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…”