificate is flawed and I’m really trying to learn. I’ve seen the photocopy and I’m simply asking once again for someone to point me to the flaws.
    LOL. And, even as you were thanking Chuck (I think) for correcting your spelling of the president-elects first name, you still got it wrong. It’s Osama with one M. Capitalizing all of the letters of his middle name goes nowhere. Isn’t one of the Coor’s family named ADOLF? And how many people are there named JESUS–although they pronounce it differently–that aren’t particularly Christlike?

  2260. You too!!! Have a good one!!!
    Let’s all PRAY for our country and PRAY that Pres. Elect Obama does the right things in Office as President…. Only time will tell… He hasnt even been sworn into office yet…(shrug)
    I hope and pray for the success of EVERY U.S. President, regardless of party – if they screw up the country, we will ALL pay the price so we have to support our leaders – INCLUDING the KNUCKLEHEADS in CONGRESS and the SENATE…
    IMHO – The SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE is a DIMWIT and the SENATE MAJORITY LEADER is a DIMWIT (partially why Congressional approval ratings have been even LESS than President Bush’s, if such a thing can be possible)…GOD HELP US IF PRES. ELECT OBAMA CANT LEAD THE COUNTRY IN RIGHT DIRECTION WITH TWEEDLE DEE AND TWEEDLE DUM CONTROLLING THE PURSESTRINGS…

  2261. Oh goodness…
    Folks on the left were crying about the same kinds of things about Pres. Bush and why didnt he release ALL of his Reserve records, etc. I didnt think much of it then any more than I do now with Pres. Elect Obama. In my view, release what is necessary and nothing more – I didnt get offended when Bush did that nor will I be offended with Obama doing that….
    And HI saying a BC was on file means what?!?! They wouldnt have it “on file” if he wasnt BORN in HI, correct? That is typical bureaucrat speech for, “It is here, leave it alone…”
    I live in Florida but was born in TN – I have to go to TN to get an official copy of my BC b/c I was BORN there and Florida doesnt have it – TN has it on file!
    And Pres. Clinton has records he didnt release as does Sen Hillary Clinton – this can go on and on ad infinitum in a fishing expedition…

  2262. Chuck,
    You asked:
    And hasn’t HI authenticated Obama’s birth certificate??? Doesn’t that end this debate??? What am I missing here???
    =============
    Hawaii only said there was a birth certificate on file. They did not provide any details at all. Obama could have filed his Kenyan BC for all I know.
    Also, one has to ask why Obama didn’t release his school records. Did he get student aid as a foreign student? What do his academic records reveal?
    Please remember we are dealing with a lawyer here, and lawyers 1) understand the law very well, 2) use specific words when they speak or write, and know very well how to blow smoke (if you get my drift). How do you define ‘is’?
    I have given serious consideration of trying to pass legislation that will prevent lawyers from being considered in national office. They may know the law, but they don’t have any experience managing anything, and their first inclination is how they can stop something from happening. Not exactly what we look for in legislators or POTUS.

  2263. HighlanderJuan –
    Well, Obama has until December 1st to respond to the U.S. Supreme Court, right? Although it is apparently a voluntary response (i.e. he was not ordered to do anything), let’s see what happens…
    And you keep missing the point. McCain turned in everything and what he turned in shows that under a strict interpretation of U.S. law, he is INELIGIBLE to become President of the United States b/c he was NOT a “natural born citizen.” The record, and actions on McCain’s behalf, CLEARLY show concern about this, as reflected by the resolution to have him DECLARED a “natural born citizen.”
    And hasnt HI authenticated Obama’s birth certificate??? Doesnt that end this debate??? What am I missing here???

  2264. Gene,
    You have some very good points – many that I agree with, however, the use of profanity and name calling is not in good taste or conducive to a civil discussion.

  2265. Definition: A recession is defined to be a period of two quarters of negative GDP growth.
    Next quarter is going to be even worse according to economic analysts….
    So, yes, the technical definition may be premature, but come on, really!?! Take a look around you – trillion dollar bailouts, major job cuts, more reduction in home sales, consumer spending down (and dismal Christmas spending predictions), etc…(shrug)
    When the figures come in for the CURRENT quarter, they will show that America is in a recession…

  2266. Chuck ~ Nov 19, 2008 at 6:02 pm
    143694
    HighlanderJuan –
    Yes, he did provide the documents and in doing so, he (or someone in his behalf) STILL thought it necessary to have a RESOLUTION passed in the U.S. Senate (May 2008) to declare him a “natural born citizen.” What does that tell you? Why do this if there are not “questions” regarding his citizenship? The reason is simple – IT WAS A PROBLEM (otherwise, why go through the trouble of filing such a Resolution???)! That is EXACTLY the point – BOTH candidates have “questions” surrounding their citizenship…
    =================
    So, let’s get Obama to do the same thing. I’d accept that.
    In fact, Obama is a pretty smart guy, and if he saw McCain doing this, he should have done the same thing immediately after McCains resolution.
    Seems simple enough for me.

  2267. Well gee, Chuck, since Osamma is now going to
    be President (shudder!), I guess everyone should
    be happy and optimistic now, right? Even though
    we were not actually IN a recession under Bush
    (you ought to try reading the definition), everything
    should just be humming along now that the Messiah
    is going to save us! So why don’t the markets reflect that?
    God, what a mess.

  2268. Warren – Precisely what did I say that was so offensive?
    I merely pointed out that this situation is likely to lead to
    a Constitutional crisis. I STILL say so.
    You seem to have no trouble at all with stereotypes and
    names applied to me by those on the Left. Clearly, you have
    a double standard.

  2269. Yes, how eager indeed considering Obama is inheriting a HORRIBLE recession brought about by a lack of leadership in the BUSH Administration and the DEMOCRAT controlled Congress and Senate… All of these people in Washington make me sick… Before Obama even won, the economy was totally in the tank…

  2270. Dow down another 427 points. I see how eager the
    business community is for President Osamma.
    God help us.

  2271. ….Again, these problems SHOULD and COULD be stopped at the FRONT END of ANY campaign… We should not even be having this discussion about Obama or McCain…. I am sure we can ALL agree on that…LOL

  2272. HighlanderJuan –
    Yes, he did provide the documents and in doing so, he (or someone in his behalf) STILL thought it necessary to have a RESOLUTION passed in the U.S. Senate (May 2008) to declare him a “natural born citizen.” What does that tell you? Why do this if there are not “questions” regarding his citizenship? The reason is simple – IT WAS A PROBLEM (otherwise, why go through the trouble of filing such a Resolution???)! That is EXACTLY the point – BOTH candidates have “questions” surrounding their citizenship…

  2273. Chuck,
    It was my understanding that McCain provided all documents when requested. That satisfies my demands. If Obama had done the same, we would not be having this discussion.
    It’s Obama that is hiding his background material – not McCain. Let’s stay on point.

  2274. HighlanderJuan –
    Hmm….
    Well, as I said, let’s see what if anything more becomes of this issue presently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
    And, what say you then, about the “legitimacy” of Sen. McCain’s Presidential candidacy? His birth certificate CLEARLY places his birth in a foreign country (Panama; a hospital in Colon, Panama) NOT under U.S. jurisdiction/control (hence the May 2008 Senate non-binding resolution to declare him a “natural born citizen” – if there were no “questions” about his citizenship, that resolution would not have even been necessary).
    It seems as if BOTH candidates for President had “questions” about their “natural born citizenship” status, does it not? And to be frank, there is more ambiguity surrounding Pres. Elect Obama’s status than Sen. McCains (HI has apparently authenticated Obama’s birth certificate but McCains birth certificate is, under U.S. law, problematic in that it places his birth in a foreign country – “technically” speaking….).
    So what the heck would we be discussing is McCain, won the election – the same FRIGGIN thing!!! This is why I made the point earlier that these problems can be and SHOULD be stopped at the front in when filing FEC Forms 1 & 2 – if you are not eligible to be President based upon birth certificate (and whatever rules and regs we want to impose in order to authenticate them), then you are done as a candidate. OVER before you even begin. This kind of mess should NOT be happening today. Period….

  2275. After reviewing about 4/5 of this string (some comments very good}, and after reviewing several other documents and sources associated with the the question of Obama’s birth legitimacy, I am ready to render my decision.
    Obama is not a valid candidate for the office of President of the United States.
    So, now on to step two: selecting his replacement.

  2276. @Gene: Your post was removed because it did not meet up with the guidelines for posting. I am not sure which name you called me – liberal or coward – was most offensive. You should read more here to get a feel for the forum. This is a civil conversation and is moderated by me. Strong beliefs are fine but argument by taunting and namecalling is not. You are not banned but future problems will lead to that.

  2277. Ann –
    For the record, I happen to LIKE Romney. IMHO, he would have made a better nominee for the GOP than McCain did…(shrug)

  2278. And to be clear…
    ….Just like the extreme left wingers would try and compare Pres. Bush to Hitler, etc., I found that not only ATROCIOUS, but equally asinine and distasteful, and made points about calling those NUTS on it, as well…

  2279. Gee, Gene….Why so hostile, man? Lighten up…(sheesh)
    Regardless of what you might think about him, to compare Pres. Elect OBAMA to OBL (even in some sort of twisted jest…) is just…well…asinine…
    If you are up on current events, you would know that OBL’s #2 released a video and basically insulted Pres. Elect Obama on a number of different levels. So, like it or not, the enemies of American DONT want Americans to succeed regardless of who the President is…
    In the end, we are ALL Americans and we will have to pull through this mess together….

  2280. I see my last post was removed. So much for the liberal
    idea of ‘free speech’. Thank you, webmaster coward.

  2281. Robert says “This discussion is FUN!!”
    You’re RIGHT, Robert. It IS fun to see you people crap in
    your pants thinking “Oh, Shit! Even Souter doesn’t believe
    him! What are we going to do now?”.
    Carter brought us Reagan.
    Clinton brought us the ’94 Congress.
    Osamma (thank you for the correct spelling) is going to
    bring us EVERYTHING.

  2282. Touche’ Bill!!!!
    The bottom line is that Pres. Elect Obama won and ASSUMING nothing further develops with these “citizenship issues,” this matter is over and done with. Then it is on to the job of President after inauguration… A job, I do not envy considering the HUGE mess he is inheriting (brought about b/c of BOTH parties TREMENDOUS arrogance and lack of foresight – as Bill also pointed out, BOTH candidates supported this HORRIBLE bailout bill that is clearly becoming an even BIGGER mistake as each day passes; billions of dollars “disappearing” with no accountability and nothing to force these banks to lend the money – they are just sitting on this stuff and now the “Big 3” ALSO want bailouts!?!?! It never ends…But I digress…), I might add…
    One interesting point, though – For someone who ran on bringing “change” to Washington, he is sure bring a lot of Clinton re-treads into top leadership positions… I was hoping he would try and govern more from the “center” but it is not shaping up that way based upon his cabinet picks – at least at this juncture…
    I guess we will just have to “wait and see” what happens and what he does when he officially takes office…

  2283. Since I don’t support McCain or Obama I have the privledge of ripping both or supporting both or ripping one over the other. They were both lousy canidates, they both have no leadership experience. One went to law school and the other flew planes. They both never ran a business, ran a city, or ran a state. They both have connections to corrupt people and they both voted in favor of the stupid, stupid, stupid “bailout”. They both belong to the same organizations that influence most of our canidates and they both are in the tank for whatever it takes to be a part of our corrupt political machine.
    One wants to take the country down the socialist path and the other truly believed that the “fundamentals” of our economy was sound. Both canidates do not or did not have a clue as to how much trouble the economy is in to come up with either socialism or tax cuts.
    Both canidates have citizenship issues and it didn’t matter which one won. Either canidate was going to have this issue after the election and whoever won the election would sail through the Supreme Court.
    Both canidates were manchurian canidates and America lost it’s sovereignty when both these canidates were put forth.
    America is being adjusted right now to “fit in” with the rest of the world.
    All the Obama supporters, your guy is in.
    All the anti-Obama people, get over it.

  2284. Correction: We HAD two candidates with “questions” about their “natural born citizen” status… Pres. Elect Obama won and since HI apparently verified that his birth certificate was authentic/etc., as I see it, this thing is over and done with…
    Unless something else happens/develops with this issue, any further discussion is moot, is it not? If anything, we THE PEOPLE should use these situations as a means to FIX the problems, tighten up the rules and paperwork, so that NOTHING like this can EVER happen again. If it requires AMENDING the constitution (whichever side of the issue you fall on), then we need to friggin AMEND it!! IMHO…

  2285. Is anyone familiar with Hollander v McCain??? LOOK IT UP!!!!
    FYI — McCain had a similar case brought against him (by Hollander) in that he was actually born in a Panamanian Hospital in Colon Panama which was NOT part of the U.S. territory (i.e. not under U.S. jurisdiction). For some reason, McCain’s mother decided NOT to give birth at the hospital under U.S. jurisdiction (i.e. he was “technically” born in a foreign country). The suit was basically dropped b/c the citizen “had no standing.”
    In response to this, a resolution in the U.S. Senate was put forward in May 2008 to try and make McCain a “natural born citizen” – it was passed in the Senate but it is considered non-binding.
    What are your thoughts on this????
    As I see it, we have TWO candidates with “questions” about their “natural born citizen” status…
    What a FRIGGIN mess…

  2286. Eric Holder is the name I’m hearing, although the Governor of my state, Janet Napolitano, had been mentioned. Napolitano would be a terrific choice for Solicitor General or Homeland Security.

  2287. Chuck-
    You are correct, the rules are different. As I understand it, if a child is born of a single US parent family (like Obama’s) outside the states, that child has to elect citizenship of one nation or the other by the age of majority.

  2288. This discussion is FUN!!
    Let’s recap: Here we have alot of a made up “controversy” that only the wingnut faction of the right wing cares about, treading water about various issues that have been asked and answered about a dozen times. Points of interest:
    * STOP saying that “Obama” and/or the “DNC” have to respond to Judge Souter by December 1. The do NOT have to do. And, if anyone is to respond, it will be the Federal Election Commission. Stop making this grade school error.
    * Gene. I know that in certain circles, uneducated rednecks get a big tee hee out of mixing up Obama’s name. We get it. Funny stuff. But at LEAST get it right!! The terrorist’s name is “O-S-A-M-A” Bin Laden, not “O-S-A-M-M-A” as you have ham handedly given us. Seriously- if you don’t know the name of the 9/11 perpetrator, you might have better uses for your time than trolling through internet forums.
    * The state of HI states categorically that Obama was born in HI. Therefore- categorically- he is a natural born US citizen. End of story, in spite of all the wailing.
    Meanwhile, in the real world, rumor has it that Obama has settled on a pick for Attorney General. Good news.
    Are any of you trying to get tix to the Inaugration?

  2289. I don’t understand why, if a lawyer, why “a natural born citizen” wouldn’t take a mother as of the same a father? Since it takes both a mother and father to make “a natural born citizen” that becomes a human born of either one nation or of two nation’s depending on the “natural born citizen” of eac parents ?
    An American Opinion

  2290. Maybe we all (nation) have always presumed there needs to be a proof of birth when applying to be congressman, senator or president. Maybe this is either a loophole or just a mistake that has never been corrected.
    Does anyone have any proof or knowledge that proof of birth is a required document when seeking office?
    Maybe the nation is collectively assuming and we are all having our eyes opened at once.

  2291. Lynn David –
    My apologies. I didnt fully explain my statement, “Given the fact that both of his parents were NOT American citizens, he was either born in HI or he wasnt – why is this so hard to either prove or disprove???” I meant that in the context that BOTH of his parents were not BOTH American citizens. Of COURSE his mother was an American citizen – that is a given… My apologies for not being clear on that.
    The reason I even made that statement is that it is my understanding that if BOTH parents are not an American citizen, the natural born citizenship rules change a little bit (is there an immigration attorney in the midst – I’d love to hear your comments on whether that is true or not and whether it has any bearing on this case whatsoever…). But, as you say, if he was born in HI, I dont think it should make a difference one bit – but I am not an immigration attorney….
    As I indicated earlier, I am very skeptical of this whole Supreme Court case to begin with b/c I find it unfathonable that something like this (what Berg is alleging) could even happen. How could he become a U.S. Senator and this not be an issue? How could he even APPLY to become a candidate for President and this not be an issue? It doesnt make sense…but…. it is curious that the case is still on the docket…

  2292. Gene–
    You say that Obama could simply present his birth certificate and this would all be answered….it would all be over. BUT he DID present his birth certificate back in October; I directed you to a link where you might view it online. You didn’t acknowledge that link but instead directed me to grow up. I’ve concluded you aren’t looking for an honest discussion just an excuse to throw a few jabs.
    Was there something lacking in that certificate? Are you suggesting that he somehow lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother moved him to Indonesia? Can you cite the law that says that his citizenship would be revoked based on his mother’s actions? I would think that, since he was a child, he would have had no legal authority on his own to renounce his citizenship. He has proved that he was born in Hawaii by presenting the birth certificate. How did he lose the citizenship that was his from birth?
    I’m willing to participate in an open adult discussion; your suggestion that Lynn David and I need ‘to grow up’ points very clearly to the need for somebody to grow up but it isn’t us.
    Warren:
    I believe that Gene’s comment in a later post should have been moderated into oblivion. “FUCK that son of a bitch” is NOT the kind of dialogue I expect here.
    Beverly:
    How many copies of your birth certificate do you have? Obama produced one but you evidently see some flaws in it. Can you be specific as to those flaws? Is there one that suggests that he was born somewhere other than Hawaii or that perhaps he was born before Hawaii was granted statehood? Or, as I queried Gene, what evidence is there that his birthright citizenship was somehow forfeited?
    I do apologize for the ‘sore losers’ comment. I try to refrain from such as a rule but allowed myself to get caught up in the snarky spirit.

  2293. Gene ranted:

    I see. So I guess we should tell Souter and the Supreme Court to drop their demands and go to snopes.com for their answer to the birth certificate question, right?

    Uh, no…. but FactCheck.org and the state of Hawaii.

    Even if Alan Keyes WAS “smarting” over his loss to Osamma, does that mean the question isn’t relevant? Both of you should try growing up. It’ll do wonders for you, trust me.

    Evidently you need to get out of your obsessive infancy even more. You cannot even bring yourself to truly name the 44th President of the United States. And how is it that Keyes has standing in California? Last I heard he quit his carpetbagging ways in Illinois and went back to his home in Maryland. Or did he take up carpetbagging and hoof it out to California just before the election?
    ________________________________________
    c.j. opined:

    I love how the main stream left news outlets are just ignoring this whole thing about Obama’s U.S. Identity …called a racist for questioning Obama’s legality to be president? Obama is HALF WHITE, quarter asian, and a quarter Kenyan. He is more white than black, so why all the fuss over the race issue?

    Evidently, you need a lesson in race relations in this country. And where are you getting his quarter asian ancestry from? His step-father? As far as his father’s side is known they are all Kenyan.
    And I too love the fact that the mainstream media isn’t insanely obsessed the way so many of you all appear to be.
    ________________________________________
    Chuck said:

    Given the fact that both of his parents were NOT American citizens, he was either born in HI or he wasnt – why is this so hard to either prove or disprove???

    Huh? Stanley Ann DUNHAM was born on 27 November 1942 in Wichita, Kansas. How is it that being born in Kansas and then moving to Hawaii does not make one a United States citizen?
    Lastly, why has not John McCain gone after this? He is either satisified as to Barack Obama’s natural-born citizenship or he’s slinking around letting all of you, Berg, Keyes, and perhaps others risk making fools of themselves so he can rush in and claim the presidency in a constitutional crisis. Frankly, I have a better opinion of McCain than that.

  2294. Gene — My “interpretation’? Of the docket? Please elaborate what you believe I am misinterpreting, because it is a fact that the Supreme Court has not yet decided to accept this case and it is a fact that the Supreme Court has not ordered Obama to do anything. So what “interpretation” are you referring to?

  2295. Eddie..
    It has been recently known that the Snopes site isn’t unbiased. It has connections that make its opinions of question. It is run by a husband & wife … few people if any, are not biased at all.
    In any case, There IS GOOD REASON TO QUESTION Obama’s birth record. . IF they hold the TRUE & WHOLE RECORD in Hawaii THEN they should make sure it IS RELEASED!! It hasn’t been so far. WHY NOT? The record from Hawaii that WAS released has several inconsistencies as far as the TYPE RECORDS that were made at the time of Obama’s birth.. THE ONE RELEASED DOES NOT show that it is an ORIGINAL produced at that time..
    Again, the left thinks that poking fun at another opinion or anyone having a question is appropriate. The people who are questioning this are NOT stupid, and are NOT “sore loosers”. There are some who believe there IS A GOOD REASON to INSIST THE CONSTITUTION BE UPHELD & we DON’T SEE that this is being done!
    What OTHER stability does the United States have.. but the Constitution? Evidently you just want to believe anything that won’t question your candidate. What is your problem with the questions? It seems that maybe you could be THE “sore loosers” because you’re upset that anyone wants a GOOD ANSWER. IF there were NOT A QUESTION as to Obama’s eligibility for the presidency NO ONE would be persuing this.. Well, a PROPER BIRTH RECORD would take care of this.
    (UNFORTUNATELY we now have a nation that is not so interested in what the Constitution SAYS, OR the GOOD OF THE NATION. Instead they are interested in electing a “leader” with NO experience who promises to supply all their “gimmies” ..their endless concerns. They wish to believe him. .We are to
    be a people FREE to persue OUR OWN goals NOT look to BIG GOVERNMENT “DADDY” TO TAKE CARE OF US ALL.) This is why many of the people are NOT ASKING QUESTIONS as they should be. They think they will GET a lot because of electing him. Yes..we WILL. The USA will go BROKE if he even STARTS to do what he says he will
    WE WILL NOT STOP ASKING THESE QUESTIONS UNTIL HE PROVES his elegibility as HE SHOULD HAVE DONE ALREADY. WHEN he proves THIS we will support him in the good things he can do for our wonderful country.

  2296. EEE –
    Query: If Presidential Candidates dont have to provide a copy of a birth certificate showing that they were natural born American citizens, how else are they to prove that fact to meet Constitutional requirements to run for the Office of President? Sure, he doesnt have to show me or Mr. Berg his Birth Certificate but surely he must show it to the FEC, right? And if that was done, this case should also be done, over, dead in the water, right? Why is this stupid case then still even on the docket??? I am not a lawyer but I am educated, in graduate school, and have a pretty sharp mind full of common sense… This should not even be an issue….
    If HI verified his birth certificate, FABULOUS!!! OK, then, case closed!!! I am delighted to hear that b/c the LAST thing this country needs is ANOTHER Constitutional Crisis at THIS time of turbulent times…

  2297. To EEE
    OBAMA DOESN’T HAVE TO PROVIDE US WITH A BIRTH
    CERTIFICATE?!?!?! THE HELL HE DOES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Who the hell is HE to say he’s going to ignore us? FUCK
    that son-of-bitch! The law is the law, and it applies to non-citizens
    like Osamma, as well as citizens. Thank God the Court is pursuing
    this arrogant bastard.

  2298. Obama doesn’t have to provide YOU or Phillip Berg with anything. Birth Certificates are confidential documents.

    In regards to his qualification under Article 2, the State of Hawaii has verified his birth certificate and thus has acknowledged that he was born in Hawaii in 1961, and thus he was a Hawaiian citizen at birth, and since Hawaii was a US State at the time, he is a natural born United States citizen, and that’s enough for the state Secretaries of State, and the federal government.
    If you think the State of Hawaii is part of a big conspiracy, go sue them… oh wait, you can’t.

  2299. …And in followup to my previous comment, I want to say that I am EXTREMELY skeptical about the veracity of this whole Berg v Obama case. If, after December 1, 2008 Pres. Elect Obama has not “responded” to the U.S. Supreme Court with an official birth certificate (and/or whatever else was required by the Court), THEN there may be some credence to this whole thing and proper attention by the media and others may be paid to the issue…
    I just find it UNFATHONABLE that something like this could even happen and am having a hard time wrapping my mind around this even being possible…

  2300. This doesnt make any sense…
    Let me clarify. After hearing about this controversy today, I went to the Supreme Court of the United States’ website and verified that this Berg v Obama case existed and was on the docket exactly as has been copied above. So, yes, that much is true – even the “Response due December 1, 2008” part is true). I understand the issue before the Supreme Court. If the claims made by Mr. Berg (and others – it was my understanding that Sen. Hillary Clinton initially filed a similar suit but dropped it – I havent researched it to see if this is true or not yet…) in his suit are true (that Pres. Elect Obama is not an American citizen), then this is in fact a HUGE problem…
    It should be easy to figure this whole thing out – just produce an official birth certificate. Surely the State of Hawaii’s Office of Vital Statistics (or its equivalent) has records of births in its state since Obama was born? Why is this so friggin’ hard??? Given the fact that both of his parents were NOT American citizens, he was either born in HI or he wasnt – why is this so hard to either prove or disprove???
    And another question: How in the heck can someone running for the Office of President of the United States even get by the paperwork to become a candidate WITHOUT first producing an official birth certificate??? This doesnt make any sense either… Or so I thought….
    ….Interestingly enough, I went to the FEC website and looked at FEC Form 1 and FEC Form 2 (the two forms required to be filed by people seeking to run as candidates for U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and U.S. President. And for the life of me, I could not find on any of these forms ANYWHERE anything requiring that the candidate be a “Natural Born Citizen of the United States” – not anywhere. It is my understanding that this is the Constitutional requirement to be elected President of the United States (i.e. that one be born on U.S. soil; one cannot be a “NATURALIZED” American citizen). Maybe I am blind or just missed it but I didnt see any such requirement on either of these two “mandatory” forms – if anyone else can find it on the forms, please let me know. So why the HECK is this not a given to be on ANY such FEC Form for candidates seeking to run for President??? The point is that this whole question SHOULD be moot – this thing should have either been decided as YES he is an American citizen BORN in America or NO he was not WAAAAAAAY back when he initially filed to be a candidate for President. But, given the fact that I couldnt see ANY reference to being an American citizen BORN in America on FEC Forms 1 and 2, this opens the door for these kinds of problems and it simply doesnt have to be. That in and of itself makes no friggin’ sense…

  2301. To GeorgetownJD:
    Gee, what a relief. He hasn’t been “ordered” by the SCOTUC to produce a
    birth certificate (according to your interpretation), so therefore of course,
    he will not. Rather than settle this very troubling question once and for
    all, they will continue to evade and obfuscate the matter to the best of their
    ability.
    Like I said, our new ‘government in action. We are in for dark days.

  2302. If Obama has a valid birth certificate and it has been certified by the state of Hawaii to be valid then why is Obama waiting for December 1st?
    Is he allowed to go ahead and prove it now or does he have to wait for December 1st?
    I would think he would be allowed to present everything needed now just to get this off the table and move forward.
    Does he have to wait?

  2303. I love how the main stream left news outlets are just ignoring this whole thing about Obama’s U.S. Identity and proving that he is legal to be president. This should be front page news on every paper in the U.S. Is the media hiding from this fact so as not to be called a racist for questioning Obama’s legality to be president? Obama is HALF WHITE, quarter asian, and a quarter Kenyan. He is more white than black, so why all the fuss over the race issue?
    Warren,
    Aren’t all Obamas’s past history to be made public record?
    Why is it so hard for the DNC and Obama to give up this info and just be done with it?
    Even the, “Great Clinton” had to make his files public record.
    Why did Indoniesa, Kenya, and the Gov. of Hawaii have Obama’s records sealed from the public a week or so before the election at the DNC and Obama’s request?
    I feel that there is something Obama and the DNC does not want the people of this great land to know about, whether it be something to do with his birth cert. or his citizensship or even some ties to groups that have interests against the Free People of this nation.

  2304. Gene — Neither Justice Souter nor the Supreme Court has ever ordered Obama to produce the birth certificate or other evidence of his citezenship. The December 1 deadline is for filing an optional brief responding to whether a writ should be granted and the decision of the District Court should be reviewed.
    Every time the Supreme Court issues an order, it is published either on the Order List that goes out each Monday when the Court is in session, or it is published as a Miscellaneous Order. All of these can be viewed on the Supreme Court’s website. Go to the main page, from the list on the left select “Docket.” At the bottom of the Docket page there are links — select “Orders” and that will take you to several years’ worth of orders. Select the orders for the present term — “2008 Term Orders” — and open up each Order List and Miscellaneous Order since the date that Berg filed (October 30). You will find that there is no order in Berg v. Obama.

  2305. To Eddy and Lynn David:
    I see. So I guess we should tell Souter and the
    Supreme Court to drop their demands and go to
    snopes.com for their answer to the birth certificate
    question, right?
    Even if Alan Keyes WAS “smarting” over his loss
    to Osamma, does that mean the question isn’t
    relevant?
    Both of you should try growing up. It’ll do wonders
    for you, trust me.
    ******
    See? What did I say before? Rather than simply
    produce the valid birth certificate, they will attack
    the Supreme Court, attack Berg, attack Alan Keyes,
    attack Republicans in general, attack ANYONE,
    just to avoid the issue.
    This is the wonderful ‘governing’ that we can
    look forward to for the next four years. And you people
    wonder why Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin,
    FOX, Drudge, and a whole host of other alternative
    media outlets exist.

  2306. Apparently, state officials of HI are also in on this massive anti Constitution conspiracy, as they state unequivocally that a valid birth certificate is in the vault there…
    And did anybody else here fall out of their chair laughing at the laundry list of demands of Robert Schulz (posted above)? Obama’s college transcripts??
    LOL- you just want to pat these people on thier cute little heads and tell them that they have some lessons to learn about losing!

  2307. Evidently Alan Keyes has gone of the deep end also. Keyes has sued to halt the allocation of California’s electoral votes to President-Elect Obama on the theory that Obama was born in Kenya and therefore is not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
    http://www.politickerca.com/benvandermeer/3211/alan-keyes-files-suit-over-obama-citizenship-question
    I guess he’s still smarting over the idea of losing to Obama over the Illinois Senatorial seat. Obsession make you do the wacky and Keyes has shown he’s well capable of that, first, when he threw his daughter out for being a lesbian and now stooping to conspiratorial theories to try to get to Obama. Nevermind that FactCheck has Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth online….
    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
    …..or that they found a mention of a baby Barack Obama being born in Honolulu in 1961.

  2308. No way, Warren! On the Left they are Green post recylcled consumer fiber hats… suitable for wearing to the civil union service of your choosing!

  2309. Boy this story had me rattled for a bit. So much so that I cited it to a friend who responded with the fact that it simply isn’t being covered by any major news source. AHA! A media conspiracy. No, not really. It’s more just the blathering of sore losers.
    Snopes.com, the site famous for debunking rumors and urban myths, gets into this story and cuts to the chase with one simple point. Although Obama’s father was African and his mother was very young at the time of his birth, those points are moot. Obama, himself, was born in Hawaii after it achieved statehood. That birth certificate has been released and had even appeared on the internet.
    (An interesting side note is that folks were also challenging McCain’s citizenship because he was born in the Panama Canal region.)

  2310. All the wailing, whining, and spinning conspiracy theories on this remind me of nothing so much as the Dem crying over the Florida recount in 2000… just alot of puissant tears over an election outcome they did not like.
    OBAMA WAS BORN ON MARS!!! TAPE ON YOUTUBE!!!!
    LOL LOL LOL

  2311. Yikes!! Fallacy after fallacy, after fallacy!!
    FACT: Stop whining about the DNC or Obama and their forthcoming response to Souter. SHOULD there be a response (it is optional), that response will come from the Solicitor General of the United States, who will respond for the FEC.
    Of course, I’m sure the FEC is in on the big conspiracy as well, so… there you go.
    Warren: TWO for you. I should have said the same “type” of people. Obviously, tin foil hats are worn by left wingers as well as right wingers…

  2312. @Bill: I have wondered why PE-Obama doesn’t simply produce the original birth cert. I cannot tell that it is even on his radar. I posted on this not because I know the ins and outs of it all but because I find the narrative interesting. Is anyone reading here aware of any new statements from Obama (beyond the Fight the Smears website) the DNC, the Solicitor General (in addition to the Justice Dept statement to me) about this matter?

  2313. Yes, Gene.
    Isn’t that just the way the DNC & Obama have ALWAYS done things?
    When they can’t prove ANY POINT they get MAD, call names, dig up “dirt” that usually isn’t of ANY MERIT or is even proven untrue. It makes sense to defend your position with real, rational arguments. Then you may convince someone of your position..BUT that’s not their method & maybe not even their goal. I doubt that they even are concerned with those things. They only want THEIR WAY whether its proven right or not.

  2314. I just picture where this is headed. Not only will they
    fail to produce any birth certificate or anything else on
    12/1, but they will also respond by coming up with
    some personal dirt on Justice Souter.

  2315. I have to disagree with you. Obama and the DNC are CLEARLY unwilling
    to comply. They demonstrated that with the lower Court. The very fact
    that they are letting it get to this point, rather than simply produce the damn
    birth certificate (not the bogus DailyKos version, but the real thing), speaks volumes.

  2316. Can someone check his mother’s medical records or hospital records that recorded the doctor, nurses, etc. that were present and their notes prior, during, and after the birth? Lab reports, and medical records should be on record at the hospital he says he was born or in the storage facility/vehicle they use.

  2317. @Gene: It is not clear yet that Obama, DNC and FEC are unwilling to comply. They are not required to file a brief in response to the writ of certiorari and may find it unnecessary if they believe the facts line up in their favor. Let’s be clear, the Supremes have not requested any specific information (e.g., to see Obama’s birth cert) but have given the defendants an opportunity to respond.
    My guess is that certiorari will not be granted; but it is only my guess. With all the challenges springing up nationally, it may be that one of them will get some traction.

  2318. Gee if there was nothing to this there wouldn’t be any Obama supporters that would have to defend him.
    If this is so cut and dry and Obama has nothing to be concerned with then why are the Obama supporters rallying to his defense?
    If Obama has already shown what he has to in order to prove that he is a US citizen then why is this still being debated?
    Wouldn’t it be better for the Obama supporters to just drop this thing of defending his citizenship and just say “I told you so” when December 1st comes and goes?
    Why are they so worried?
    I’ll tell you why, there is doubt even with the Obama supporters.
    I didn’t support McCain or Obama. They both were poor choices and America got what they deserved, poor leadership.

  2319. It is so obvious, by their unwillingness to now
    comply with the SCOTUS, that the Obama people
    have something to hide. Absolutely incredible.

  2320. I have seen comments concerning “standing issues” in various lawsuits. However, the birth certificate controversy strikes at the heart of the Constitution. How can the Justices let this pass without effectively hearing the case? How can Chief Justice Roberts allow no challenge since he will be swearing in the President-elect? So, the birth certificate issue directly touches the office of the Chief Justice. The Justices are duty-bound to uphold the Constitution.

  2321. Why is Mr. Obama fighting this so hard? Mr. Berg is correct when he has stated that its a simple thing for him to put the verifiable documents on his desk. He has said that if that was done, this would be over, he would go home and support Mr. Obama for President, but he believes he has not done it because he cannot produce said documents. If that is so, we are in DEEP constitutional trouble! This MUST be resolved properly. It should have been resolved a long time ago. The courts would be derilict in their duties if they do not see this to conclusion. Mr. Obama would not even pass the questionnaire for those seeking a JOB in the new administration!

  2322. Our Sec of State Jen Brunner said, It’s not my job to qualify candidates for election. So, I have wrote to the senator, congressman, every elected official you can think of and no one seems to want to take responsibility. Apparently everyone is taking the word of the DNC.

  2323. Unfortunately, many citizens seem to believe that a Presidential election is like the American Idol TV show. The whole thing is comprised of three goofy “judges” who are making a fortune watching a never ending string of “performers” get silly in front of an audience. The “performer” who wins the most “votes” becomes a “star!” However, regardless of the many intriguing similarities, governing a Constitutional Republic by the rules is a much more important and complex task and, given the ease with which many politicians are “bought off,” rightly so. At any rate, a President is not the kind of shallow personality depicted on American Idol and the process by which one is chosen is far more important to citizens than those which govern a TV show! This is why the qualifications for the person who makes decisions that affect the lives of millions of people is so important and is worth taking seriously.
    Some on the left say that George Bush was a usurper and, as a result, did not have the moral authority to govern. To that we say,” Do you want your man to be looked at in the same way?” Votes are certainly the governing factor PROVIDED the person who got them meets the Constitutional requirements! In any event, the current question of Obama’s legitimacy is a much more important issue than one concerning “hanging chads.” ANY President must meet the Constitutional requirements that qualify him or her to be a candidate. Meeting the qualification and then winning the votes provides the moral authority to govern. Absent this moral authority we are simply a “banana republic” where “El Magnifico” rules simply because guns are votes and he has the most!
    We have felt, and continue to feel, that President Elect Obama should provide whatever documentation would lay the question of legitimacy to rest. Even though he won a majority of the electorate, the legalities need to be settled according to Constitutional requirements. He has failed, thus far, to provide records of proof that meet the requirements. If he had previously provided the necessary documentation then Judge Souter, through his Clerk, would not have required that they be produced. The article below fully explains the reasons for providing the documentation.

  2324. On October 24, 2008, a federal judge granted your request to dismiss a lawsuit by Citizen Philip Berg, who challenged your qualifications under the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution to legally hold the of fice of President of the United States of America.
    Mr. Berg presented factual evidence to the Court in support of his claim that you are either a citizen of your father’s native Kenya by birth, or that you became a citizen of Indonesia, relinquishing your prior citizenship when you moved there with your mother in 1967.
    In your response to the lawsuit, you neither denied Mr. Berg’s claims nor submitted any evidence which would refute his assertions. Instead, you argued that the Court lacked the jurisdiction to determine the question of your legal eligibility because Mr. Berg lacked “standing.”
    Astonishingly, the judge agreed, simply saying, “[Mr. Berg] would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory.”
    Unfortunately, your response to the legal claim was clearly evasive and stri kingly out of character, suggesting you may, in fact, lack a critical Constitutional qualification necessary to assume the Office of President: i.e., that you are not a “natural born” citizen of the United States or one who has relinquished his American citizenship.
    Before you can exercise any of the powers of the United States, you must prove that you have fully satisfied each and every eligibility requirement that the Constitution mandates for any individual’s exercise of those powers.
    Regardless of the tactics chosen in defending yourself against the Berg lawsuit, significant questions regarding your legal capacity to hold this nation’s highest office have been put forth publicly, and you have failed to directly refute them with documentary evidence that is routinely available to any bona fide, natural born U.S. Citizen.
    As one who has ventured into the fray of public service of his own volition, seeking to possess the vast powers of the Office of President, it is not unreasonable to demand that you produce evidence of your citizenship to answer the questions and allay the concerns of the People. Indeed, as the one seeking the office, you are under a moral, legal, and fiduciary duty to proffer such evidence to establish your qualifications as explicitly mandated by Article II of the Constitution.
    Should you proceed to assume the office of the President of the United States as anything but a bona fide natural born citizen of the United States that has not relinquished that citizenship, you would be inviting a national disaster, placing our Republic at great risk from untold consequences. For example:
    . Neither the Electoral College on December 15, nor the House of Representatives on January 6 would be able to elect you, except as a poseur – a usurper;
    . As a usurper, you would be unable to take the required “Oath or Affirmation” of office on January 20 without committing the crime of perjury or false swearing, for being ineligible for the Office of the President you cannot faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States;
    . Your every act in the usurped Office of the President would be a criminal offense as an act under color of law that would subject the People to the deprivation of their constitutional rights, and entitling you to no obedience whatsoever from the People;
    . as a usurper acting in the guise of the President you could not function as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and of the militia of the several states, as such forces would be under no legal obligation to remain obedient to you;
    . No one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch would be required to obey any of your proclamations, executive orders or directives, as such orders would be legally VOID;
    . Your appointment of Ambassadors and Judges to the Supreme Court would be VOID ab initio (i.e., from the beginning), no matter what subsequent actions the Senate might take as well as rendering any such acts by such appointed officials void as well;
    . Congress would not be able to pass any new laws because they would not be able to acquire the signature of a bona fide President, rendering all such legislation legally VOID;
    . As a usurper, Congress would be unable to remove you from the Office of the President on Impeachment, inviting certain political chaos including a potential for armed conflicts within the General Government or among the States and the People to effect the removal of such a usurper.
    As an attorney and sitting U.S. Senator, I’m sure you agree that our Constitution is the cornerstone of our system of governance. It is the very foundation of our system of Law and Order indeed, it is the supreme law of the land. I’m sure you also agree that its precise language was no accident and cannot be ignored if Individual, unalienable, natural Rights, Freedoms and Liberties are to be protected and preserved.
    As our next potential President, you have a high-order obligation to the Constitution (and to those who have fought and died for our Freedom) that extends far beyond that of securing a majority of the votes of the Electoral College. No matter your promises of change and prosperity, your heartfelt intent or the widespread support you have garnered in seeking the highest Office of the Land, the integrity of the Republic and Rule of Law cannot, — must not — be put at risk, by allowing a constitutionally unqualified person to sit, as a usurper, in the Office of the President.
    No matter the level of practical difficulty, embarrassment or disruption of the nation’s business, we must — above all — honor and protect the Constitution and the divine, unalienable, Individual Rights it guarantees, including the Right to a President who is a natural born citizen of the United States of America that has not relinquished his American citizenship. Our nation has endured similar disrup tions in the past, and will weather this crisis as well. Indeed, it is both yours and the People’s mutual respect for, and commitment to, the Constitution and Rule of Law that insures the perpetuation of Liberty.
    As a long time defender of my state and federal Constitutions, and in consideration of the lack of sufficient evidence needed to establish your credentials as President, I am compelled to lodge this Petition for Redress of Grievances and public challenge to you.
    Make no mistake: This issue IS a Constitutional crisis. Although it will not be easy for you, your family or our Republic, you have it within your ability to halt this escalating crisis by either producing the certified documents establishing beyond question your qualifications to hold the Office of President, or by immediately withdrawing yourself from the Electoral College process.
    With due respect, I hereby request that you deliver the following documents to Mr. Berg and myself at the Nation al Press Club in Washington, DC at noon on Monday, November 17, 2008:
    (a) a certified copy of your “vault” (original long version) birth certificate;
    (b) certified copies of all reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names
    Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham
    and Barry Dunham;
    (c) a certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship;
    (d) a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity;
    (e) certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia
    University and Harvard Law School; and
    (f) certified copies of any court orders or legal documents changing your name from Barry Soetoro.
    In the alternative, in defense of the Constitution, and in honor of the Republic and that for which it stands, please announce before such time your withdrawal from the 2008 Presidential election process.
    “In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it f ails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.”
    Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 469-471.
    Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Schulz,
    Founder and Chairman, We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc.
    http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/Obama-USA-TODAY-ad.%20htm

  2325. Unfortunately, many citizens seem to believe that a Presidential election is like the American Idol TV show. The whole thing is comprised of three goofy “judges” who are making a fortune watching a never ending string of “performers” get silly in front of an audience. The “performer” who wins the most “votes” becomes a “star!” However, regardless of the many intriguing similarities, governing a Constitutional Republic by the rules is a much more important and complex task and, given the ease with which many politicians are “bought off,” rightly so. At any rate, a President is not the kind of shallow personality depicted on American Idol and the process by which one is chosen is far more important to citizens than those which govern a TV show! This is why the qualifications for the person who makes decisions that affect the lives of millions of people is so important and is worth taking seriously.
    Some on the left say that George Bush was a usurper and, as a result, did not have the moral authority to govern. To that we say,” Do you want your man to be looked at in the same way?” Votes are certainly the governing factor PROVIDED the person who got them meets the Constitutional requirements! In any event, the current question of Obama’s legitimacy is a much more important issue than one concerning “hanging chads.” ANY President must meet the Constitutional requirements that qualify him or her to be a candidate. Meeting the qualification and then winning the votes provides the moral authority to govern. Absent this moral authority we are simply a “banana republic” where “El Magnifico” rules simply because guns are votes and he has the most!
    We have felt, and continue to feel, that President Elect Obama should provide whatever documentation would lay the question of legitimacy to rest. Even though he won a majority of the electorate, the legalities need to be settled according to Constitutional requirements. He has failed, thus far, to provide records of proof that meet the requirements. If he had previously provided the necessary documentation then Judge Souter, through his Clerk, would not have required that they be produced. The article below fully explains the reasons for providing the documentation.

  2326. Obama has a simple and uncomplicated task to perform. He must produce his long form Birth Certificate – issued and certified by the State of Hawaii which clearly proves that he is a natural born citizen.
    He must also submit proof that he was not a citizen of Indonesia and he must prove that he returned through U.S. Immigration and applied for U. S. Citizenship, if indeed his U. S. Citizenship was forfeited by his Step Father.
    He must also produce his many Passports issued by other Nations which he used to travel freely around the world.
    He must provide a copy of each and every application he filed ion order to attend shcools and universities in the USA.
    He must provide clear evidence that he and only he registered with the Selective Service.
    Why must he provide all of these documents? Because he not only failed to produce a verifiable and certified copy of his Hospital issued long form Birth Certificate when asked….HE REFUSED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT THAT MEETS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!!
    Until Obama does what millions upon millions of American citizens are asked to do in order to fulfill some Statute, Law, Rule or Regulation required by Federal, State or Local laws….then the doubts that millions upon millions of people are having….have been generated and initiated by him and him alone!!
    He may very well be who he claims to be. However, in the minds of a great many people….he has gone to extra-ordinary lengths to make the issue go away.
    It will disappear when and only when OBAMA takes the initiative AND HONESTLY AND TRUTHFULLY PROVIDES THE PROOF.

  2327. Thanks again, JD!
    You are SO right about the STATES electing the electors! Most people err when they believe that the PEOPLE of the U.S. elect the President and Veep, when in fact it is the STATES who do. Chalk one up for States’ Rights!
    You are correct that qualifications for the BALLOT is a function of State law – but qualifications to HOLD THE OFFICE of President is not. (Berg’s argument with his own Party is that they nominated an ineligible candidate and have risked invalidating their ticket. Why can’t that easy question be settled??)
    You may be on to something here, JD. Perhaps the only ones with standing in a case like this are the Electors in the Electoral College and the members of Congress.
    It’s never come up before – that’s what makes this so fascinating!
    Again, instead of all the legal maneuvering, Obama should be able to put this whole argument away as easily as a kid signing up for Little League! The fact that he hasn’t HAS to make even a semi-concious citizen wonder – doesn’t it??!
    This is such a simple deal! For the good of the country, Obama needs to win this on the adjudicated facts – or else step aside. Why is that too much to ask for?

  2328. Good argument technique, Minty – major props for the approach!
    There’s a big difference in the two, though: one is someone’s assertion of a Clinton felony and the other is a matter of an Obama job qualification. In the Clinton case, one would have to prove the felony, which they have not done. The other case requires Obama to prove that he is qualified to hold the job, which there apparently is a good deal of honest debate over.
    No one is accusing Obama of committing a crime. Berg has uncovered what he claims is evidence (a Kenyan birth certificate, etc, etc) that Obama is not qualified to hold the office of President – but it should be easily refuted by Obama.
    Anyone applying for a job has to be able to prove they have the qualifications to hold the job. I support Hillary Clinton as Senator from NY – or even as Sec’y of State – until that point where a court of law proves that she is guilty of a felony, or some other factor that disqualifies her from holding that job. She is otherwise qualified to hold her office.
    It’s not that certain with Obama’s qualifications, apparently – which are unique to the job he aspires to.
    Sweeping the whole thing under the rug without a court ruling on the facts won’t do anyone any good, in my view.

  2329. MrChamber — Qualification for the ballot is really a matter of state law, so there may be a state that requires the election official to certify the qualifications of every candidate. Unfortunately, to date seven or eight lawsuits brought in states have failed, because the plaintiff did not take a good look at the state’s statutes before bringing his action.
    Since we actually vote for electors, there may a state that requires electors to certify their candidate’s qualifications, but again, to date, the plaintiffs — generally laypersons who are just filing copy-and-paste lawsuits based on Berg’s flawed complaint — have gone about this in unorganized fashion and they are racking up a string of losses that just cause each court to justify dismissal because the earlier suits set the precedent.
    Congress will count the electoral votes on January 6. Per 3 U.S.C. section 15, objections may be made: “the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; …” Two hours of debate are allowed.
    The best attack,in my view, would be to persuade a Member of Congress to make an objection.

  2330. Shocking evidence that Vince Foster was MURDERED, and there was a COVERUP – possibly by the Clintons:
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html
    If it’s not true, WHY doesn’t Hillary Clinton DENY it? WHY?? I’d guess, because he CAN’T PROVE IT.. NOW you think it should NOT BE CONTESTED IN COURT?
    This is a matter of PRINCIPLE!!
    How is it possible that No One can question the qualifications of the Senator?!
    Until she denies it and produces EVIDENCE that she had nothing to do with it, I refuse to believe that they are innocent.

  2331. Varget..
    Does Obama even care about how this is hurting the country? IF he cares HE could resolve it..by producing this birth document.. that is IF he IS a NATURAL BORN US citizen..
    This ISN’T A RACE ISSUE. It is an issue of UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION!! I would easily have voted for Clarence Thomas (or any minority candidate) because they are GOOD, honest people.. THIS is a matter of PRINCIPLE!!
    A matter of OBEYING THE MOST IMPORTANT LAW WE HAVE!! Our
    foundation & the Standard all other laws are to stay within.. A matter of OBEYING the greatest law of the land.

  2332. Has anyone ever read Unintended Concequences by John Ross?? Very interesting book indeed. Either way, I believe with this topic now making the media and becoming a great concern, that “the people” have the right to know the truth of the matter. Either way the decision goes, the country is already starting to devide greatly. This is going to be a real problem! You can’t even walk into a coffee shop and discuss the issue as seen on here, that people aren’t greatly divided and oppose each other. We oppose each other with respect on here, but there are many on the street level that DO NOT! I work the streets as a law enforcement officer and it has already started with some pulling the race card! The country is going to divide on their stance on this president! It’s just a matter of when and where it starts! If it needs to start at the court level then so be it, as it will move to the streets soon enough. We’re already seeing this. Make the wrong decision and it will be like shortening the fuse that’s already been lit.

  2333. Hey, Thanks, JD!
    I appreciate the clarification.
    In that the lower court ruled that Berg has no standing and didn’t deal with any merits of the argument, wouldn’t Souter – if he agreed Berg’s motion is not cert worthy – be saying that no one has any standing to question the qualifications of the President?
    How is it possible that No One can question the qualifications of the President?!
    As a point of law, that would be a rather huge issue to let stand.
    In your view, WHO could ever have standing in a case like that? If it is a list of people that is smaller than the voting public, then that confirms that elections are a closed system only for the chosen few, doesn’t it?
    This thing really needs a Court opinion, I think!

  2334. MrChamber — I’m afraid you have misunderstood Justice Souter’s role in this. He has not ordered anything. Justice Souter is the Associate Justice who is currently assigned to review emergency applications for stays in cases that are coming from the Third Circuit. Berg filed an application to stay the election, and Justice Souter denied it.
    Obama has not been ordered to produce anything at this point. He has the option, if he desires, to file a brief on or before December 1 addressing solely the issue of whether certiorari should be granted in this case. If he files a brief, it will be to oppose certiorari. He also might file a waiver, indicating that he believes the petition for writ of certiorari is so meritless it doesn’t even stand a chance that the Supreme Court will accept the case for review.
    The overwhelming majority of petitions for writ of certiorari are denied. Most are not what is termed “certworthy.” The late Justice Harlan wrote that “a great many petitions for certiorari reflect a fundamental misconception as to the role of the Supreme Court” thus they have no chance whatever of being granted. Former Justice Brennan also rote an article explaining how he routinely decided that a case was not certworthy by looking at the “Questions Presented” on the first page of the petition — and reading no farther.
    If you read Berg’s petition, it becomes clear that he has made a very uninspiring argument why this case should be heard. He has violated the foremost rule of making his petition certworthy: the merits of the case are not of primary concern at the petition stage. Rule 10 sets out the criteria that the Justices are looking for: “(1) the decision below conflicts with decisions of one or more federal courts of appeals or state courts of last resort on an important issue of federal law; (2) the court below decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with rulings of the Supreme Court; (3) the court below decided a question of federal law that is so important that the Supreme Court should pass upon it even absent a conflict; or (4) (a category into which very few grants fall) the court below “so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power.”
    Berg has dedicated pages upon pages of argument about the “alleged” facts that never were proven by admissible evidence. He never really addresses the four factors set out in Rule 10. Heck, even his “Questions Presented” are guaranteed to send his petition into the “no cert” pile.
    There is an abundance of material available about how a petition proceeds through the Supreme Court, much of it available on the Internet.

  2335. And here is the applicable provision of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment:
    “Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.”
    Hey, folks, all of this is public record.

  2336. Actually, I should have posted the entirety of Section 3, because it makes clear that the Vice President elect takes over if the President elect fails to qualify.
    “Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.”

  2337. Mel: Did you read the Twentieth Amendment, as I suggested? If so, you would know why McCain would not succeed to the office.
    Electors are party faithful. They are committed to vote for the candidate that their party slated. On December 15 the majority of Electors who will meet in their respective state capitols will be Democrats. Now, you do not seriously contend that Democratic faithfuls would vote for McCain, do you? Be honest. Someone who has been a longtime party worker is not going to throw away his vote by turning coat. The Democratic Electors will vote for Obama and Biden. In each of the blue states, the electoral vote will be given to the Democratic nominees, and Obama will be the President-elect. The votes cast by the Electoral College will then be transmitted to Congress, where the votes will be officially counted in January.
    Pursuant to the Twentieth Amendment, if the President-elect is disqualified or dies or whatever before he takes office, the Vice President-elect becomes President. Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment states: “Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President.”
    What language in the Twentieth Amendment suggests to you that McCain would succeed? McCain is not the Vice President-elect.

  2338. Just a few thoughts. First though, let’s put aside the conspiracy theories for a second and be objective.
    Regarding the SCOTUS deadline, it appears to be a procedural issue according to their rules.
    As far as Obama’s possession of a US Passport, their website stipulates that it will accept a Birth Certificate or a Certification of Birth. Believe it or not people, there is actually a difference. Additionally, Certificate of Birth’s are issued to births outside the US. Don’t believe me, check for yourselves.
    According to the XX Amendment of the US Constitution Section 1. Terms begin and end at noon Jan. 20.
    According to Section 3. If a President has not been elected or President elect has failed to qualify, then the VP elect shall become President.
    However, the main arguement here that I believe is being obfuscated, is that this country was founded on the premise of “By the People, For the People”. When exactly did we as citizens lose the right to question our elected officials? When did we as citizens lose the right to make our elected officials answerable to us rather than the other way around?

  2339. PS: Regarding McCain – at this point, it is a Moot Point as McCain LOST the election. He is not the one with a transition team working to take over the Executive Branch. Obama is.
    An extremely legitimate, fairly well-documented challenge to his qualifications has been lodged long before the Election by a respected member of his own Democrat Party, NOT by Obama’s opposition! (Heck! McCain SUPPORTED Obama’s relationship with Rev Jeremiah Wright!)
    (Berg also says that he now has post-election media recordings of Obama’s Paternal Grandmother of Kenya exclaiming how excited she is that her grandson finally won the election for POTUS … AND that she was in the delivery room in Mombasa, Kenya the day he was born!) Shouldn’t this all be examined? Our U.S. News Media surely never did!
    Besides, McCain’s parents were both U.S. Citizens when he was born and they were in Panama becuase his father was on active duty service, stationed there with the U.S. Navy. There is little reason to question his national allegiance, which is the reason for Article 2 to begin with. Not so with the President Almost-Elect.
    Why would anyone want such a simple-to-answer, but dramatically important, question to go un-answered?
    It seems a standard tactic of the Obamaniacs to attack anyone who dares to question the qualifications of The Annointed (and now Almost-Elected) One with an equal but opposite argument.
    Kind of like how they went ballistic over Sarah Palin in the #2 Slot once they realized that her popularity was a real threat. They assaulted her alleged lack of experience (which is arguably superior to Obama’s) while they totally ignored the complete vacuum of qualifying experience of their own presidential candidate in the #1 Slot.
    This argument could SO easily have been put away when it first came up – IF acceptable documents could have been produced.
    “Don’t argue the facts – just put enough static and smoke in the all-friendly news media to distract from the facts.”
    I am sure that strategy will work well with Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

  2340. Robert, keep in mind that the “tin foil hat crowd” in this instance is Philip J. Berg, a lifelong Democrat, a Philadelphia lawyer and the former Deputy Attorney General for the State of Pennsylvania.
    Berg began warning his own Party last Spring and early this Summer that they were about to nominate someone who would be disqualified from holding the Office of POTUS, thus preventing the Democrats from holding the White House.
    All of his warnings fell on deaf ears, so he filed his lawsuits in August, long before these elections.
    The questions that I have are
    1) Berg repeatedly has said that defending the Constitution trumps the historical feel-good moments of Obama’s Ascension. If he believed he had no case, why would he continue the expense and controversy post-election to press his case?
    2) The issue here is whether or not Obama is a NATURAL-BORN U.S. citizen, not whether or not he is a U.S. citizen. About 260,000,000 Americans would have virtually no problem producing this documentation. Why is it that Obama is having this difficulty?
    3) It’s clear that the Lower Courts did not rule on the merits of Berg’s case – they just said that “It’s none of your business to bring this up.” Is Justice David Souter, a noted liberal Justice, a member of the Black-Helicopter-Seeing, Tin Foil Hat Crowd becasue he has asked Obama and the DNC to file Answers by December 1, 2008, along with any documentation they have to prove their claim?
    Again, at best, this whole debacle is fun to watch!

  2341. @Robert: I doubt it was the same people since the DailyKosniks brought us the Palin story. Who is bringing the Obama stories, surely not the DKs?
    Not that I buy the Obama is really not a citizen narrative, but I don’t think it is the same crowd bringing the Obama lore as brought the Palin lore.

  2342. Robert…lot’s of people hold U.S. passports…doesn’t mean they are “natural” born citizens. You can use that line on the faithful “Obamabots”…they question nothing and know less.

  2343. Sorry, Warren: I should have been more clear. The Tin Foil Hat crowd SEES the Black Helicopters but is not actually IN them. How could they be? The helicopters don’t exist.
    The Tin Foil Hat crowd, on the other hand, most definitely DOES exist and spends time concocting wild conspiracy theories based on internet half truths.
    “Occam’s Razor” would be good thing to keep in mind when reading stories like this about Obama (or Bush, or Palin, etc., etc.). The same people who brought us “Palin’s special needs child really belongs to her oldest daughter” now bring us this about Obama.

  2344. Ignoring the tin foil hat crowd, there is no real question of Obama’s eligibility. He has a US Passport, valid to prove US citizenship to anyone who might care to ask.
    End of story. Except, of course, for the Black Helicopter Crowd.

  2345. THANKS for your comment, MrChamber.
    My sentiments exactly.. He wins (or not) on the FACTS. That is the way anyone should have to operate when elected into office..
    HE will be sworn to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION whiile president..
    WHY does he think he should be able to ingor what the Constitution plainly says BEFORE he is sworn into office?

  2346. Philip Berg has said “This is a very simple request! Every American kid who plays Little League Baseball has produced his birth certificate in order to play baseball! I have told the Obama Campaign and the DNC repeatedly to simply produce the requested documentation and this whole thing goes away. They have not produced the necessary documentation because the CANNOT produce the necessary documentation.”
    Article 2 of the US Constitution requires that the President must be
    1) at least 35 years of age, and
    2) have been a US resident at least 14 years, and
    3) be a Natural-born US Citizen.
    Article 2! That was only the SECOND thing the framers thought about when they put the Constitution together!
    When Obama asked the court to declare that Berg has no standing he is saying that this issue “Is none of yo Damn Business!” The merits of the case have never been addressed by the courts. Berg offers strong proofs – this is not a frivolous suit.
    SCOTUS MUST overturn the lower courts! THINK ABOUT IT – especially now that Obama has won the election! IF A U.S. CITIZEN (Berg) has no standing to ask that Article 2 be enforced, the NO ONE COULD HAVE STANDING to ask to have Article 2 be enforced, thus rendering Article2 unenforcable!!!
    And if Article 2 is unenforcable, well, then why would Article 4 ever be enforcable? or Article 3? or Article 7?
    The unraveling of the U.S. Constitution will be complete!
    Personally, I hope that Obama wins this thing on the Facts. But if he cannot, he cannot be seated as POTUS! The Constitution is at stake.

  2347. GeorgetownJD, You say it wouldn’t be McCain, why not? If O is disqualified, then technically McCain ran unopposed. This of course assumes this is settled before he is sworn in. After he is sworn in, then I would assume the same rules would apply as if he died in office. Correct?
    Mel

  2348. It seems that there is a considerable amount of political bias in your above statement. McCain DID supply all his information right away when asked. AND Obama’s “birth record” from Hawaii has been called a fraud by several sources. There is a list of things that are either missing or not a part of any birth record in Hawaii at the time of his birth.
    There other issues that make him a BAD choice for office of president..NO experience in ANY foreign affairs, NO business experience, NO governmental experience other then the Senate where he voted “present” over & over again..making NO decisions..well, he did vote to INCREASE taxes 94 times out of the 153 days he was even present.
    Still, he was voted into office..the LEAST HE CAN DO IF he can, is have an original document that stands up under scruteny.. He hasn’t. IF he had Mr. Berg, who knows the law would NOT be persuing this when it isn’t easy to fight the Liberal courts. Most judges are liberal. He also would NOT be spending his money to persue a cause he KNOWS does not have merit.

  2349. I have yet to see any legitimate proof that Obama was not born in Hawaii. The birth announcement seems fairly valid proof that he was, and the fact that his original birth certificate was confirmed just doubles that likelihood. The Indonesian argument is rather pathetic because according to the US Code, only someone 18 years of age can disavow their citizenship. Obama’s adoptive father could not disavow Obama’s citizenship by claiming him to be an Indonesian citizen. Apparently neither Berg, nor anyone in this comment board, has bothered to research the actual law themselves.
    It’s rather disappointing to see people still arguing about this when Obama has already gone to extraneous lengths to provide his birth certificate to the public and allowed Poltifact and Factcheck to review it. Nobody has argued against McCain’s citizenship this vehemently considering he was born in Panama, and 11 months before the initiation of the US Code which gave him his citizenship for being born on a US base. Technically that made him a “naturalized citizen” but the obvious political bias of the people who have pursued this argument has blinded them to that simple fact.

  2350. In regard to John’s note above..
    So you are saying that because it was filed in PA BY Mr. Philip Berg, instead of in DC it has NO importance & the Supreme Court has no reason to investigate??? I DON’T BELIEVE THAT!! He has FORCED THIS ISSUE TO EVEN BE DISCUSSED!!
    The President ABOVE ALL PEOPLE should HAVE TO follow the Constitution..& PROVE THAT HE IS REALLY a CITIZEN one way or another!! He HASN’T done that.!! WHY?? I’d guess, because he CAN’T PROVE IT..HE ISN’T A US CITIZEN & SO IS DISQUALIFIED to be president..
    NOW you think it should NOT BE CONTESTED IN COURT? He has to be MADE TO FOLLOW THE United States CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! He will be SWORN TO UPHOLD THE USA LAW WHEN SWORN INTO OFFICE!!! He should at least be qualified to BE IN OFFICE in the first place BY FOLLOWING THE LAW OF THE LAND!!

  2351. To Char Krust –
    Given that Barack Obama was born in Kenya here is the reason why he is disqualified.
    According to U.S. law, from “Dec. 24, 1952, to Nov. 13, 1986,” a U.S. natural-born citizen at the time of Obama’s birth must be:
    1.) A natural-born citizen; OR
    2.) Born to two U.S. citizen parents; OR
    3.) If only one parent was a U.S. citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.
    Since Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 at the time of his birth, she failed to meet the legal requirements of U.S. residency for at least five years after the age of 16.
    It’s the mom & dad who disqualifies Barack Obama.
    It really hangs on the birth certificate.
    We have a grandmother who says he was born in Kenya, a doctored birth certificate that was posted on Barack’s website, and a state (Hawaii) that won’t release the real birth certificate.
    I think we are going to see in front of our very eyes the unimaginable. This country is so screwed up.

  2352. Berg did not have standing to bring the suit. Only the Federal Election Commission has standing. Moreover, the court with original jurisdiction to hear such a suit from the Fedral Election Commission is the Federal Court for the DC circuit, not the Federal Court in Philadelphia. In short, the case is a no go from square one.
    The Supreme court will and should dismiss the Writ for Cert.
    All of you people worrying about “original” birth certificates are barking up the wrong tree. Obama’s legal birth certificate has been published on his web site.

  2353. Obama is not a citizen of natural birth. If he was, then it would be easy to provide the proof. Instead of responding to the law suit filed by Mr. Berg, Obama has repeatedly filed for dismissal (hoping to sweep it under the rug). Obama has already be put in default when the case was first issued. He had 30 days to respind already. When he failed to do so, he legally defaulted and in so doing admitted his guilt. Everyone needs to visit Philip Berg’s website Obamacrimes.com and use the information there to write the Supreme Court Justices and tell them what we the people want. We want our Constitution, our rights, our government, and our country protected against all enemies foreign and domestic.

  2354. Lets take a look at the whole picture
    1) A child was born in 1961 to Ann Dunham US citizen.
    2)This child named Barrack Huissein Obama Jr.
    3) Obama Sr., a Kenyan citizen reported as father
    4) Regardless of location of birth Jr’s parents can claim he is:
    a) US citizen by birth from a US citizen (mother)
    or
    b) Kenyan citizen ( right of citizenship belongs) to father)
    But not both as neither allows dual citizenship
    5) Birth on US soil (including embassies, military bases, commonwealth and protectorates at the time of birth) automatically qualifies for US citizenship regardless of nationality of parents and is considered ‘natural born’
    6) Jr’s mother divorced and married Lolo Soetoro Ng- Indonesian citizen who adopted Jr- making him an Indonesian citizen named Barry Soetoro
    7) Dual citizenship not allowed so US citizenship was given up
    8) Claiming to be US citizen prior to adoption would have made this easier as Indonesia would most likely deny the application for a Kenyan.
    9) Barry lives and is schooled in Indonesia
    10) Years later he is again on US soil- in Hawaii with the maternal grandparents. 11) Uses the BHO jr name, goes to school, college,pollotics, runs for senate, then presidency.
    12) Questions arise to his citizenship. Avoids clear response with documentation for the following:
    1) Actual location of Birth with legitimate documentation
    2) Proof that US citizenship was applied for and obtained when he returned to the US after being an Indonesian.
    Even if given the benefit of the doubt with concern to the burden of proof on the legitimacy of the Hawian live birth certificate:
    When and where did he apply for US citizenship on his return from Indonesia,
    What happened to Barry Soetoro or does this alias still exist as an Indonesian citizen.
    Where is the immigration stamps on his passport(s) showing his leaving and returning to US soil.
    The burden of proof rests on JR! You can flip flop parents, religion, race- but
    NOT US CITIZENSHIP. The law was intended to prevent those that have sworn allegiance to another country from holding the highest office in America.
    Dont you think the Republicans would have ran Gov Arnold?

  2355. The real puzzle here is why did Mr. Berg file this against Obama when he knew or should have known that he does not have standing to sue. Why are other legal entities that do have standing to sue staying out of this one?
    I do not see anything in Berg’s submissions that would require the Supreme Court to reverse the lower federal court on this issue.
    Who has the right to sue state agencies that apparently did not do their job?
    There was a sort of a similar situation during the last parliamentary elections in Croatia. Several members of the government from another state (Bosnia and Hercegovina) were running for Croatian parliament while still members of the government of Bosnia and Hercegovina. When I raised this issue with the DIP ( Electoral Commission in Croatia) they told me that I only had 48 hours after these individuals were officially nominated raised to this issue. Since this limitation already expired by the time I learned about this government officials from another country running for office in Croatia there was nothing I could do to disqualify them.
    Maybe these kinds of basic errors are not as rare as we think….
    Andjelko Galic
    http://www.blogihrvati.com

  2356. I would like to see where he was really born. Even if he was born in Hawaii, when he moved to Indonesia, he changed his citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, so he had to denounce his United States citizenship. He was also listed as being Islam on his school papers in Indonesia. Also, none of his college records have been produced. It would be very interesting on what nationality he put on those records. My guess is that it says the he in Indonesian and his religion is Islam.

  2357. November 14, 2008
    [recipient address was inserted here]
    [recipient name was inserted here],
    This is the response that I received from the Electoral College regarding
    Mr. Obama’s President-Elect Status and Dispute of Same: —–Original
    Message—– From: Electoral College To:
    —————————————- Sent: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:53 am
    Subject: Re: Validation of President – Elect Obama The Office of the
    Federal Register at the National Archives and Records Administration
    administers the Electoral College process, which takes place after the
    November general election. The Office of the Federal Register does not
    have the authority to handle issues related to the general election, such
    as candidate qualifications. People interested in this issue may wish to
    contact their state election officials or their Congressional
    Representatives. Because the process of qualifying for the election and
    having a candidate’s name put on the ballot varies from state to state,
    you should contact your state’s top election officer for more information.
    In most states, the Secretary of State is the official responsible for
    oversight of state elections, including the presidential election. Visit
    http://nass.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=89&Itemid=1 to
    locate contact information and web addresses for the Secretary of State
    from each state and the District of Columbia. Under federal law an
    objection to a state’s electoral votes may be made to the President of the
    Senate during Congress’s counting of electoral votes in January. The
    objection must be made in writing and signed by at least one Senator and
    one member of the House of Representatives. Both the Senate and the House
    of Representatives debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to
    two hours. After the debate, both the Senate and the House of
    Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the votes. Legal
    Affairs and Policy Staff Office of the Federal Register
    [End of Email from EC]
    I, as a legitimate voter and “natural born citizen of the United States”
    would like to request the signature of Representative —– and
    Senator——– or Senator ——— on a document that I
    will make in writing for an objection to any votes supporting an
    unverified “natural born” status of Mr. Obama and who even has issues
    supporting and abiding by the Logan Act. Without disclosure of the
    documentation to validate his “natural born status” and without deters
    along his life path, he should be able to legitimize his citizenship
    status. I would like one for each of the 50 states and District of
    Columbia. There is no stipulation on the amount of states that can be
    disputed nor does it specify that the Senator or Representative be from
    the same state but I was hoping my current home state would be receptive
    me. It also does not state the reasoning to address any objections, but I
    will list them on the objection. I am willing to send the objections out
    immediately upon contact by your offices. I see endless concurrent debates
    in Congress on this matter and will be giving adequate time to provide all
    necessary documentation for the debates from so many sources. Please
    contact me immediately via the email address provided off site, the U.S.
    Constitution is in peril. Please protect the U.S. Constitution, the United
    States, and all Americans. Thank-you.
    Sincerely,
    ————————————————— btw every American can do this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2358. If you don’t know who would be sworn in as President in the (unlikely) event that Obama were disqualified, then read the Twentieth and Twenty-Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Hint: It wouldn’t be McCain.

  2359. When a Senator travels out of country, it is my understanding that they travel under a different passport than other people (maybe a diplomatic passport). It is also my understanding that the proof of birth requirements are different as well for those passports.
    Now I see Rick Martin is going after P. Berg and claiming Berg is off his rocker. Since Martin is from Illinois I wouldn’t be surprised if he isn’t being paid or threatened into making these claims. Chicago politics doesn’t get much dirtier.

  2360. Why have Obama & the DNC been SO UNWILLING to get the information out to the public & the investigators so they can put a STOP TO THESE THINGS IF they are just rumors? IF he was born in the USA then he has NOTHING TO HIDE!
    IF not, The Constitution MUST BE OBEYED. Our presidents are SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION…HOW could HE start out in the office of PRESIDENT WHEN HE DID NOT OBEY THE CONSTITUTION HIMSELF FROM THE START??
    I am thankful that Mr. Philip Berg is continuing the fight to have the TRUTH KNOWN! Obama’s grandmother in Kenya, says he WAS BORN IN KENYA & that SHE WAS THERE WHEN HE WAS BORN. NOW it time to PROVE OTHERWISE.IF HE CAN prove he is a natural born United States citizen..

  2361. A great deal of “inaccurate” verbiage is being posted regarding this constitutional matter. I am certain the Supreme Court will grant Cert and due to (1) the scheduled vote of Presidential Electors and (2) the Presidential Inauguration the Supreme Court will keep this case for swift and final resolution. Unless, President-elect Obama can produce an original birth certificate showing birth in Hawaii verses the previous posting of the meaningless “Certificate of Live Birth” and can present credible oral argument before the full Supreme Court, President-elect Obama chances of being sworn in as our next President are about equal to the average person on the street being sworn in as our next President! Personally, I sincerely think the Obama/Biden ticket will be disqualified and the McCain/Palin ticket will be sworn in as our next President/Vice President. “The Rule of Law” and our United States Constitution will trump any election of an ineligible Presidential candidate. To be continued…

  2362. “The newspaper showed a birth announcement of him being born in Hawaii.”
    My mother published a birth announcement in my home town paper, 3500 miles away, when my child was born. Proud new grandparents are like that.

  2363. IF HE HAS NOTHING TO HIDE THEN WHY DIDN’T THE DNC or OBAMA supply the birth certificate. He would have to denounce citizenship in one of the countries. But he made trips to Kenya, Palestine, and Indonesia on taxpayer dollars while he was a senator, which means he would have had to have a passport. HAS HE EVER APPLIED FOR CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES since he moved back to Indonesia with his mom and attended school there. These records should be checked and could be checked easily. WHERE WAS HE REALLY born???? Mobaysia Indonesia?????
    THE COURTS ARE SUPPOSE TO ALLOW THESE THINGS TO BE QUESTIONED and PROVEN. With all terrorism going on what a way to DESTROY OUR COUNTRY.

  2364. Since the election is not official until the electoral college votes, couldn’t the electors simply vote McCain in at that time?

  2365. If it is true that Obama is not a qualified person to be president , he either knows it or truly believes it from what his mother told him. It was a common practice back in the early 60’s that if a woman showed up with a newborn baby in Hawaii that a birth certifcate was issued. The newspaper showed a birth announcement of him being born in Hawaii. However , the mom could have placed that ad only to make it appear that he was born there so that Obama wouldn’t have any more racial problems than other blacks. The early 60’s had very bad racial problems.
    So if it is true that there are real problems with proving his birth and they know it then they have a “Game Plan.” The “Game Plan” right now might be to get America so used to having a first black president-elect that the very thought of denying him of that would create so much fear that the people in charge of looking at the evidence may not be able to look at it objectively. Whoever would deny Obama would be labeled many bad things and be automatic targets. Fear is powerful.

  2366. If, for whatever reason, Obama does not present a hospital issued birth certificate from Hawaii complete with both parents signatures, the doctors signature and the little Obama foot prints in ink (common at that time), he should be denied office and arrested for fraud against the U.S. and the citizens that elected him. The Constitution is clear and the Supreme Court must order Obama to clarify his actual place of birth.

  2367. I don’t know if there is a provision for a president-elect being disqualified before he takes office. This might be new ground for the US. Also, the electoral college hasn’t officially voted yet, they will do that on Dec. 15th.
    I can’t imagine what sort of rioting that would take place if there was even a hint that Obama would be denied the presidency.
    This whole thing might be nothing but then again it could really get out of hand.

  2368. So what happens? Obviously no one ever thought to question the Senators eligibility. Suppose it turns out that the President-elect can’t provide a birth certificate — Or let’s give him the beneifit of the doubt. He does and the alligations that he was adopted and later traveled (age 20?) on and Indonisian passport turn out to be are true. What happens? Does he reamin the President of the United States? Is he removed from the Prsidency ? Do we have another election and if so who’s president in the interum – -who’s president period. If it turns out that the President-elect isn’t even a citizen, I can not see Joe Biden stepping in since the “non-citizen was the person that choose him to step in — the American people didn’t elect him — he couldn’t even get through the primary. Does Nancy Palosis step in? This could be a real mess — one that should have been cleared up PRIOR to the election! Never-the-less, it should be cleared up and the President elect could do it quite easily provided he is a natural born citizen and retained his citizenship.

  2369. Regarding Karen’s question of who should enforce the eligibility requirements: current precedent is the secretaries of state of each of the states for which the candidate is on the ballot. In past elections candidates have had their eligibility challenged and their names removed from the ballot by various secretaries of state. I would expect Mr. Berg to know that.

  2370. Prof. Throckmorton — Sounds right. If the Court were to grant certiorari (based on the “Rule of Nine” which refers to the rule that four of the nine Justices votes in conference to grant certiorari), the case would be set for briefing and, if the Court deems it useful, for oral argument. The Justices meet in a weekly conference (on Fridays) to review petitions for writs, and they are armed with a “cert memo” that has been prepared by one of the law clerks which distills the issues and makes a recommendation. Announcment whether certiorari is granted or denied is published on the following Monday. If cert is granted, the parties are notified of a briefing and argument schedule.
    Supposing the Court were to grant cert and were to agree that the Third Circuit erred, and hence, the District Court erred in concluding that Mr. Berg does not having standing to seek relief, the case would be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. The trial court is where evidence and rebuttal evidence are heard and where either (1) a jury finds the facts, or (2) in a bench trial the judge makes written findings of fact. The usual burdens of proof and the rules governing the admissibility of evidence would apply. If one of the parties does not care for the result, the appeal process would begin anew, with the aggrieved party contending that the trial court committed some error in its findings, its rulings on admission or exclusion of evidence, improper jury instructions, etc.

  2371. If what you are saying is true, then just who defends the constitution? If for some reason this escaped the DNC and they put up an illegitimate candidate and citizen recognizes it — who enforces the constitution? Seems to me someone should be able to get to the bottom of this. IN fact if there’s nothing to hide — why doesn’t the President-elect just provide the required documentation instead of hiding behind motions and and let us all move on from here.

  2372. GeorgetownJD – Thanks for the information. From your description, it sounds like the most the Supreme Court would do (other than to concur with the Third Circuit in which case, the case fails) is to refer the case back to the District Court. As I understand you, the SCOTUS might refer back to the DC if the Supremes believed the District Court was wrong to dismiss the case based on Berg not having standing ot bring suit.
    Sound right?

  2373. You are correct that the December 1 deadline is for filing a brief setting forth the legal reationale why certiorari should not be granted, but the date was not imposed by Justice Souter. The date is set automatically by Supreme Court Rule 15.3, which provides that “any brief in opposition [to a petition for a writ of certiorari] shall be filed within 30 days after the case is placed on the docket … .” (Rules 10 through 16 relate to petitions for writ of certiorari.) The brief is not mandatory, except in a capital case, which Berg v. Obama clearly is not. See Rule 15.1. Whether Obama and the DNC choose to file an opposition brief remains to be seen — most likely they will. The entry of an appearance by the Solicitor General is a pretty clear indication that the FEC will oppose certiorari.
    The Supreme Court does not decide factual disputes. It limits its decisions to legal issues, in this case, whether the District Court erred in denying standing to sue and whether the Third Circuit erred in affirming the District Court’s decision.

Comments are closed.